A political moral question?
Person 1 messes up a painting really badly. I mean the painting was a near wreck. And you were paying the person 1 to work on the painting, so you're mad. So then person 2 comes along and says, "I'll fix this painting in 4 hours, I can guarantee it". So after some consideration, you decide to let them repair the painting. 4 hours later, the painting has not improved much. Person 2 made it a tiny bit better, yes. But the thing is, they swore to you to have it done by now. Then they say, "Give me 4 more hours to finish it up, please!"
So, do you give them 4 more hours to fix it up, or do you get somebody new?
More Questions From This User See All
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
the problem with these types of choices is time is a one time deal.
so lets look at the metaphor
i am going to change the painting to a fresco(they are larger more complex as is the affairs of our nation)
now person 1 i am assume in is bush and person 2 is obama
now when obama was bidding for the job we had just found out bush had messed things up(this is not a blaim bush stick around and see)
we chose person 2 over person 3 partly because person 3's assistant was incopmitant
it is intersting to note that person 3 could have chosen person 4, person 4 being the person in a bidding war over this fressco.
but lets get back to the fresco, person one messed it up, there were things he could have done differently, corners(taxes) were cut when they shuoldnt have been
this is clear but person 2 is suggesting several people before him made errors that only showed up when person one had started doing his part. person 2 is saying the masons who built the wall is partly at fault for shoddy workmanship, and it might even be shoddy work on the wall's foundation.
person 4 is responding it doesnt matter you quoted 4 hours. on top of this person 4 has said during person 2's 4 hours that that one section of the fresco that is leaning person 2 should let it fall over if it is oing to fall over rather than brace it up to protect it.
so when you boil it down,
do we buy person 2 excuse for not having it done and give him more time or do we want to hire the guy that said several time to let sections of the wall fall in and posibly damage otherwise good parts?
Interesting analogy, but it does not fit the reality of our political system. It would be a fair comparison only if we had an all powerful dictator. The same day President Obama was sworn in, Republican leaders met and planned how to stop the president from succeeding. They decided to block everything he tried to do, in every way possible. For the most part, they succeeded. Republicans have used the filibuster to block votes in the Senate far more than any time in history. The Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 72 days of the past 4 years. You can't blame the president for not accomplishing things the Republicans blocked him from accomplishing.
Depends? Is there 100s of other persons who you can choose from or only a single person B? Can person B do a better job? Since person B promises to undo all the small corrections, and that by bringing back the methods that destroyed the painting he can magically fix it, then I'd say stick with Person A.
The other part of the story is that the second man promised to clean your floors,polish your silver and repair your roof he then had the gall to charge you more than you ever paid any one worker and lowered your credit rating because of borrowing so much to pay him and yet he thinks he will do more for you in 4 more hours and also just give him a blank check or two.Oh and your roof is still leaking your floors are filthy and someone stole your silver.
Well, if the only choice is to let the one who messed it up in the first place back at it, I definitely give him 4 more hours rather than let the original mess happen over again because it could not help but be worse.
While President Obama was running in 2008, I don't think anyone knew the economy was going to be completely tanked by the time he took office. In the month that Obama was sworn in, 800,000 people lost their jobs. In the quarter before Obama was sworn in, the economy shrunk more than it ever has during the last 50 years. It turned out to be a much bigger mess than anyone expected it to, and I think Obama did the best he could under the circumstances. I'm voting for him again. (I don't think Romney should be trusted, he lies too much.)
interesting analogy . .but we are talking about the future of America and the strong possibility that
if obama gets in again America is D.O.A. You don't lose jobs, your life-savings or jeopardize your
child's future with a painting . .you do if you make the same mistake as in'08. Dump obama!
Well, I'm going to have to have someone finish the painting anyways, and they are fixing it. May as well let them instead of searching for someone else to do it.
ALL FACTS
OBAMA ELECTED TO SENATE 2006
DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER SENATE 2006
DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2006
DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA IN CHARGE IN 2008 WHEN CRASH OCCURRED
DEMOCRATS HELD THE SENATE AND HOUSE AND PRESIDENT UNTIL 2011
SLOWEST RECOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA
YEAH BLAME BUSH WHO TRIED TO GET HOUSE AND SENATE TO REIGN IN FRDDIE AND FANNIE
HOUSE AND SENATE REFUSED
BARNEY FRANK SAID FREDDIE AND FANNIE "SAFE'
One of the consequences of such notions as entitlements is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something.
I have never understood why it is GREED to want to keep the money you've earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money
blame bush get some balls and accept responsibility