Thread: The 2010 Republicans

Originally Posted by flame

In other words if their political beliefs are different from yours they must be crazy.

No, it's the reasoning behind certain beliefs that I think are crazy.

Originally Posted by flame

Ignorance? Sensitivity. His comments seem pretty straight forward, all he wants is a little sensitivity towards a difficult thought for many. Numerous examples of sensitive subjects come to mind. You wouldnt wear a black trench coat to columbine high school, it just touches the wrong nerves.

Oh, so that makes it ok for him to equate moderate American Muslims to extremists. That's ignorance. There is already a mosque close by and Muslims can pray in the Pentagon, so I fail to see the problem. Sensitivity? How about being sensitive to the rights of other Americans, regardless of religion, and not single out a group to attack and invent a wedge issue?

Originally Posted by flame

I think sarcasm comes to mind. But sometimes you need to leave things alone and see how they work before tweaking them. Working on a car comes to mind, you dont change transmission, the timing, the rear end gears and see what happens. You change one test it out and then when it works properly you change the next part.

I get that it was sarcasm, but the idea that the government can just sit by and do nothing? That's absurd. Even most conservatives don't feel that way. They want to cut taxes and other stuff, but they don't want to sit on their thumbs.

Originally Posted by flame

I think it is sick and crazy to kill a human fetus. Some of the proposed deterrents dont make much sense, but killing doesnt make sense either. Womans body, rights, and the works, it doesnt matter, some things in life are above what man can legislate. Research is important, and if done with good ethics, I see no problem with.

First off, abortion is legal right now, like it or not. It's one thing to be pro-life, it's another thing to force someone to do something they don't want to because you are morally opposed to it. Do you know why that woman chose to have an abortion? For all you know, that bill would have forced women to look at the result of their rape. That's why it's sick and violates a persons right to make their own choice.

Originally Posted by flame

Flipping, no, just walking the bs political tight rope of being "friends" with everyone.

So no convictions then?

Originally Posted by flame

Personally I dont like the guy. I watched an interview on nightline or something and he just smells like a politician. I dont think he is crazy, just the typical play the cards to get the votes politician. All his answers made me think he's not real, but then again I feel that way about a lot of politicians. I would like to see representatives that work real jobs, have worked their way up and know how to manage a company. Most politicians I see go to school and get this elite state of mind, go into local politics, then state and then federal. They see progression in life as a bigger and better office.

My boss is 75 years old and has learned everything the hard way. He has done a lot in his life and worked for everything he has and then some. He lives off the land and works to give back, his legacy in sustainable building will go on for generations. The work he does now is not for himself but for the future. That is the kind of person I want to vote for, one that is not in it for themselves, but in it for the greater good of the future, not just in the US but the world. We need representatives that are not looking for fame or fortune. We need more of the nameless ones that dont sell out to party politics or big corporations.

I can kind of agree with you on this. The problem with our system, I feel, is that it is individualistic. Meaning we vote for the individual, and that gives that individual a lot of power. People who like power will seek it out, and those are also the ones easily corrupted. The Senate, for example, is insanely overpowered. It puts a ton of power into the hands of 100 people. Do we really want 100 people making decisions for 310 million?

Originally Posted by Consultant

Well shoot, then Obama's crazy...because he's said things that I disagree with. You're crazy too, for the same reason.

http://global.nationalreview.com/vid..._081910_A.html

That crazy lunatic!

Wow, I love irrational nationalism and revisionist history.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Check out this racist anti-mosque bigot...She's right there with Marco Rubio.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080603006.html

Oh snap...

Her reasoning is different than Rubio's. She said, "That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero -- or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol -- troubles me." She gave a reason, and even though I disagree, I can respect that. Rubio said he didn't want it because they are Muslim and Muslims destroyed the WTC. I cannot respect that bigotry.

Originally Posted by flame

In firefighting I learned about different things that occur in the stages of fire development. You can see pictures and read pages about it, but until you see it and experience it, you dont fully grasp it. We have brilliant minds who need to go experience business before they try and regulate it.

We've tried that. How do you think we got here today?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm

Originally Posted by flame

I call bs, it wasnt complicated 200 years ago.

Yes it was.

I am not saying its not serious, but I am saying that the people writing the law have no idea whats really going on in the world.

How do blue collar workers have a greater understanding about the world than white collar workers?

Ask anyone in construction, the architects and engineers come up with things that sound great on paper but they just dont work in reality. What are politicians? They are the architects and engineers of govt. They are designing plans that sound great but just dont work.

IMO some of the best architects I have met, have a strong background in construction. They understand the equipment and resources that will be used to carry out their designs. They know the limitations and restrictions, and how to overcome difficulties. Architects with art backgrounds (politicians who have had their head in law books and reading court cases) come up with beautiful designs, but are disappointed when they are told its not possible, it doesnt work like that in the real world.

You might let a construction worker design your house, but not a skyscraper or a suspension bridge. To suggest that the engineering training that an architect or mechanical engineer undergoes is somehow a detriment is beyond silly.

Educated idiots, school is great and wonderful but you have to leave the ideaolcical world and go do it! In firefighting I learned about different things that occur in the stages of fire development. You can see pictures and read pages about it, but until you see it and experience it, you dont fully grasp it. We have brilliant minds who need to go experience business before they try and regulate it.

The real world is the best way to learn techniques and applications, but don't kid yourself that it's an equal to formal education when it comes to in-depth understanding of technical matters. I don't want a firefighter developing chemical fire suppressants, I want a chemist.

Originally Posted by Consultant

I know you do... FDR & The New Deal ended the Great Depression, right?

lol.

Yay for red herrings!

Originally Posted by flame

The mentality you are expressing is a typical elitist mentality.

Careful here, because you are the one exhibiting an elitist mentality now. "Oh, what do lawmakers know! Only people who are blue collar/own a business really know what's going on." Pot calling the kettle black. It's not elitist to say people who study for this should do it. Is it elitist to say people who practice medicine should have a M.D., D.O., or other medical degree? I'd hope not, because I don't want any old John Doe practicing.

Politics is about negotiation and compromise. Do you really think if you fill up the House and Senate with people off the street there will be no disagreement or arguments? Do you think they will understand the intricacies of our laws? It's far more complex than you think it is.

Originally Posted by flame

really? they debated and worked out what was best for the people. seems simple enough.

Who is they? The lawmakers 200 years ago? The writers of the constitution? Please be more specific. When were the laws simple?

I didnt say only blue collar workers. I did make a comment in regards to consultants post of people not wearing suits. People who have worked in the private sector and been successful. Working for govt is not real world. In the private sector you couldnt get away the same things you do in govt. Our president for example has been sucking the govt tit his entire life, I dont think thats the way our govt should be run. At one time congressmen held fulltime jobs and took leave to go serve.

Obama has always worked for the government? Do you just make shit up? Do you ever bother to check the validity of the shit that you put to print? Also, don't you work for the government? Anyway, back to the topic of whether it's better to have a qualified, trained individual writing laws or whether it's better to have someone who's never worn a suit.

I never said the education was a detriment, but the lack of education in other fields is. I have three years towards an architecture degree, I understand the education. I have seen some of the goofy shit people come up with. I can draw all kinds of things that look great and the math adds up, but trying to build it is impossible because of limitations in construction. Totally missing the example, and trying to put words in my mouth.

Ok, what was your point? What does your unsuccessful architecture training show about technical and professional education? You tell me.

Again missing the example. Since you want to make that comparison, many advances in fire safety have come from fire fighters.

My boss, a mere high school graduate had GM engineers coming to him for answers on vehicles. He fixed things the engineers fucked up and they copied his fix and took it back to detroit.

And yet they didn't hire him as an engineer. Your anectodal evidence aside, the vast majority of successful engineers have engineering degrees. The vast majority of successful doctors have medical degrees. Why would you expect it to be different with lawmakers?

You can read research and accept it, but doing it for yourself makes you fully understand. I can tell you a formal education goes a long way, but if your relying on that alone to get you somewhere your gonna fail. There is so much more to learn that you wont learn in a classroom. In my schooling, I learned more from professors that had their own firm and still did business. I learned even more getting out and building. The field I am in now, there are probably 1% of architects that have any knowledge at all. The mentality you are expressing is a typical elitist mentality. Only a doctor can make a medical breakthrough... no, you dont have to be an expert in a field to discover something better. And to my point you dont have to be a lawyer to know if a law sucks.

Hah, that's such a sad, tired old attack. Sure, I'm an elitist. I think that the best people should be running the government. I don't want a president who I could have a beer with, I want the absolute best guy for the job. Same goes for my senator and my doctor. A plumber isn't going to be the best senator, because he doesn't know about law. On the flip side, I wouldn't hire my senator to fix my wiring.

But no, you don't like Elites, you like regular, every day folks, like the Bush family.