bmags

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 03:36 PM) So Romney and Bloomberg were the two most noteably to win it. Romney is probably the best and he was pretty good in his state. Never won as president but did a good job in his state. I never said CEO's would win the presidency easily, I just said, I think a middle of the road CEO is by and large smarter and more successful then a president. Oh, I understand. I read your statement as "as a president". I think it is incredible that people can run a business or huge organization very well, but I think it's a different kind of skill to run a nation too. The energy and emotional discipline required is incredible. I applaud both.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 03:32 PM) There's a lot more similarities between running a campaign (top-down control over everything, fighting for "market share" against competitors, advertising) and being a CEO than running the executive branch. The President isn't a CEO; they have to work with Congress, they cannot hire and fire at will, they have to work with other global leaders, they're not fighting for quarterly profits etc., they have control of the largest army in the history of the world. Right, but it's something they should be good at in that they can run it top down. If they can't run the disciplined communications and messaging in a campaign, that is the one thing that should translate well in the government.

You had Whitman and Fiorina run crap campaigns in California, Oberweis and his perpetual nonsense in Illinois, who can forget Linda McMahon. Rick Snyder in Michigan. Corzine. Then you have Romney and GW Bush, who came from political families. And Bloomberg, who was very successful and ran good campaigns. I would say the Romneys probably the best.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 03:10 PM) She will never win the presidency (and not, not because she was a women, but because of all the layoffs she had, etc...they will hammer her like the democrats hammered her in California). I also would point out I think in many cases a mediocre CEO is probably far better prepared to be a president and far smarter then most of our presidents. But I digress cause most normal CEO's would never want to be president. Possibly, there is a lot of talent in this country and I'm sure many would-be great politicians do not want to risk their families. However, we have seen mediocre CEOs become politicians. It's a much different operation, and they haven't been that impressive. Remarkable to me is how many of them have run terribly run campaign organizations. I think that's the first sign to me if they can be good. If you can run a disciplined campaign, then I think you'll be okay in gov't.

I'm sympathetic to NS's claim on this for punishing shareholders who in many ways were defrauded too. They were not provided with information that the company was going to conduct risky behavior which could come at this cost. But I'm not sure I see a great way out of it. While criminal cases should happen for those directly responsible, those cases are difficult to prosecute. At some level, the shareholders profited from fraudulent activity, even unknowningly. Should that profit be protected for them? I think part of this is just the risk of investing in individual companies. I do think there should be recourse for shareholders to claim penalties, in much the same way they can if a company misleads on their ipo filings or reports.

I disagree that it was unwinnable. She had a firm full of smart people and engineers. It was likely unwinnable to force the PC market to continue to thrive, but finding hardware products to survive? Again, ss, if your complaint is that she's not the worst ceo ever. I totally agree. In much the same way a president lucky enough to be around during an economic boom should not be considered a genius, a ceo taking over a company in a industry in freefall and not thriving is not an example of an idiot. But I also don't think people are being revisionist here. Her tenure being controversial is not new. Compaq being seen as a poor purchase is not new. She was trying to hide poor performance by boosting revenue through a crappy merger...that's a very obvious move to make. ANd it failed...kind of predictably.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) True but it also doesn't make sense to read for one. If a stud LT or defensive player that's on the board is way better than the QB that might be, I'd want the sure thing. You have to get studs in the top 10. For example, at this point I'd take Bosa, Jaylen Smith, the DT at Ole Miss, or either of the LT's before any of the QBs. Cook, Goff, Jones, etc could be the right picks at the time but not at this point looking ahead. They could always trade back into round 1 to take a 1st round QB. I don't really care much for hypothetical positions being safer bets. LT has been no sure thing recently.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 01:51 PM) Where do the Bears have solid, young talent right now? The only name that comes to mind is Kyle Long. Alshon Jeffery. Hopeful on sutton/ferguson/goldman.

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) I would have no problem with the Bears taking two Quarterbacks in next years draft. With their first pick and even within the next few rounds (pick a round). They have to get the QB issue right before anything else even matters and it doesnt involve Jay. yeah I agree. It's scary to think about selecting a bust QB again, but on the other hand, when people point to how you can build a great franchise around the true top players instead of QB...I look at the texans and the rams and the chiefs...no thanks. They aren't going to win the super bowl.

Post needs editing. Anyway. My firm stance is goal #1 is to add dynamic, star talent to the field. WHile we work to find goal #1, do not, do not sign average players to replace our below average players to contracts > 1 year. I do not want to have to think about "well how do we move melky?" anymore. Take flyers, take lots of flyers. OR Try to build the best damn defensive team in the league. I actually have more hope in option 1 than two. But I know at this point that replacing our below average players with average ones will not get us to the playoffs.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 12:22 PM) All of this talk on the Kane case has me thinking- Why have we not heard anything about the Rose accusation? I know it totally seems like a money-grab, but nobody has talked about it in a while. Well, it's being pursued as a civil case exclusively from what I remember, so there is no ongoing police investigation. There are probably settlement talks, which are unlikely to leak. This is one of those things where, with the time passed and lack of evidence, it's hard to think much of it. If multiple incidents come out after this? Different story. But, hard to make much of what we know, and I doubt we learn much more (I would imagine this gets settled to just go away).

There were plenty of tech companies trying to mask declines with mergers for revenue growth. I can't think of any working out. Notably, the CEO of Dell is not being hailed as a candidate for President. Some people just are there at the right place/right time, others wrong place/wrong time. But others do truly extraordinary things, like Nikon transitioning from cameras to bio medical technology. Everything she did just seemed like at best she'd be a competent manager of a company during stable times. But, I mean...I don't know how you could look at her time there as a positive.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 11:47 AM) BMW was also hit with this issue on their diesels. Wonder how many other car manufacturers are / were doing this? When did this happen? Thought I read today that the other german car manufacturers were not affected.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) Yes, once it all cane together......10 years ago. What's sad to me is Minnesota last made the playoffs in 2010, conpletely dismantled their team, and in five years now are in a position to be in the playoffs. We've been trying to compete about every season since 2009, and are no better for it. Yes. It's really depressing to look back at the "compete" years and realize how long it's been.

I would love to have a Lazarito jersey. Sign him. Anything it takes. Jersey sales.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) While this is all true, the decision to acquire Compaq probably wasn't the best idea ever. Also "being an average CEO in a declining market" isn't exactly the typical private resume we've seen touted for president of the united states. But her reputation as that CEO really wasn't good, it was a drag on her in the California gubernatorial race. When the only relevant portion of your resume is "I did okay in a bad situation", not sure the desire to try and go straight to the top of government. Try actually winning a state race first.

If this is a set-up, he should be hailed as a young, enterprising James O'Keefe.

Unfortunately, as bears fans, we continue to learn how crappy the return is when you are trading old veterans on market rate contracts.

Greg, I'm not ever opening up a newsmax article.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 23, 2015 -> 04:00 PM) Besides Jimmy Carter and maybe Gerald Ford, name just one from history without one of the biggest egos. Maybe Bush, Sr. (Note the fact that none of them are thought to be close to the top tier). Read 1776 by David McCullough. Think Washington was modest? Think again. Bill, Barack and George W.? Huge again. Trump? Out of the stratosphere. Someone will probably use Abraham Lincoln as an example, but he was a once in a lifetime leader that wouldn't see the light of day in today's media climate with the focus on looks and pithy sound bites. Also, Nixon/LBJ/TR, probably wilson too

Greg: familiar with history.

Wish I knew more about evidence bags.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 23, 2015 -> 02:50 PM) Call me crazy, but I would do Sale for Puig, Seager, and Barnes. Rodon looks like an ace, Q is a more than solid #2, the guys you're trading for are young enough to where Fulmer is gonna be around and should be a front of the rotation guy, and there are a plethora of guys who you can slot in to the 4/5 a year or 2 from now. I prefer trading Q, but if you can get 3 good young starters for one Chris Sale? I'm game. I would do this in a heartbeat. Frankly, nobody is going to give up this much talent for a single player, no matter how valuable. That's why the best value you are going to get for Chris Sale is by keeping him.

From the police dept: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=714079612025162 What a weird turn.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Sep 23, 2015 -> 02:20 PM) He was pretty inconsistent early but his past 7 starts have been damn impressive. 4-2, 6.88IP per start, 1.68 era, 45k/16bb Right, my point isn't that Rodon isn't terrible, it's that young pitchers have bad games, and they don't always mean anything.