T1B

What do you look for? Of course, knowledge of the 'rules' are important. However, do you look for a leader who abides to each and every 'rule' to a T or one who is aware of them and understands WHY they are in place but is also aware that there are times (extenuating circumstances) when they need to be bent or broken? I err on the side of the latter, personally. Yes, there is a reason for rules. However, when the rules handcuff you as a leader and put your constituents in danger, their authority becomes somewhat moot, imnsho. Anybody else?

What are you talking about?

What 'rules' are you speaking of?

battery chucka' one wrote:However, when the rules handcuff you as a leader...

That's a good thing.

Something....absolute power...something, something...absolutely...something...

poptart wrote:What are you talking about?

Well he's not going to know that. It's fucking bco, for Christ' sake.

a big tache
medals (lots)
beret
baton (optional)

I think bco may be talking about Joy of Cooking, in which case this belongs in the cooking forum. The proportions for a proper roux are pretty much set in stone. Stray from the rules and you my completely fuck up the sauce.

I'm talking about utilizing common sense versus strict adherence to a set of rules/laws that might or might not allow for a positive outcome to a situation. Which style of leadership do you prefer?

Martyred wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:However, when the rules handcuff you as a leader...

That's a good thing.

Something....absolute power...something, something...absolutely...something...

I understand what you're saying. And it is true. I don't think rule breaking/bending is advantageous to the constituency if it's exercised selfishly. However, if it's done in a manner that allows for the B.S. to be cast aside, I think it's not just pragmatic, but admirable, as well.

battery chucka' one wrote:

Martyred wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:However, when the rules handcuff you as a leader...

That's a good thing.

Something....absolute power...something, something...absolutely...something...

I understand what you're saying. And it is true. I don't think rule breaking/bending is advantageous to the constituency if it's exercised selfishly. However, if it's done in a manner that allows for the B.S. to be cast aside, I think it's not just pragmatic, but admirable, as well.

Rack!!

- Ollie North

I also think of situations such as that of Charlie Wilson. Greater good required rule breaking/bending. It wasn't selfish. Or do I find disagreement with this?

So, dude says it's OK for leaders to "break rules" if they think it's appropriate...

After posting a thread in which he asks questions of "liberals"...


fucking CLASSIC.


If nothing else, you gotta admire BCO's commitment to beating himself about the head and anus. It's not too often you see this level of dedication.

poptart wrote:What are you talking about?

What 'rules' are you speaking of?

titty pics

Cuda wrote:

poptart wrote:What are you talking about?

What 'rules' are you speaking of?

titty pics

Well, bco is a complete boob. Will that work for you?

Dinsdale wrote:So, dude says it's OK for leaders to "break rules" if they think it's appropriate...

After posting a thread in which he asks questions of "liberals"...


fucking CLASSIC.


If nothing else, you gotta admire BCO's commitment to beating himself about the head and anus. It's not too often you see this level of dedication.

You really should learn how to read better.

battery chucka' one wrote:knowledge of the 'rules' are important. However, do you look for a leader who abides to each and every 'rule' to a T or one who is aware of them and understands WHY they are in place but is also aware that there are times (extenuating circumstances) when they need to be bent or broken?

It really depends on which rules you are referring to, and the context in which they're applied.

Are we talking about rules for safeguarding nuclear weapons, or are we talking about rules for deep frying the hash browns at McDonalds?

Both involve "leadership".

Be more specific instead of asking open ended questions...

In answer to your open ended question, I believe all rules are put in place to set boundaries, but they're no substitute for common sense. A "leader" must be able to determine when those boundaries don't make sense, as it applies to the current situation, and then make a decision he'll ultimately be responsible for.

Btw, a "leader" doesn't always know why those rules were put in place to begin with, but it's his job to find out why when the situation arises.

War Wagon, that's exactly what I'm talking about!!! That's what I look for in a leader. One who understands (or can find out) why the rules are in place yet doesn't demand that they are followed if doing so will handcuff his or her country. Charley Wilson was this way. A leader I desire in power should be as well.

Again, just my opinion.

If Obama were to "bend the rules" should he become president, you'd be okay with that?

Martyred wrote:If Obama were to "bend the rules" should he become president, you'd be okay with that?

That would be grounds for impeachment.

Martyred wrote:If Obama were to "bend the rules" should he become president, you'd be okay with that?

Depends if it's selfish or not. If he does it for his own gain, then no. If he does it because he's trying to prevent a terrorist attack, then yes. Motivation is important with this. Also, just because rules might be bent on Wednesday doesn't mean that they should be bent/broken every day of the week nor does it mean that the rules should either be changed or abolished. Does that make sense to you?

battery chucka' one wrote:Also, just because rules might be bent on Wednesday doesn't mean that they should be bent/broken every day of the week nor does it mean that the rules should either be changed or abolished.

Sounds like you're making "rules" right there.

battery chucka' one wrote: Does that make sense to you?

It doesn't make sense to anyone. Jibberish is funny like that.

Martyred wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Also, just because rules might be bent on Wednesday doesn't mean that they should be bent/broken every day of the week nor does it mean that the rules should either be changed or abolished.

Sounds like you're making "rules" right there.

It's quite obvious that we need to establish some rules pertaining to when rules can be broken.

Mikey wrote:

Martyred wrote:

battery chucka' one wrote:Also, just because rules might be bent on Wednesday doesn't mean that they should be bent/broken every day of the week nor does it mean that the rules should either be changed or abolished.

Sounds like you're making "rules" right there.

It's quite obvious that we need to establish some rules pertaining to when rules can be broken.

Let me spell it out for you.

Extenuating circumstances. If your child breaks their arm in the country and you need to get them to a hospital, you put them in your car to get them to the hospital. You go 80 MPH to get there even though the road is posted at 55. Yes, you've broken the law/rules. However, it was for the greater good. You know that it was breaking the law. You are aware of why the law is in place. However, for this one time, you break it because of the importance of what you're doing. Now, let's assume that their arm was chopped off at the wrist. The veins/arteries have atrophied and you have a limited amount of time until they return to original state and your child bleeds to death. Now life is on the line. You again break the laws for the greater good. It's the only logical alternative. However, if the child wasn't in distress, breaking the speed limit is not allowable and to do so (such as to save 10 minutes travel time) would be selfish.

I'd expect you to understand this but, ya' know.

battery chucka' one wrote:If your child breaks their arm in the country and you need to get them to a hospital, you put them in your car to get them to the hospital. You go 80 MPH to get there even though the road is posted at 55. Yes, you've broken the law/rules.

If you weren't such a low-IQ dumbass, I might be tempted to explain why you're such a monumental dumbass... this time.

But I really don't think you have the intelligence to understand your complete lack of intelligence, so I won't even bother, and let you get on with your badself's busy agenda of not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, as per usualm.

Mikey wrote:

Martyred wrote:If Obama were to "bend the rules" should he become president, you'd be okay with that?

That would be grounds for impeachment.

yeah, that'll go over real big with the jigaboos