I am truly speechless

[Roark_John]

You are correct, sir...I do not know you.

But I promise you, your elected officials do not have the "appropriate" background in economics, law and public policy either. Very few were former lawyers (mostly prosecutors), fewer to none were working or educated economists (as can be realized by noting a budget deficit...even a freshman in college knows you can not spend money you do not have!)
and as far as I am aware of, there is NO public policy degree or field of education in ANY American university.

The simple fact of the matter is, like with anything, in order to gain experience, you must first have experience. No one is capable of doing anything until they at least make the attempt to learn it. Which is why politics is a game you must jump in with both feet. There is no slow, immersive educational course. There is a slow career course, wherein an individual goes to work in the offices of elected officials, until they choose to branch out on their own. That is a less-common approach than you might realize.

The crux of the situation is this...if the average citizen does not feel that he is capable of running for office, and completing the duties of that office...then that position is too complicated for the world in which we all live. Government should not be complex and unwieldy. It should be a manageable proposition, both for those elected and the constituents for which they speak. Laws should never be so complex that the common man cannot understand them, and need a professional to interpret them...how in the world would any of us be able to memorize verbatim all the laws that affect our lives? Oh wait...we can't. When the common man can't know the laws he is supposed to obey to be a "good" citizen, he becomes a slave living in a box...trapped by his desire to be "good", while the indiscriminate live as they please. Laws only repress those who obey them. That is why there is an ever expanding rise of criminal behavior. I don't need to be kept in line, the criminals do. Laws should be common sense, always.

What an interesting point of view...we should not question those elected officials when we feel they aren't doing a good job? We should just elect them to represent us, pay our taxes to pay their salaries, and live with the mess they make? Bizarre. The whole point of electing officials to represent us, is that they do just that. They should REPRESENT our voice...our concerns...our wishes. Nothing more, nothing less.

This wasn't about whether any of us agree specifically with President Obama's policies, but whether the award for the Nobel Prize for Peace was merited.

You are not me. You do not have the faintest notion of my education, my training, me life
experiences, nor where my expertise lies. I have the complete and utmost confidence in
those areas where I feel I am qualified. I am in no way qualified to be an elected politician
nor am I qualified in anyway to manage the budget decisions that must be made in this
economy. I do not posses the appropriate background in economics, law, and public policy.
Period.

Perhaps a huge problem in the US is all those armchair politicians that falsely believe they
can do a better job, manage to get themselves elected, and then fail miserably when they
get into office. Or, all those armchair politicians that feel they can do a better job and
debase those who are sure they cannot.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

You are correct, sir...I do not know you.

But I promise you, your elected officials do not have the "appropriate" background in economics, law and public policy either. Very few were former lawyers (mostly prosecutors), fewer to none were working or educated economists (as can be realized by noting a budget deficit...even a freshman in college knows you can not spend money you do not have!)
and as far as I am aware of, there is NO public policy degree or field of education in ANY American university.

Stanford, Georgetown, UC Berkeley, U of Michigan, U of Maryland ...

What an interesting point of view...we should not question those elected officials when we feel they aren't doing a good job? We should just elect them to represent us, pay our taxes to pay their salaries, and live with the mess they make? Bizarre. The whole point of electing officials to represent us, is that they do just that. They should REPRESENT our voice...our concerns...our wishes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry, did I say anything about questioning their policies? That's odd, I don't recall saying
that ...

This wasn't about whether any of us agree specifically with President Obama's policies, but whether the award for the Nobel Prize for Peace was merited.

I never said this thread was about anything other than Obama's nomination, awarding of,
and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. Grady brought in the tangent, which he explicitly
stated was such, and I responded. You injected yourself into that conversation.

Ian

 

[Roark_John]

How many of our fine elected officials have these public policy degrees, praytell? Or is this mere academic wanking, as so many degrees seem to actually be...

Or, all those armchair politicians that feel they can do a better job and debase those who are sure they cannot. Your words, not mine. Sure seems like you are siding for not questioning the gaffes of public officials.

I wasn't interjecting into YOUR conversation, I was adding to the forum.

Stanford, Georgetown, UC Berkeley, U of Michigan, U of Maryland ...

I'm sorry, did I say anything about questioning their policies? That's odd, I don't recall saying
that ...

I never said this thread was about anything other than Obama's nomination, awarding of,
and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. Grady brought in the tangent, which he explicitly
stated was such, and I responded. You injected yourself into that conversation.

Ian

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I'm running for president in 2012. I WILL NOT tax the rich more because they're successful. I WILL NOT put any sort of ban on weapons. I MAY put restrictions on certain types of ammunition though. Who HONESTLY needs armor piercing high explosive incendiary tracers anyway? Restrictions don't mean BANNS! Haven't quite figured out the restrictions yet though. LOL Since I would then be in charge of GM & Chrysler, there's going to be a little more research in alternative fuels and forced induction instead of displacement. Don't get me wrong, I love big engines, but these smaller commuter cars could benefit from a very small, very light, forced induction engine in order to power them around. They'd be very fuel efficient. Anyway, I'm running for President. You have to be 35 right? Lets see... I'll be 31 in November this year... Oh hell, I'll only be 34. Well, hopefully the country will still be salvageable when I'm able to be President. *sigh*

Laters,

Brian
Presidential Candidate 2012

 

[Roark_John]

I like the majority of your platform, I just may give you my vote.

Why restrict anything? No one may NEED armor piercing rounds, but they may WANT them. As long as they pay for them legally, I don't see a problem. It is not the governments job to give me permission to do anything. I don't need or want a nanny. The question could be raised...who NEEDS a replica or sports car? Would you have no problem with them being banned simply because someone else didn't see the point?

But then again, I have heavy Libertarian leanings. Live and let live. Don't mess with me, I won't mess with you. People need to start learning how to accept responsibility for their own lives, and start living them fully and correctly...not worrying about what their neighbor MIGHT do, given the day, humidity and windspeed. It is ridiculous. What next...thought crimes?

I'm running for president in 2012. I WILL NOT tax the rich more because they're successful. I WILL NOT put any sort of ban on weapons. I MAY put restrictions on certain types of ammunition though. Who HONESTLY needs armor piercing high explosive incendiary tracers anyway? Restrictions don't mean BANNS! Haven't quite figured out the restrictions yet though. LOL Since I would then be in charge of GM & Chrysler, there's going to be a little more research in alternative fuels and forced induction instead of displacement. Don't get me wrong, I love big engines, but these smaller commuter cars could benefit from a very small, very light, forced induction engine in order to power them around. They'd be very fuel efficient. Anyway, I'm running for President. You have to be 35 right? Lets see... I'll be 31 in November this year... Oh hell, I'll only be 34. Well, hopefully the country will still be salvageable when I'm able to be President. *sigh*

Laters,

Brian
Presidential Candidate 2012

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Barrack Hussein Obama first gained notoriety at the 2004 democratic convention. I personally had not heard of him prior to that. He served in the state senate and two months as a US senator before annoucing his intent to run for the presidency. He was noticed at the convention for his personallity and speaking ability. I've looked over his record as state senator and US senator, and nothing jumps out as being spectacular. He ran against ill chosen competition put forward by a republican party that was driven into the ground by a poor presidency. Bad policies (sub prime lending) by a prior administration and a no win war culminated during and at the end of Bush's presidency. This would have made it easy for anyone other than a republican to be voted in for president. When the Nobel Prize was conceived, it stood for above and beyond excellence in a given field. It was given as a Peace Prize to the likes of Mother Teresa for decades of sacrifice and work. Awards should stand for something, you shouldn't have to search for the reason the award is given. Having said this, I realize that a lot of people have much invested in the Obama presidency. In a prior post it was said that a possible reason for the prize was that Obama crossed racial boundaries to become president. It is just the opposite, he was elected for his ethnicity, people wanted to prove that they were not racist and gloried in the fact that they had helped elect the first almost black president. I find that people that voted for Obama will defend him, right or wrong, about anything. My sister voted for Obama and I am amazed at the nonsense she defends as truth. If we all were to be honest with ourselves, there is no plausible reason for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize at this time.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I see your point sir. I too have extremely Libertarian political views. I just figured that if I offered to put restrictions on ammo, I could always change my mind like everyone else who's in politics does. How about this for a new swing on the political race...

I will shoot you 100% straight. I'm not going to lie, I'm not going to change my views. BUT, I will listen to any argument with an open mind and will take all views into consideration.

That being said, here goes.

I am a strong gun supporter and think that honestly, every citizen 18 years and older should go through a firearms safety class. Not that I'm trying to train people to be killers, but EVERYONE needs to be familiar with weapon safety. It will not be a mandatory class, but it will be state sponsored and up to the individual states to administer. I think our US government has too much control and I would start delegating responsibilities back to the states as it should be.

Wait, maybe I shouldn't hijack this thread with my Presidential views...

OK, back to the thread at hand...

Obama and the Nobel Prize.

I like the majority of your platform, I just may give you my vote.

Why restrict anything? No one may NEED armor piercing rounds, but they may WANT them. As long as they pay for them legally, I don't see a problem. It is not the governments job to give me permission to do anything. I don't need or want a nanny. The question could be raised...who NEEDS a replica or sports car? Would you have no problem with them being banned simply because someone else didn't see the point?

But then again, I have heavy Libertarian leanings. Live and let live. Don't mess with me, I won't mess with you. People need to start learning how to accept responsibility for their own lives, and start living them fully and correctly...not worrying about what their neighbor MIGHT do, given the day, humidity and windspeed. It is ridiculous. What next...thought crimes?

 

[Nick]

"I find that people that voted for Obama will defend him, right or wrong, about anything."

That's interesting because it seems to me people who didn't vote for him will attack him right or wrong about anything.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

[Ian K]

How many of our fine elected officials have these public policy degrees, praytell? Or is this mere academic wanking, as so many degrees seem to actually be...

According to you, they are all crooks and idiots. So, perhaps I am correct, and that
they, like me, lack the proper background ...

Or, all those armchair politicians that feel they can do a better job and debase those who are sure they cannot. Your words, not mine. Sure seems like you are siding for not questioning the gaffes of public officials.

Again, stating that perhaps those who think they can do a better job, and insult others
who are sure they cannot do a better job, may be a huge part of the problem is not the
same as saying we should not question the policies put forth. Big difference between the
two.

I wasn't interjecting into YOUR conversation, I was adding to the forum.

Let's see, Grady specifically called me out and asked a question, to which I responded. Sure
seems like a conversation between us, no?

Ian

 

[Cliff Beer]

Let's get real. Doing a good job as a high ranking elected official such as a US Senator or House Representative calls for certain skills - the ability to speak well in large groups, build consensus, lead large numbers of people, organize, a certain amount of extrovertedness, and be able to consider and weigh competing priorities and proposed legislation, some quite complex in nature.

Frankly, this is not a skill set that most people walking down the street possess. The guy who rang up my oil and filter at NAPA the other day for example is like most people - probably incapable of running that elected office well. Most of these skills can be learned however given time and attention.

We like to think we have a government of the Common Man, but frankly, with the average American having about a 10th grade education and poor organizational skills, the demographic of those sitting in Congress is quite different. What's wrong with that? Most every job requires a certain skill set to do it well. The key thing is that most everyone, if they set their sights on it and work hard, can acquire the skills and abilities and do it. They don't have to work in some elected officials office, just go work in business for 10 or 20 years and do well and you're qualified, for example.

Frankly, I'm relieve that average joe isn't running Washington DC. I think we'd have a big mess on our hands. But I do agree that those in Washington need to keep squarely in mind the basic fact that they serve by the grace of the citizenry and must represent those of their district and in general, with some element of balance and absolutely the highest ethics.

Finally, to say that people other than Obama really deserve the credit for breaking down racial barriers is to strip away the one critical ingredient - the fortitude and courage of a person with the wrong color skin "to jump right in."

 

[Mark Worthington]

 

[Ian K]

If we all were to be honest with ourselves, there is no plausible reason for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize at this time.

Speak for yourself, Al.

Based upon the fact that he was unanimously chose by the prize committee (something
that does not always happen), that the vast majority of world leaders that seem to care
about world peace support the nomination and award, and that the general global
atmosphere for peace and negotiation has significantly improved as a result of Obama
and his cabinet and their policies - all of which was pointed out by the Nobel committee
spokesman, I think he does deserve it.

Ian

 

[Pete K.]

Mark, :laugh:

 

[Garry]

Ian.:laugh:
Garry

 

[Bill Hara]

We like to think we have a government of the Common Man, but frankly, with the average American having about a 10th grade education and poor organizational skills, the demographic of those sitting in Congress is quite different. What's wrong with that? Most every job requires a certain skill set to do it well. The key thing is that most everyone, if they set their sights on it and work hard, can acquire the skills and abilities and do it

Granted, but skill sets don't have anything to do with morals and moral responsibilities.
Common Man has morals, skillful Political Man seems to lose them on his/her way up the political tree....

 

[Roark_John]

So it is more of a warm-fuzzy feelgood award than anything? I have no qualms with that, so long as the award doesn't imbue the receiver with any real street cred.

And while we are at it, why does the winner HAVE to be awarded a cash prize since it has nothing to do with reality, and inasmuch as has been stated so far it is nothing more than a feelgood award?

Perhaps we should have more eccentric million/billionaires set up these types of endowments, so when nothing actually has to be accomplished, the power elites can still feel good about their lack of accomplishments during their tenure of office.

What is truly bizarre to me, is that many of the members of this forum come from a generation when people actually had to DO something to be recognized for it. Again, this seems like people editing history on the front end, rather than the time-honored tradition of using hindsight.

Wishful thinking does not lift a rocket, actual work does. But since we aren't talking about anything as useful as a rocket, I guess it is acceptable that all this feelgood twaddle passes as actual work. Depressing that intentions carry more weight than actual accomplishments. I guess we should all just hang up our projects and day-jobs, considering we all HAVE to accomplish something in order to drive our vehicles, or collect a paycheck. Wishful thinking as a revenue source. Who would have thought this day would come?

Speak for yourself, Al.

Based upon the fact that he was unanimously chose by the prize committee (something
that does not always happen), that the vast majority of world leaders that seem to care
about world peace support the nomination and award, and that the general global
atmosphere for peace and negotiation has significantly improved as a result of Obama
and his cabinet and their policies - all of which was pointed out by the Nobel committee
spokesman, I think he does deserve it.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

So it is more of a warm-fuzzy feelgood award than anything? I have no qualms with that, so long as the award doesn't imbue the receiver with any real street cred.

Well, for many in the world, the warm-fuzzy feelings are tightly coupled to the "street cred"
when talking with respect to the peace process. After all, don't significant strides towards
peace give many people warm-fuzzy feelings?

And while we are at it, why does the winner HAVE to be awarded a cash prize since it has nothing to do with reality, and inasmuch as has been stated so far it is nothing more than a feelgood award?

Because that is what Alfred Noble wanted. An award, which includes a cash prize, for
significant efforts to improve the peace process. Which, is exactly what it was awarded
for in this case.

Perhaps we should have more eccentric million/billionaires set up these types of endowments, so when nothing actually has to be accomplished, the power elites can still feel good about their lack of accomplishments during their tenure of office.

Again, in your opinion, nothing has been accomplished. According to the Nobel committee,
the Nobel Award advisors, a large number of world leaders, and many people in the US,
your opinion is not universal.

What is truly bizarre to me, is that many of the members of this forum come from a generation when people actually had to DO something to be recognized for it. Again, this seems like people editing history on the front end, rather than the time-honored tradition of using hindsight.

Again, this is your opinion, which is not shared universally.

Wishful thinking does not lift a rocket, actual work does. But since we aren't talking about anything as useful as a rocket, I guess it is acceptable that all this feelgood twaddle passes as actual work. Depressing that intentions carry more weight than actual accomplishments. I guess we should all just hang up our projects and day-jobs, considering we all HAVE to accomplish something in order to drive our vehicles, or collect a paycheck. Wishful thinking as a revenue source. Who would have thought this day would come?

As noted above ... you opinion is yours and you are welcome to it. It is not a sentiment
shared globally.

Ian

 

[Jack]

I am truly speechless, so I'll just shut-up!

 

[Mike Christian]

Wishful thinking as a revenue source. Who would have thought this day would come?

This is the day I have longed for...

 

[Roark_John]

The difference being that MY opinions are based on logical, rational thought processes using facts, not conjecture or emoting.

As a soldier, I would like to think that my life was worth more than some fleeting moment of "feeling" for one of the do-nothing "liberals" who expect my contribution and provide none of their own (other than their ever important self-promotion and emotive opinionating). But I guess not, since other peoples opinions count for more than reality does. This collectivist tripe has gotten out of hand. Like I said before in one of my posts, when madmen run the world, it is not fit for anyone but the insane to live. The majority may hold court together with their nonsensical opinions, but that does not make it right. If you cannot tell right from wrong, you should not be walking the streets as a free man.

As far as I am concerned, people with those kinds of opinions can drown in their own piss, instead of demanding that I let them drag me down into it.

Well, for many in the world, the warm-fuzzy feelings are tightly coupled to the "street cred"
when talking with respect to the peace process. After all, don't significant strides towards
peace give many people warm-fuzzy feelings?

Because that is what Alfred Noble wanted. An award, which includes a cash prize, for
significant efforts to improve the peace process. Which, is exactly what it was awarded
for in this case.

Again, in your opinion, nothing has been accomplished. According to the Nobel committee,
the Nobel Award advisors, a large number of world leaders, and many people in the US,
your opinion is not universal.

Again, this is your opinion, which is not shared universally.

As noted above ... you opinion is yours and you are welcome to it. It is not a sentiment
shared globally.

Ian