Former Obama campaign advisor arrested for soliciting sex from minor

reply to post by airspoon


The point is "No one can know everything about everyone". That's the reason they're called "Secret Fetishes".
What people need to stop doing is basing their views and opinions on the company and colleagues of people, instead of the people themselves.
I mean if we're basing our views on the company that people keep then Bush should be put to death for treason because the Bush family is friends with the Bin Laden Family, and since their son is a famed terrorist and murderer then everyone associated with him is guilty by default.

Don't shop at Walmart, because I'm sure that at least one of the two million employees of Walmart has had sex with a minor. The logic is loopy.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Oh, and I forgot to add, occurred later....remember Chris Hansen, and "To Catch A Predator" sting shows??
Look at this guy, this twenty-something....and imagine you met him on the street (or he served you pizza, as BH suggested)....could YOU tell that he was a horn-dog, willing to prey on underage girls?? Just by looking at him, and barely interacting with him?:

Looking at the example that You Posted, your character Is definitely questionable!
I also question what do you do with the weeds that you wack down? Get wacky with them????!!!!!!!!!!
Obama was around this guy for quite some time, and certainly had to get a feel for him.
As the old adage goes,"Birds of a feather, flock together."

reply to post by Mactire


Again, I'm not expecting Obama to know the little dirty secrets of all who works for him, though I do expect him to know if someon eis too stupid to avoid getting caught up in a predator sting.

It would be like me hiring some dim-wit for an important job with a deadline and when this dim-wit doesn't show up for work or quits on the job, then it is ultimately my responsibility. How was I to know that he was a slacker who couldn't hang? Well easy, as it is my job as a leader to correctly judge the charcter of those that I hire and if my judgement is off, then so is my leadership and my ability to affectively do my job.

There was a FED-EX commercial that I used to show my class, where a cave man fails to deliver his package on time (something to that affect). The premise was that excuses don't matter why something didn't get done, only that it didn't get done and when you are responsible for something (such as sending a package), then anything which prevents that job from getting done, is your fault. The cave-man should have been a better judge character, lest he fail at his responsibility.





--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Mactire

 

Again, I'm not expecting Obama to know the little dirty secrets of all who works for him, though I do expect him to know if someon eis too stupid to avoid getting caught up in a predator sting.

It would be like me hiring some dim-wit for an important job with a deadline and when this dim-wit doesn't show up for work or quits on the job, then it is ultimately my responsibility. How was I to know that he was a slacker who couldn't hang? Well easy, as it is my job as a leader to correctly judge the charcter of those that I hire and if my judgement is off, then so is my leadership and my ability to affectively do my job.

There was a FED-EX commercial that I used to show my class, where a cave man fails to deliver his package on time (something to that affect). The premise was that excuses don't matter why something didn't get done, only that it didn't get done and when you are responsible for something (such as sending a package), then anything which prevents that job from getting done, is your fault. The cave-man should have been a better judge character, lest he fail at his responsibility.

--airspoon

Airspoon, you hit the target dead center. And this commercial is soooooo funny
Obama knows who's in his posse, he just doesn't care, along as the job gets done.
Happy Thanks Giving.
Star

I revert back to my original statement on this thread in that there is no such thing as a morally incorrupt politician. Its in their personalities. Take a look back in history, they are all either sexual deviants or they're thieves, or both.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Mactire

 

Again, I'm not expecting Obama to know the little dirty secrets of all who works for him, though I do expect him to know if someon eis too stupid to avoid getting caught up in a predator sting.

It would be like me hiring some dim-wit for an important job with a deadline and when this dim-wit doesn't show up for work or quits on the job, then it is ultimately my responsibility. How was I to know that he was a slacker who couldn't hang? Well easy, as it is my job as a leader to correctly judge the charcter of those that I hire and if my judgement is off, then so is my leadership and my ability to affectively do my job.

There was a FED-EX commercial that I used to show my class, where a cave man fails to deliver his package on time (something to that affect). The premise was that excuses don't matter why something didn't get done, only that it didn't get done and when you are responsible for something (such as sending a package), then anything which prevents that job from getting done, is your fault. The cave-man should have been a better judge character, lest he fail at his responsibility.--airspoon

I would agree with you if this man was on a registry for sex offenders, or had some sort of crime attached to him that illustrated he lusted after little girls, but this is the first time he's been arrested on something like this.

How would Obama have known something like that, Air Spoon? The ONLY WAY he could have known was to read his mind, or if the man told Obama.

You can't hold Obama for it because the man, AFTERWORDS, tries to meet a minor for sex.

This thread is flimsy, and I expected that because of the Obama hate right now, you thought that you were going to get flags and stars everywhere, yet ATS runs by one motto:

DENY IGNORANCE!

You blame Obama, yet you don't tell how Obama could've known, just that he SHOULD'VE KNOWN how evil this man was, despite there was no evidence.

Originally posted by airspoon
If you can't even judge character in a way to purge yourself or your campaign with creeps who solicit children for sex, then how could you possibly imagine to judge the character of those you appoint to various public offices?

Being able to judge character is an extremely important part of being a leader. If you lack that ability, then you lack the ability of being a good leader.

AGREED ( I love any excuse to dust this puppy off)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08c5fbe431ce.jpg[/atsimg]

Hypocrite much?

reply to post by Violater1


Weak "argument", there sorry.

I jsut searched YouTube for clips from that show (they ran MANY hour-long episodes, several years' worth too).

I found one with an innocent-looking (if a bit dumb) kid, and it was fairly short to watch, too.

GO LOOK YOURSELF for other examples.

Like, the RABBI who got caught showing up for sex with a 15-year-old boy (he thought).

Or, the M.D.!!! Very respectable-looking guy, mid-fifites, respected surgeon or something.....(he's the one that spills his margarita, out by the pool....) JUST SEARCH!!

reply to post by Mak Manto


I think you are missing the point. Nobody is blaming Obama for having this happen, rather his ability to judge character is being called into question, thus his leadership skills. Nobody is saying that Obama should have known that this guy would solicit sex from minor, only that he apparently has a severe character flaw, whether it be that he solicited sex from a minor or was too dumb to avoid being caught in the stings that are so publicized.

Believe it or not, great leaders all have one thing in common, and that is that they have good judgments of character. Call it intuition or call it what you will but what separates good and effective leaders from ordinary men, is their ability to judge character, such as is this guy cut out for the job? Is this guy smart enough for the job at hand? Does this have any character flaws that may lead him to damage the mission or institution? Those are all things that great leaders can automatically sense in people they are sizing up for a particular delegation of duties or responsibilities. If you can not make those judgment calls or you are not capable of doing so, then a great leader you do not make, as that is the primary job of a great leader.

If I am a general for instance and I hire subordinate officers to qip my men in shape but they do not do their job accordingly, either by failing at their mission or losing respect of their soldiers, then I'm obviously not a good leader as their leadership reflects my own. I can't use the excuse that I didn't know they would slack on the job as their record doesn't show slacking. I can't use the excuse that I didn't know they wouldn't dedicate their full time or that they would harass their men. It doesn't matter the "why" or "how", only the "is". It is my responsibility to ensure that my delegates are up to par and not every man is going to have a "record".

Again, I'm not blaming Obama for this guy's actions, only that Obama apparently lacks the ability to judge character. One of the main responsibilities of a great leader, is that he appoints delegates of his responsibilities, delegates that reflect his own character or that have the ability and wherewithal to conduct the mission accordingly to the task. If you aren't capable of doing that, then you aren't a good leader. Now one slip up isn't that big of a deal, as we all make mistakes, though this seems to be a repeating pattern, as it was also with Bush, though Bush seemed to appoint cronies so they seemed to portray the mission and morals that he was going for, thus they were probably good choices or judgments of character to him or what he was trying to do.

It's also important to note that this is politics so character flaws such as sexual solicitation with minors or stupidity to stay out of embarrassing situations is one pertinent to the job, as it directly relates. Should Obama have known that this guy would solicit sex with a minor? No, that would require psychic abilities, one would think but is should have been apparent to any good leader that this guy had character flaws, such as stupidity or whatever would lead to sexual solicitation of a minor. Again, character judgment is just something that all good leaders possess, which ultimately makes them excel at whatever task they are doing. Washington had it, as did Andrew Jackson, because had they not had this excellent ability of judging character, they wouldn't have been able to delegate their responsibilities to men who would then accomplish their respective tasks.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


No. We believe it is you, who is missing the point.
The point is: unless a person is a mind reader, no one can judge the character of anyone else who carries a sexual secret. Especially if that person has never been caught before.
If the person is caught, say being a child molester, then if that person isn't fired then sure, raise hell, but if someone is busted in a first time offense, how in the hell does that reflect on the person who hired them.

I read an article once that showed around 70% of people carry an odd sexual fetish, everything from
-feet
-strangers
-urine
-feces
-abuse
-underaged
-homosexual
-animals
-rape
-etc

Most of these people will take these secrets to their graves. One guy gets caught and his employer is to be ostracized. How does that work exactly?

I really don't think this has anything to do with a person's ability to judge the character of others. That's exactly how these types of predators get away with their crimes, by being "the guy next door that no one suspects." The better they are at their crime, the better they are at concealing their identity and it's wrong to condemn someone for misjudging them.

Misjudgment of another's character is not a crime, it's just a mistake and we all make them. It's when you continue to associate with someone after becoming aware of their bad character that makes you no better than them.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Hypocrite much?

Well, considering that I neither claim to be a Republican, nor do I fall for the false left-right paradigm, no hypocracy here. Never once have I suggested that the Democrats are any less or more than the Republicans of anything.

I always find it funny that you can't mention a Democrat or Republican without someone yelping partisan jibber-jabber, as if the two are somehow different. Not everyone is fooled by the false left-right paradigm of American one-dimensional politics.

--airspoon




reply to post by Mactire

No. We believe it is you, who is missing the point.

Well I'm glad to see that you have been elected the representative here. However, how am I missing the point, if it is my point that is made? I made a point, an oppositional argument was made, though it is still my point to make. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something else.

The point is: unless a person is a mind reader, no one can judge the character of anyone else who carries a sexual secret.

It really has nothing to do with his sexual secret, so much as it does with character flaws. Not only does this guy presumably have a character flaw that has him soliciting sex with minors as a symptom, but he also has a character flaw that exposes his lack of intelligence for falling into the trap that got him arrested, such as falling for the highly publicized child-sex-solicitation stings. That is two quite obvious character flaws that any good leader should have been able to sense. Again, we aren't talking about foreknowledge of this apparent sexual crime, rather the character flaw that this crime is a symptom of.

Anyone who has gone through any type of leadership class/course 101 or has spent any amount of time in a leadership position (even parenthood), knows that being able to judge character is the single most imnportant aspect of that leadership. Again, we're not talking about foreknowledge of any acts or psychic abilities here, just pure and simple character judgement.

Could you imagine if a parent hires a babysitter, who turns around and drops the child in a blender? Well that babysitter doesn't have a history of grinding children, so I guess all is okay, no problems as it is no longer the parents fault. How was that parent supposed to know that the babysitter would be so irresponsible that he would accidently chop the child? Regardless, the child is still dead - or maimed - and the parent is still a bad a leader.

Furthermore, many people are able to adequately judge character and this is why we have great leaders such as Robert E. Lee, Alexander the Great, George Washington, William Clark & Meriwether Lewis, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, etc, etc, etc... These men had the ability of choosing men or subordinates that had the character or drive to achieve whatever task was set before them, without hendering the over-all goal. It just so happens that politics and sexual crimes aren't really conducive.

If you are a leader and you choose subordinates who apparently have severe character flaws, not only will it hamper your mission, but it will also define you as a leader (in a true definition). I know this may be a hard concept for some to understand, but for others who either know what it takes to be a great leader or those who are leaders, it is common sense.

Can you wind up in jail for soliciting sex with a child and not have a character flaw? Not really, I mean the chance is there but the odds would be very slim to none, even if you are innocent. Could you have a character flaw and not land in jail for soliciting sex with a child? Absolutely! Do you see how the two aren't synonymous? One is a symptom of the other, but the two aren't the same. Nobody is expecting the President to forsee the crimes of their political appointees or even the mistakes, though you should expect your President to be able to judge character in a manner that would advance him as a leader, as nobody elects a leader to fail or screw up. This idiot, just happens to be one of many Obama hires who seem to have serious character flaws for the President's stated goals, which just may explain why not a single promise made on the stump has come to fruition yet and instead we have the same old status quo that Bush left us with.

Any leader worth his weight in salt (and salt is pretty cheap these days), would be able to spot a character flaw in someone that would ultimately lead to a jail cell for being caught up in a highly publicized and apparent child-sex sting. Could these leaders forsee this apparent boondogle? Probably not, though the character flaw that would lead to such a boondogle should be obvious and this is just for this yahoo. What about Cass Sustein, which is basically the anti-thesis of Obama's "hope" or "change" or even the American way. Pretty much the same story for the SCOTUS appointee, Elena Kagan, as well as others who seem to be licking their chops at the scraps of meat taken out of the hands of the American people.

--airspoon



reply to post by Flatfish




If this guy got away with his endevours, then I could maybe see. However, he couldn't which shows character flaw number two, stupidity or lack of brains enough to stay out of obvious police stings. If he was so coy and smart as to pass his devience off as normality, then I could possibly see, however he wasn't even smart enough to stay out of a police sting or get his rocks off in a less risky manner. This guy apparently didn;t have the skills or ability to hide his devience, otherwise this thread wouldn;t exist in the first place.

--airspoon

The point is, the one that you are failing to see, the one that makes your entire argument fallible is that no one can gauge the characters of those they don't know intimately. I.E. Unless you only plan on hiring ONLY your family members (of which you'd have to be incestuous with to know their sexual desires, you cannot gauge anyone with 100% certainty. God himself, if you believe in such a thing, can not predict our outcomes, and I don't think he'd want to. That's the entire reason we have free will. No one knows anyone that well. Most people don't even know themselves that well.

reply to post by Mactire


Well see, there is where you are wrong. Have you ever heard your grandfather or father (depending on your age), say something to the affect of "Never trust a man that doesn't drink", "judge a man who treates his mother nice" or "behind every great man is a great woman"? These are subtle hints at character flaws and back before this generation and the one before it, our society was heavily dependent on character judgement, as we didn't have a government making our descisions and choices for us and we weren't so obsessed with political correctness. Over the years, some people found that men who don't drink or men who can't pick a good wife or men who treat their mothers bad, have some kind of character flaw that you shouldn't associate with. However and with that being said, character judgment isn't something that you can simply learn in a classroom. The skill may be obtainable through lots of experience, but generally it is either something that you have or something that you don't have. This is why not everyone is a great leader.

Moving along, the whole idea of an application and interview process, is to weed out these character flaws. Furthermore, the President and presidential candidates have the resources to do thorough vetting of those they bring on board. This vetting can presumably give you the details of even what toilet paper people use. If a great general or a great CEO can pick out character flaws of people they meet two or three times, then a Presidential candidate who has the resources to thoroughly vet someone should certainly be able to do the same.

I have found, that just by meeting and talking to certain people, I can pick out character flaws and I believe I'm pretty good at assessing character. It has at least gotten me this far and unlike the President or a Presidential candidate, I don't have the resources to define someone's life through vetting, such as tell-tale habits (not a record).


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


But none of these "Character Flaws" point to being into younger women. That's called being a male. The difference between that guy and every other guy is, he acted on his emotions/desires/lust. There are no hints to show whether or not someone will do that.
And the only thing I've learned in all of this circular debate is, your character flaw. You're shallow. The truth of the matter is, there is no one on this earth that is well rounded, flawless, and without his/her skeletons. No one.
You've beaten your "I right" drum to dust, fella. Unfortunately the rhythm doesn't match the tune.
So, I'll leave you with...... well I'll just leave, and concede that you believe what you believe.

reply to post by Mactire

But none of these "Character Flaws" point to being into younger women.

It's not about being into younger women, it's about doing something so stupid as to get arrested for a sex crime. The crime itself is only a symptom of the character flaw.

That's called being a male

No, I'm a male and I don't think about sex with children. I don't think I would ever take advantage of a child, someone's daughter.

The difference between that guy and every other guy is, he acted on his emotions/desires/lust.

Well, considering that this is a huge difference, that punctuates my point. Furthermore, that isn't the only difference, as this turkey not only acted on his uncontrolled emotions, but he also did it in a very stupid way, a way in which got him arrested.

There are no hints to show whether or not someone will do that.

Are you kidding me? Of course there are. For one, judging someone's common-sense is done all of the time. For two, if you can't keep your emotions in check for children, then you probably can't keep those emotions in check for other situations also, unless of course you are sociopathic and are doing this for reasons of retrobution, in which case there are signs of that too.

Regardless, doing something so stupid as to land yourself in a jail-cell for propositioning children is a character flaw not so easily hidden. One should be able to tell if another person is an idiot or sociopath, especially with the vetting process of a Presidential candidate or national office politician.

And the only thing I've learned in all of this circular debate is, your character flaw. You're shallow.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you apparently seem to be able to point out a character flaw of mine, with less contact than Obama had -or should have had- with this turkey. You prove my point.

The truth of the matter is, there is no one on this earth that is well rounded, flawless, and without his/her skeletons. No one.

Nobody is saying that such a person does exist. However, there are certain characters for certain jobs. Idiots seem to do well in politics for instance, so long as they retain common sense and know how to get away with whatever they do -legalwise. You wouldn't hire a pedophile to babysit your child, though you may not have a problem with a liberal or conservative. You wouldn't want a drunk to drive your child's school bus, but obese is okay. You don't want to hire an idiot who gets arrested for soliciting minors to advise your political campaign, but a cunning snake would probably be better. You get the idea, though I'm no longer holding my breath.

You've beaten your "I right" drum to dust, fella. Unfortunately the rhythm doesn't match the tune.

Actually, the rythm is common-sense, as I'm arguing with you about an apparent character flaw of someone sitting in a jail-cell for soliciting a child for sex, one who was stupid enough to get caught and how this charcter flaw should have been noticed by a great leader. This is probably why our country is in the shape that it is in, because people no longer have the common sense to even recognize the traits of a good leader, instead opting for political correctness.

It's really not that hard to grasp, that what makes a good leader is an ability to judge character and I wish I could say that it isn't my problem if you can't grasp that really simple and common-sensical notion, but sadly I think it's everyones' problem as you and others like you are tasked with voting and picking those leaders.

There is reality and their is utopia, unfortunately we live in reality.

--airspoon

That's because you announce your character flaws to the world with the ignorance and bias you spew. This guy made a hiccup and you want to crucify Obama for it, one mistake that could NOT have been foreseen, even by you and your self proclaimed deity-like ability to look into someones soul in a single interview.
Your entire argument is "redonkulous", and as so I'm going to step out of this debate. Its obvious you hold some sort of grudge towards Obama. Maybe its because he froze military wages (though the GOP wanted to cut their salaries, and Obama had to settle on a freeze), or maybe you just don't like him because of his race, or that he was born in Hawaii, or that he has been able to undo the cluster-@&% that Bush left us with in his 22 months in office, I don't know. The point is, as this argument is "arguably" a stalemate, we should just go our separate ways. You go back to your bunker, and I'll rejoin the age of reason and have me some turkey. Toodles.

I think you are missing the point. Nobody is blaming Obama for having this happen, rather his ability to judge character is being called into question, thus his leadership skills. Nobody is saying that Obama should have known that this guy would solicit sex from minor, only that he apparently has a severe character flaw, whether it be that he solicited sex from a minor or was too dumb to avoid being caught in the stings that are so publicized.

Yeah, you're going against him because he didn't know the character of this man, that he was a pedophile, that Obama should've been able to judge him...

Why? You just state a GOOD LEADER HAS TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE CHARACTER! Yet, you don't say how.

Believe it or not, great leaders all have one thing in common, and that is that they have good judgments of character. Call it intuition or call it what you will but what separates good and effective leaders from ordinary men, is their ability to judge character, such as is this guy cut out for the job? Is this guy smart enough for the job at hand? Does this have any character flaws that may lead him to damage the mission or institution? Those are all things that great leaders can automatically sense in people they are sizing up for a particular delegation of duties or responsibilities. If you can not make those judgment calls or you are not capable of doing so, then a great leader you do not make, as that is the primary job of a great leader.

Then why has every president of the United States been associated with dirty figures? EVERY PRESIDENT has been associated with someone who has broken the law, or has done something really bad.

That argument is lame, Air Spoon.

Again, I'm not blaming Obama for this guy's actions, only that Obama apparently lacks the ability to judge character. One of the main responsibilities of a great leader, is that he appoints delegates of his responsibilities, delegates that reflect his own character or that have the ability and wherewithal to conduct the mission accordingly to the task. If you aren't capable of doing that, then you aren't a good leader. Now one slip up isn't that big of a deal, as we all make mistakes, though this seems to be a repeating pattern, as it was also with Bush, though Bush seemed to appoint cronies so they seemed to portray the mission and morals that he was going for, thus they were probably good choices or judgments of character to him or what he was trying to do.

Then, once again, blame every president. Every president has a poor judge of character, because every president has associated with someone who broke the law.

Should Obama have known that this guy would solicit sex with a minor? No, that would require psychic abilities, one would think but is should have been apparent to any good leader that this guy had character flaws, such as stupidity or whatever would lead to sexual solicitation of a minor.

Air Spoon, that makes no sense...

"Well, we can't blame Obama for not knowing this guy was a pedophile, but he should've been able to judge the man's character flaws, DESPITE THE FACT this was the first time it's happened."

Do you understand why the majority of this thread is against you? YOU MAKE NO SENSE.

reply to post by Mak Manto

Yeah, you're going against him because he didn't know the character of this man, that he was a pedophile, that Obama should've been able to judge him...

Well sort of, I'm speaking against Obama because he apparently lacks the ability to judge character, both with this turkey and with others and not only because this guy happens to be an alleged an pedophile.

Obama hired this guy to advise his campaign. That is a big position, one where you don't just take the first application that comes along. Also, this guy wound up in a jail cell for doing something as stupid as soliciting children for sex online, a highly publicized method of busting pedophiles and sexual deviants. Not only is this stupid for that reason and wrong because it was a child, but also because he is a highly publicized figure. And this is only speaking of this guy, not the plethora of other people who have been appointed or hired by Obama and his team, a team that has the equivelant of limitless resources for vetting.

Why? You just state a GOOD LEADER HAS TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE CHARACTER! Yet, you don't say how.

As I said before, the ability to judge to character is something that you either have or you don't. It's a kind of intuition. Great leaders can tell just by shaking your hand and maybe talking to you for a minute, as is ecident by their ability to delegate properly without the modern technology to fully vet prospects. Obama on the other hand had the technology, time, resources and money for the full vetting process so even if he lacks the natural intution of on the spot character judgement, he should have been able to do so after reading the guy's full life story. There really is no excuse for it.

If I ran a non-profit to rescue kittens from abusive homes and I hire a lieutenant who turns out to be one of those abusers, then it is my fault and no matter how much I would try to fall back on the excuse that I didn't abuse those kittens, he did, it wouldn't matter as it would clearly show my lack of ability to judge to character.

If I was the commander of an army and I hired a lieutenant to make my men combat ready but this lieutenant failed to do so, it is just as much my fault, as it is his character and duty which not only reflects my own, but is my own, as my duty is through him.

Again, I'm amazed at just how foreign this concept seems to be for some, though again I'm not surprised because this disconnect is obviously the reason why we are where we are. People can't even recognize what makes a good leader and blame for failure can simply be localized and forgotten by those who fail, not those who are responsible.

Then why has every president of the United States been associated with dirty figures? EVERY PRESIDENT has been associated with someone who has broken the law, or has done something really bad.

First of all, it's not just about breaking the law or even being dirty, nor is it just about associating with these thugs. If someone is a smart criminal, then they obviously can get away with whatever they are doing, fooling most people of their apparent darker content. This turkey, the subject of the OP, not only committed a so-called heinous crime, but he managed to get himself caught in a trap that anyone with above-average IQ could have avoided. Then, Obama hired this guy to run part of his campaign, he wasn;t simply associated with the President.

Had this have happened to Bush, Reagan, Ford, Carter or anyone else, then I would obviously be saying the same thing. Had Obama just been simply associated with this guy, then I would reserve my judgement about this incident. Instead, Obama pretty much picked this guy to represent his values and his goals.

You could sort of say the same thing about Bush, with Cheney, though I think that was intentional. I don't think that Bush failed to accurately judge Cheney's character, so much as Bush tried to cover up that character for the rest of us (which worked by the way, at least enough).

That argument is lame, Air Spoon.

Actually, that argument is lame for a number of reasons. One being that you are trying to minimize this to a point where it is apples to oranges. First off, there is a difference between associating one's self and delegating responsibility or hiring someone to reflect you. Then, this isn't j ust about this guy being shady, as he is apparently stupid too, at least stupid enough to get caught up in a sweep for sexual deviance.

Then, once again, blame every president. Every president has a poor judge of character, because every president has associated with someone who broke the law.

Again, your flawed logic and partisan non-sense. I'm blaming Obama because he is the subject of the article, though I'm not blaming Obama for this guy's crimes or his stupidity, only Obamas failure to accurately judge his character. Furtermore, I don't buy into the whole false left-right paradigm of one-dimensional American political non-sense, thus I don't feel the need to "balance" my posts accordingly for those who are too ignorant to see past it.

With that being said, I have both blamed other presidents and politicians for their lack of leadership quality, some even for their lack of leadership skills, directly relating to their apparent inability to judge character. That has nothing to do with this incident reported here.

Air Spoon, that makes no sense...

Generally the response from people who lack comprehension. Maybe you should take your biased blinders off and weigh the subject objectively, based on sound logic, as it then might make a little more sense.

Do you understand why the majority of this thread is against you? YOU MAKE NO SENSE.

The majority of the members in this thread (all of 3?) are against me because they fail to look at this objectively and are probably Obama followers, not that htis should matter, though sadly it does.

Do you not understand what character is? Do you not understand the difference between someone's character and someone's actions? They are two different things, apples to oranges. Soliciting children for sex is only a symptom of your character. You may never have slept with or solicited sex from children in your life, though that doesn't mean that you don't have the character flaw that may lead to this action, a character flaw that you would want to avoid in someone you are hiring to represent your values. This is not even mentioning the fact that this is only a small part of this guy's apparent character flaw (as it pertains to national politics). Look, if Obama was hiring this guy to work the counter of a liquor store, then such a character flaw wouldn't matter, but he was selected to run part of a political campaign or to advise it.

All in all, you are blinding yourself with flawed logic based on subjective reasoning. The point is that Obama hired someone to represent his values, who has the severe character flaw of being stupid and deviant enough to get picked up in a highly publicized sweep for soliciting sex from children online. Had this same gaff happened (only relevant to that particular situation) to say Robert E. Lee during the "war between the states" (it technically wasn't a civil war), then well, we probably wouldn't know that war in the same way that we do today.

It is clear that you simply don't understand leadership or the qualities absolutely necessary for any successful leader, though even if did, your obvious biases would have you over-look it anyway. After all, Obama can do no wrong, right? The very simply point is that a leader is responsible for every thing that happens under him and his subordinates reflect his values (to include intelligence), thus a leader should be responsible for hiring good subordinates. If a leader doesn't hire good subordinates, then success will be ever fleeting and guess what, success is ever fleeting. Obama can't control the actions of people, though he can or should control who he hires to reflect his values. It really is that simple and excuses no longer matter.

Look at it this way, if Obama hires, say a national-security czar, who sits in his office all day playing solitaire, instead of doing what he is supposed to and keeping the country safe. We then couldn't really blame Obama for this guy playing solataire, though we could blame Obama for hiring this turkey, who obviously has the character flaw of a slacker. However, what would happen, is that people would start yelping about how it's not Obama's fault because how should he have known that this guy wouldn;t have done his done job, after all it's not Obama's fault that this guy played solitaire. Well, it is Obama's job to take full accountability over his swath of responsibility, to include the responsibilities that he delegates out, after all he is the leader and the buck stops with him.


--airspoon

Obama hired this guy to advise his campaign. That is a big position, one where you don't just take the first application that comes along. Also, this guy wound up in a jail cell for doing something as stupid as soliciting children for sex online, a highly publicized method of busting pedophiles and sexual deviants. Not only is this stupid for that reason and wrong because it was a child, but also because he is a highly publicized figure. And this is only speaking of this guy, not the plethora of other people who have been appointed or hired by Obama and his team, a team that has the equivelant of limitless resources for vetting.

AFTER OBAMA HIRED HIM. You keep thinking this was before. Now, be quiet on that aspect, because you can't claim Obama isn't able to judge character. NOBODY knew that guy was going to become a pedophile.

As I said before, the ability to judge to character is something that you either have or you don't. It's a kind of intuition. Great leaders can tell just by shaking your hand and maybe talking to you for a minute, as is ecident by their ability to delegate properly without the modern technology to fully vet prospects. Obama on the other hand had the technology, time, resources and money for the full vetting process so even if he lacks the natural intution of on the spot character judgement, he should have been able to do so after reading the guy's full life story. There really is no excuse for it.

Nobody has that ability then, Air Spoon. Nobody has the ability to know this guy was a pedophile before he was arrested or he said or did anything. If that's a skill you're looking for, wait a long time, buddy...

First of all, it's not just about breaking the law or even being dirty, nor is it just about associating with these thugs. If someone is a smart criminal, then they obviously can get away with whatever they are doing, fooling most people of their apparent darker content. This turkey, the subject of the OP, not only committed a so-called heinous crime, but he managed to get himself caught in a trap that anyone with above-average IQ could have avoided. Then, Obama hired this guy to run part of his campaign, he wasn;t simply associated with the President.

Wait a minute...

You just stated he was caught by the police, THEN Obama hired him...

Are you on crack or what?! Obama DIDN'T HIRE THIS GUY AFTERWORDS. HE HIRED HIM BEFORE! Air Spoon, you're confused. Obama hired this guy before he committed the crime.

Had this have happened to Bush, Reagan, Ford, Carter or anyone else, then I would obviously be saying the same thing. Had Obama just been simply associated with this guy, then I would reserve my judgement about this incident. Instead, Obama pretty much picked this guy to represent his values and his goals.

It DID HAPPEN! Look at Scooter Libby, who was the Assistant to the President. He was indicted for charges in 2005.

Or how about Oliver North in Reagan's Administration, who was also indicted?

Again, your flawed logic and partisan non-sense. I'm blaming Obama because he is the subject of the article, though I'm not blaming Obama for this guy's crimes or his stupidity, only Obamas failure to accurately judge his character. Furthermore, I don't buy into the whole false left-right paradigm of one-dimensional American political non-sense, thus I don't feel the need to "balance" my posts accordingly for those who are too ignorant to see past it.

Believe me, I'm with you there. Everyone here, left, right, up, down, we're all thinking the same thing: you have this entirely wrong.

The majority of the members in this thread (all of 3?) are against me because they fail to look at this objectively and are probably Obama followers, not that this should matter, though sadly it does.

Of course, it's the Obama followers that are against you...

Do you not understand what character is? Do you not understand the difference between someone's character and someone's actions? They are two different things, apples to oranges. Soliciting children for sex is only a symptom of your character. You may never have slept with or solicited sex from children in your life, though that doesn't mean that you don't have the character flaw that may lead to this action, a character flaw that you would want to avoid in someone you are hiring to represent your values. This is not even mentioning the fact that this is only a small part of this guy's apparent character flaw (as it pertains to national politics). Look, if Obama was hiring this guy to work the counter of a liquor store, then such a character flaw wouldn't matter, but he was selected to run part of a political campaign or to advise it.

And like you keep saying, Obama SHOULD'VE JUST KNOWN the guy was a pedophile, despite the fact he had no criminal record. Why, any good leader, ATS, should be able to read a person's character and know what their darkest flaws are!

It is clear that you simply don't understand leadership or the qualities absolutely necessary for any successful leader, though even if did, your obvious biases would have you over-look it anyway. After all, Obama can do no wrong, right? The very simply point is that a leader is responsible for every thing that happens under him and his subordinates reflect his values (to include intelligence), thus a leader should be responsible for hiring good subordinates. If a leader doesn't hire good subordinates, then success will be ever fleeting and guess what, success is ever fleeting. Obama can't control the actions of people, though he can or should control who he hires to reflect his values. It really is that simple and excuses no longer matter.

Oh no, Obama can do wrong. I've been against Obama on several things. But nobody on here is going to side with you that this is somehow a flaw of Obama's, that he should've had known this guy would solicit sex from a minor.

Look at it this way, if Obama hires, say a national-security czar, who sits in his office all day playing solitaire, instead of doing what he is supposed to and keeping the country safe. We then couldn't really blame Obama for this guy playing solataire, though we could blame Obama for hiring this turkey, who obviously has the character flaw of a slacker. However, what would happen, is that people would start yelping about how it's not Obama's fault because how should he have known that this guy wouldn;t have done his done job, after all it's not Obama's fault that this guy played solitaire. Well, it is Obama's job to take full accountability over his swath of responsibility, to include the responsibilities that he delegates out, after all he is the leader and the buck stops with him.

And if Obama had known that this man was a pedophile and he still had hired him, then Obama would've been totally wrong on it, and everybody would agree with you.

Yet, nobody knew...