It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jason79
originally posted by: putnam6
originally posted by: Jason79
Meh he was walking down the street and she shoved a camera his face asking questions.
He was a lot nicer than I would have been.
Perhaps that's why your Secretary of Transportation nomination fell through...
Respectfully, cause I'm one too, he isn't supposed to act like some schlub on ATS, OR be a total Karen and take a picture,
It was completely unnecessary and more than a little creepy.
I mean damn I think it's creepy when a Karen in the wild does it
Did she ask him for an interview? Or did she shove a camera in his face asking him unrelated things to what he was doing?
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: DBCowboy
Because I believe in leaving work at work. As a life long public figure Trump would tell the media off. More people should be like that.
originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: DBCowboy
Should I ask the question of which Public does he serve?
He doesn't seem to be serving the American public, so it must be the Elite public that he serves. That's just my opinion though, and even those this Ohio issue/s are proof of that, I don't have "feelings" to back up my claim.
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: DBCowboy
Because I believe in leaving work at work. As a life long public figure Trump would tell the media off. More people should be like that.
Respectfully again the craziest thing was taking a photo, WTF for?
originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: DBCowboy
It's like Spain in the 1490s. The aristocracy lived off the back of the common people, and unless it was tax season, ignored them and any issue they had.
Biden's Administration is no different than the Spanish aristocracy back then. They don't care where their pay comes from, that is unless it's tax season, then they care through laws.
originally posted by: Jason79
Respectfully again the craziest thing was taking a photo, WTF for?
Considering he doesn't like-like women, I'm gonna assume he expected her to say no.
originally posted by: putnam6
a reply to: incoserv
Respectfully you can look at it any way you want, it's still a free country
if you want to rant about sexual preferences go ahead, if you think who fellates who is gets the people of East Palestine some relief have at it
Ive just believe it's more effective to stay on point with the single point that the response to the East Palestine disaster is so egregious it needs no and "another thing"
Otherwise, those we are trying to convince get turned off the whole subject, there are Democrats who believe the response sucks too, do you believe your approach changes minds or turns up the heat where the EPA does something?
As for meritocracy, the only way to expose those faux appointees is when they fail, to call them out on their failures so those failures resonate with the most people.
Then perhaps the heat gets turned up where they are replaced and they pick more qualified candidates next time.
a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.
originally posted by: incoserv
originally posted by: putnam6
a reply to: incoserv
Respectfully you can look at it any way you want, it's still a free country
if you want to rant about sexual preferences go ahead, if you think who fellates who is gets the people of East Palestine some relief have at it
Ive just believe it's more effective to stay on point with the single point that the response to the East Palestine disaster is so egregious it needs no and "another thing"
Otherwise, those we are trying to convince get turned off the whole subject, there are Democrats who believe the response sucks too, do you believe your approach changes minds or turns up the heat where the EPA does something?
As for meritocracy, the only way to expose those faux appointees is when they fail, to call them out on their failures so those failures resonate with the most people.
Then perhaps the heat gets turned up where they are replaced and they pick more qualified candidates next time.
See, you still don't get it! I was not ranting about sexual preferences; I was addressing the current practice of hiring people based on their sexual orientation, race, or gender. There's a BIG difference.
I don't care what an individual's sexual orientation, race, or gender is, I want to see people hired and occupying positions because they can do the job! When these useless faces were hired, appointed or otherwise chosen, nobody talked about their qualifications, their cumulative experience, how they were uniquely suited for the job because of education, experience, effectiveness.
We heard palaver like, Oooo! This is the first woman/openly practicing homosexual/minority woman to serve in this position![/I]
That is the problem.
No, I do not care about sexual preferences; I care about QUALIFICATIONS! The fact that YOU can't see past "sexual preferences says so much more about YOU.
I repeat: MERITOCRACY. Look it up.
:
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: putnam6
Lashes Out ? Ah , that's a Bit Much don't you Think ? In Public too ? .............Oh My.....