Thread: The 2010 Republicans

Obama's "field" experience is limited to very short stints in a few law firms. Most of his time has been spent working for nonprofit groups, funded by tax dollars. I dont consider college professors as being in the field. Just more time in "education."

Just as I figured, you turn to personal attacks. Unsuccessful education, or just incomplete? I found other things more interesting. I'll get back to that when I feel its time, wasn't what I wanted to do with my life. Me work for the govt? Nope, volunteer my time yes. You think formal education makes a person higher and more qualified, That is the ignorance. Americans have been achieving great things without formal education since the beginning of the country. I've met people at both ends of the spectrum and to blindly believe that a certificate qualifies a person to do a job is foolish.

Avoiding the points, the suit thing was a joke, guess comedy is too much for such a smart educated person. Sadly you fail to see that a broader perspective makes things better. Why do you think so many professions have internships, maybe because they need to learn in the field what they couldnt learn from a text book. I cant make it any clearer, I use examples and you focus on little details trying to twist it. Sure lets give all the power to the lawyers.

We have billions of dollars being poured into industries that many of the senators have no understanding of. They vote into law so many things that they cant possibly know the implications of. Out of the 100 senators, how many of them know much about green building? Maybe enough to give it lip service, but the truth is they put 90 billion into investing in green technology. When in truth many of the green technologies out there are not green at all. Building a house out of styrofoam? Green? A green hvac system? How about technology that eliminates the need for an hvac and is cheaper than traditional.

THE POINT so you dont miss it, when you work on a project, say the United States, why should 100 lawyers be making the decisions. I would feel more comfortable, having business leaders from all sectors leading us. You need different perspectives, different experiences to get a full picture.

Oh and I liked Bush, when he said he was gonna do something he did it regardless of popularity, he made decisions based on the information in front of him and went for it. Got to admire the man for that. Did I agree with all his decisions, no. I liked the fact that his get away was working at the ranch, being from Texas and growing up in farming and ranching, I can identify with him. Perhaps I like people who get a little dirt on their hands.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

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.

I dont mean that we should gather random people, more we need a broader spectrum. The law needs to be for the people, not for the lawyers.

Most definitely if you put 100 people together in any form they will disagree. I just feel that the disagreements 100 representatives of the people, from the people would have a better negotiation and compromise than 100 lawyers.

People who like power will seek it out, and those are also the ones easily corrupted.

This is my problem, it shouldnt be a position of power, it is a position of service.

My references to business owners, they employ large groups and these large groups can be a representation of the community. If they are paying attention to their employees they understand the needs of the community thus can represent them IMO better.

From my perspective, you almost need a lawyer to go through daily life. I dont think that is the american dream, a life where govt is so over bearing that the common man cant understand govt operations and how to interact with it.

Originally Posted by flame

Obama's "field" experience is limited to very short stints in a few law firms. Most of his time has been spent working for nonprofit groups, funded by tax dollars. I dont consider college professors as being in the field. Just more time in "education."

Just as I figured, you turn to personal attacks. Unsuccessful education, or just incomplete? I found other things more interesting. I'll get back to that when I feel its time, wasn't what I wanted to do with my life. Me work for the govt? Nope, volunteer my time yes. You think formal education makes a person higher and more qualified, That is the ignorance. Americans have been achieving great things without formal education since the beginning of the country. I've met people at both ends of the spectrum and to blindly believe that a certificate qualifies a person to do a job is foolish.

Obama was a Professor for 12 years, that's not a government job, so no, you were wrong. And why doesn't working in education "count?" You call me an Elitist, and yet you're the one who apparently gets to decide which lifestyles and careers "count?"

How did I insult you? You didn't finish your education, thus, it was unsuccessful.You were trying to show how poorly equipped an architectural degree leaves you by pointing out that your partial education didn't give you the tools to properly design structures. You're the one pulling your own educational experience into the conversation, in an attempt to pull the expert card, don't get sensitive when I address your point.

My wife is a nurse. She's a very good nurse, and she's very smart. She's worked in hospitals for a few years, and has some "real life experience." That said, I would never let her perform open heart surgery on me, because she lacks the formal education to do it. It's a very technical skill, and she lacks it.

Avoiding the points, the suit thing was a joke, guess comedy is too much for such a smart educated person. Sadly you fail to see that a broader perspective makes things better. Why do you think so many professions have internships, maybe because they need to learn in the field what they couldnt learn from a text book. I cant make it any clearer, I use examples and you focus on little details trying to twist it. Sure lets give all the power to the lawyers.

If the suit thing was a joke, why are you getting so defensive about it? Who said that I was smart or educated? I just want my senators to be smart and educated. I've said again and again that work experience is an invaluable learning tool, why do you keep bringing up that point as if I had said the opposite? What it isn't is a replacement for a structured formal education.

And I don't want to give all jobs to lawyers. I don't think that lawyers would make very good doctors, for example. Didn't I already say this?

We have billions of dollars being poured into industries that many of the senators have no understanding of. They vote into law so many things that they cant possibly know the implications of. Out of the 100 senators, how many of them know much about green building? Maybe enough to give it lip service, but the truth is they put 90 billion into investing in green technology. When in truth many of the green technologies out there are not green at all. Building a house out of styrofoam? Green? A green hvac system? How about technology that eliminates the need for an hvac and is cheaper than traditional.

Do you understand every industry? Do you understand international finance? Do understand any of the myriad of topics that law might touch upon? I doubt it. Nobody is an expert on all topics. When a senator needs to consult an expert, he should do so. His job, though, is to write and vote on laws, and so he should be qualified to do so.

THE POINT so you dont miss it, when you work on a project, say the United States, why should 100 lawyers be making the decisions. I would feel more comfortable, having business leaders from all sectors leading us. You need different perspectives, different experiences to get a full picture.

So business leaders represent the total human experience, but lawyers don't? Yes, you're right, lawyers are so unrepeatable, but CEO's really understand me and my problems.

Oh and I liked Bush, when he said he was gonna do something he did it regardless of popularity, he made decisions based on the information in front of him and went for it. Got to admire the man for that. Did I agree with all his decisions, no. I liked the fact that his get away was working at the ranch, being from Texas and growing up in farming and ranching, I can identify with him. Perhaps I like people who get a little dirt on their hands.

I don't care why like Bush, I was mocking the right's tendency to cry "Elitist!" when they elected the definition of an elite legacy baby to office, twice. He was a super-wealthy elite mascaraing as a regular guy, and you bought it.

I consider a competitive market, a real job.

The problem is we need representatives taking care of the american people. I feel we have so many people seeking power that they become educated in the law so they can use it to gain power. The power should rest with the people, if a union boss(as much as I dislike unions) can represent the vast majority of the people effectively, and bears their interests, then elect him. My problem is career politicians. We need people that are out in the market places of the people they represent. How many of the people on the ballot for congress have experience in international law, tax law, the middle east? They are told by lobbyist what to think and how to vote. Many laws are written by lawyers of companies lobbying congress. It may be a round about way but thats what is running our country. I need representatives that represent the interests of Texas. Immigration, oil, ranching, and technology, are important economies in Texas. If my representative doesnt understand any of these, he's not beneficial.

International law, man that cracks me up, if we worried more about our own country we might have something.

I mean to take nothing away from lawyers, they have their place. I just want someone who better represents me and my state. I think we have made things so technical, that the average citizen has no idea whats going on and thats not right. It seems that some support making it more technical, I dont feel the federal govt needs to get as deep into issues as they do.