- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So you would work for some uneducated idiot?
So the lack of a college degree makes someone an idiot? Is that what you are implying?
So you would work for some uneducated idiot?
Love how elitism is now defined as graduating college.
So you would work for some uneducated idiot?
1) Scott Walker is 47. Do you believe he hasn't learned anything in the last 25 years?
2) Do you believe that people in general stop learning upon graduation?
3) Do you place academic theory above that of experience?
4) Do people enter college with an inability to think?
5) Is college the ONLY place where a person can learn to cope and grow with the world?
6) Is what a person learned in an academic setting even relevant 25 years later?
How so? Please do explain how a degree guides us in the right direction.3) Experience is great, but an educational degree will help guide us in the right direction.
So you ARE saying, by answering yes, that a person who hasn't gone to college doesn't know how to think? Last time I checked college didn't teach anyone how to think.4) Yes,
Da fuq did all that **** about GWB have to do with the question? And, since you brought it up.... Do you have a source of information that proves GWB was given degrees because his father donated money? Thanks in advance.5. Of course not. College is not for everyone, but some people need it more than others. GWB, imo, was born with a good mind but he was into cocaine and alcohol until he was 40 years old by his own admission. His brain was so screwed up that he was fodder for Dick Cheney, the de Facto president, and W did not know what was going on in his own administration until well into his second term. Depending on whom you talk to GWB's administration was the worse in human history. W was given an MBA degree with a C by an Ivy League University, Yale, curtesy of his father, an alumni who donated millions of dollars to thhe University.
Walker was apparently applying common sense rather than theoretical governance. I'm sure it works for him and his insurance company financial backers, but his "common sense" seems to be screwing over his constituents and his employees.
This is true. I am one of those people with enough college hours to qualify for at least a Master's degree, but technically I have no degree. But because I was able to talk to people face to face and provide references who could vouch for what I could do, or had proved to them what I could do, and because those who hired me weren't interested in political correctness or ideology or political affiliation, they hired me. So for most of my working life I have held jobs that required degrees. One required an advanced degree.
But as I said, I worked for people who used their savvy, know how, and instincts to chose the right person for the job. In an election, we have way too many people voting who have no savvy, no understanding of what is involved in the office, no real understanding of the issues, and who just go with the pretty face, the one with the right letter after his/her name, or the one the media doesn't demonize. A mostly left leaning mainstream media would almost certainly shrug off lack of education in the Democratic candidate--they sure weren't interested in Obama's education were they. But they would make it a huge deal for the Republican candidate who lacked a college degree.
Walker has demonstrated that he has the education, chops, instincts, and skill set to get things done. He can recruit good people and manages well. And he has demonstrated some solid values and a lot of common sense. So his lack of a degree doesn't bother me as to whether he is up to the job.
What does bother me is how much it could effectively be used by his opponents to convince a gullible and less-than-savvy public out there that he just isn't up to the job? And would that make him unelectable? They've already been persuaded to vote for Obama twice over imminently more qualified candidates. Media manipulation and hard ball campaigning has a terrible effect on people who make no effort to think for themselves.
So far the Democrats haven't put up a single name that I would even consider voting for, and certainly Walker, if he was the nominee, would get my vote. But I do think a lack of degree will certainly be used against him effectively.
Would or should anyone expect anything else? We find reasons to bash candidates that we don't like, and reasons why candidates that we like are qualified. Both sides do this.
As far as Obama, I didn't know that there was any controversy as to whether he had a degree or not. With a lack of controversy, then there would be no reason for either party to bring this up as an issue. A degree today is pretty much the new high school diploma - it's not required, but it's certainly expected for a position of power. If a candidate has one, then there is no issue, and thus the candidates educational background may never be mentioned by the media, regardless of party, but if the candidate lacks one, then it's a fact worth mentioning, regardless of party.
What you've given me as documentation is a "he said, she said".
It's simple enough to solve as it has been from day one. I don't know about now, but back then it was difficult to do much of anything without mountains of paperwork. There was paperwork for everything - and there was always an unbelievable number of copies.
Here's how it didn't go:
Bush: Sir, Can I go to Vietnam?
Bush's CO: No, you can't.
Bush: Oh, well. Thanks, anyway.
Here's how it did go, if it happened. There was paperwork. Bush had to sign the request, as did his CO, and God knows who else. It would required signatures, copies would go to his personnel file whether the request was approved or not.
No one that I have read has ever seen a copy of the request. It doesn't exist.
What he may have done is inquired. LOL!
Further, about the same time Bush enlisted the last 102 squadron in Vietnam shipped back to the states. He would have had to retrain to another type of aircraft to fly in Vietnam. There's no record of him doing that that I am aware of.
Further, if Bush had wanted to go to Vietnam he could have gone USAF. He didn't do that.
Yes, ANG pilots did TDY tours in Vietnam. Probably there were 102 ANG pilots in Vietnam in early to mid 60's, but there were no 102s in Vietnam in by the end of 1968.
You are only assuming that such paperwork for volunteering would still be on file much less available on a link to the internet. That was not the digital computer age and not everything was put in a file for eternity. I served in the military in the early 1970s, and what records are available from my personnel files would be on microfilm. Not every request or memo would make it to microfilm. I am sure anyone would be hard pressed to find requests for official leave in those files, even though at the time, I would have signed a request. Volunteering for Vietnam in those days would have been handled mostly at company level and if such a request was turned down, and paperwork for such would not have been filed and held into perpetuity. I have read at more then one source that Bush did attempt to volunteer for Vietnam. Six years after Bush left office, I don't care all that much whether you are convinced.
Exactly. I have a number of reasons that I won't vote for Walker. None of those reasons are Walker's lack of academic credentials. I can think of no reason that might convince me to change my mind, but Walker's academic credentials are not an option in that regard either.
Even choice across the board on any candidate vs another candidate, all things being equal, I am going with the person who has better academic credentials.
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:
:agree: I can't see where a law degree would be appropriate or necessary for a Governor, since they are basically running a huge business. An understanding of basic business practices would sway me more than a law degree in that example, and State offices have attorneys to answer legal questions. An average everyday farmer probably has more business savvy than most people in DC! You can't say "oops," if you don't get the cows milked, or the crops planted, or the harvesting done before the crops rot in the field. And when you consider the dismal approval ratings of everyone in DC, and how much or little of anything useful is being done, it doesn't look like a law degree is especially noteworthy there either - with the possible exception of knowing what the loopholes in the law are! Why they can exempt themselves from laws they make has never been explained, but it's not difficult to understand the How part - because they can! That needs to be changed, because it's arrogant and unfair to the people they represent who must obey those laws!
The only reason Walker has been targeted, IMO, is because he has won several elections in spite of their efforts to demonize and defeat him. The voters felt otherwise and voted accordingly. That's life. Few of us always get our way!
I pretty much agree with you, but the part in red made me chuckle. No offense intended, but I don't think there exists Dem that you would ever consider voting for.
Can anyone explain what Obama's grades have to do with anything? Of course you don't have Obama's grades. When has anyone put forth their grades except for their first job out of college. Its a pretty silly thing to be looking for, don't you thin? But you can figure them out by association as you do know they were good enough to get into Harvard Law, one of the most competitive institutions in the world. They were also good enough there for him to be President of Harvard Law Review. They were also good enough to be invited onto the staff at University of Chicago, another of the world's most competitive schools.
Walker's degree should be a non-issue, particularly with Republicans as they seem to have no use for education.
Probably they were all birthers too. It's like they don't have anything better to attack obama with than "He's Kenyan!" or "His grades were lower than Walker's"
I can think of dozens of more relevant shortcomings, that are directly related to his performance in office no less, and *this* is what they bitch about
Cool, i always knew he was a draft dodger (i mean, duh, he was hardly qualified for ANG and has taken every handout he could get his hands on since birth) but never bothered to look into the evidence in such detail. Thanks
You are simply making it up as you go along. First you do not have the foggiest clue what the qualifications are for the air national guard and second, there has only been one US president who can be classified as a draft dodger. His name is William Jefferson Clinton.
Exactly. I have a number of reasons that I won't vote for Walker. None of those reasons are Walker's lack of academic credentials. I can think of no reason that might convince me to change my mind, but Walker's academic credentials are not an option in that regard either.
Even choice across the board on any candidate vs another candidate, all things being equal, I am going with the person who has better academic credentials.
well, so has Obama if that's your metric for determining someone's track record and qualifications for on the job success.
I suspect that the main reason you would not vote for him is the "R" that would be in front of his name on the ballot.
I never ignore white flags.
More like dismayed that we have enough idiots in this country who would re-elect an unqualified person who performed miserably in his first term over an imminently qualified person with a really good track record.
And I'm afraid if we try to run an imminently qualified person like Scott Walker against an imminently unqualified person with a dismal record like Hillary Clinton, it will probably happen again.
I would not worry about the left attempting to exploit Walker's lack of a degree. The type of people who would care were never going to vote for him anyway. And Walker is a proven executive. He has won twice and beat back an attempt to recall him....and he has done so in a blue state. And he has successfully taken on the Civil Service unions.
OFF TOPIC...a little bit...
Here's a little "fun trivia" about politicians with doctorate level degrees.
I saw just the other day both are Rand Paul and even Howard Dean are "potential candidates". First I'd heard of Dean wanting to take another shot at it, but he was on the long list of Democrats.
Dean attended Yale University with a Bachelors degree in political science. Dean received his medical degree from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Seriously....
Paul left Baylor early, without completing either his Bachelor's degree in biology or in English, when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine. At the time, Duke did not require an undergraduate degree for admission to its graduate school. He earned a M.D. degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.
That's pretty wild about Duke, huh? Good that they now require undergrad degrees to get into their med school. Well, in my opinion, it's good.
I'll take that as a Yes!