theBlackman on 28/9/2008 at 03:25
Quote Posted by Turtle
It's amazing how you get harder and harder to take seriously with every single post.
:laff:
Gryzemuis on 28/9/2008 at 11:52
A sane person tries to walk away from risks. A sane person tries to minimize risks. A sane person thinks you can achieve something by hard work.
A gambler is looking for risks. He's gonna embrace risks. He thinks risks are good. A gambler thinks you can gain something by taking a larger risk.
Guess what kind of person I want to run my country ....
jay pettitt on 28/9/2008 at 12:27
I'd tweak that sentiment a little, I think gamblers are prone to overstate their ability to manage risk and understate their vulnerability to it - foolishly assigning too much weight to skill in playing the system if they find success. But broadly speaking I think you're right. And of course it's one thing to gamble with your own affairs - government is entwined into the affairs of millions of people; foolish isn't a desirable trait.
Starrfall on 28/9/2008 at 14:35
Quote Posted by theBlackman
:wot:
Of course, John F. Kennedy's bluff during the Cuban/Russia missle confrontations does not count as Gambling.
:tsktsk:
Dude most of the people on this board either weren't born yet or were about 8 years old when Kennedy was president and therefore had nothing at all to do with his presidency. I think you should reconsider the usefulness of this example.
But if you insist, Bay of Pigs was a gamble too and I hear that turned out great.
theBlackman on 28/9/2008 at 18:10
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Dude most of the people on this board either weren't born yet or were about 8 years old when Kennedy was president and therefore had nothing at all to do with his presidency. I think you should reconsider the usefulness of this example.
But if you insist, Bay of Pigs was a gamble too and I hear that turned out great.
It's not the age of the people on the forums. It's the historical "Risk" taken by politicians in governing a country, any country. In many cases international diplomacy is a calculated risk/gamble.
And your understanding of history is a little warped. The "Bay of Pigs" was a plot, not a gamble, and it definetely was not, I repeat not a success. If you think it turned out "Great", unless Sarcasm is your intent, you better check your comprehension of the data.
, .
theBlackman on 28/9/2008 at 18:26
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
A sane person tries to walk away from risks. A sane person tries to minimize risks. A sane person thinks you can achieve something by hard work.
A gambler is looking for risks. He's gonna embrace risks. He thinks risks are good. A gambler thinks you can gain something by taking a larger risk.
Guess what kind of person I want to run my country ....
You are describing a Addicted person. A gambler is not necessarily insane, addicted or maniacal. No more so than the boozed up people who post here are alcoholics.
A "Gambler", IE. one who makes his living at it, is sane, has good business sense, and extreme discipline. The losses are the cost of doing business. And is in it for the money.
I used to make a tidy living doing just that, with an average clear annual profit of about $60,000.00 after my expenses. With a time investment of about 2 months a year.
But I agree, a person who considers all the options and then picks what appears to be the best choice is also in my favor.
At the moment, it looks like it's two not-so-good choices for the position. But, Mac is depressing me more and more.
Fringe on 28/9/2008 at 18:59
Quote Posted by theBlackman
The "Bay of Pigs" was a plot, not a gamble, and it definetely was not, I repeat not a success. If you think it turned out "Great", unless Sarcasm is your intent, you better check your comprehension of the data.
Oh dear.
Starrfall on 28/9/2008 at 18:59
Quote Posted by theBlackman
And your understanding of history is a little warped. The "Bay of Pigs" was a plot, not a gamble, and it definetely was not, I repeat not a success. If you think it turned out "Great", unless Sarcasm is your intent, you better check your comprehension of the data.
Of course it was sarcasm you silly old thing.
Ghostly Apparition on 28/9/2008 at 21:37
Quote Posted by theBlackman
You are describing a Addicted person. A gambler is not necessarily insane, addicted or maniacal. No more so than the boozed up people who post here are alcoholics.
.
Actually, I think a good case could be made that the boozed up people who post here are alcoholics. If your argument is they aren't alcoholics because they won't admit to it, then your premise may be flawed. Just saying.
theBlackman on 28/9/2008 at 21:53
No arguement. Just the benefit of the doubt, and consideration for the penchant for youth to over-indulge. :D
