Speechless....

nooshinjohn

Sorry DK... did not mean to imply that you advocated for such, but used the quote to tie into my larger point. The problem is not as simple as just not hiring them. Just like the defensive TRIAD of the cold war days, we need a three-legged approach with this problem as well.

The first is to secure the borders... PERIOD. Without this, our stool (nation) cannot stand. Second is to make hiring illegals so repugnant to business owners (jail-time/lost income etc.) that following the laws already on the books becomes the only way to go.

Lastly, I do support a path to citizenship for a small number (to be decided case-by-case) for those that present themselves to the proper agencies and request that path. Those that do not want to be here legally and get caught, along with those that fail to leave of their own accord, should be deported and never allowed to return.

tonyb

Reasonable requests John, but getting it done will take some work and strong individuals. I have noticed in this thread and in the other thread on drugs, a pattern of blame that points back to the end user. While it may be justified in some cases, I find it akin to blaming the victim and not the criminal. Like standing before a judge and saying someone was pissing you off so bad, you had to murder them so it's their fault they were killed.

Entering this country illegally is a crime.....yes or no ? It matters not if you got caught a week later or 10 years later. We still prosecute crimes in this country if your caught down the road. You murder someone 20 years ago and get caught, you'll pay. You cheat on your taxes 5 years ago and get caught, you pay. You scam investors and get caught down the road, you pay. Why is such leway given to the crime of entering this country illegally ? Money is the answer, from the money buisnesses tend to make to the money that flows into the pockets of politicians. Get rid of the money aspect, and have strict border security and the problem will be greatly reduced. Question is, who has the will to do such things ? Who has the will to refute the cash cows from the lobbyist ? Not many from where I sit that I can see.

One mans "good", is another mans "evil". One mans evil, is anothers good. How do you sort it all out ? The only way I can think of is to start holding up those of character, of moral standing. The chances of some "good" comming from them is greater. The chances of them having a crisis of conscience is greater, rather than having none at all.

But....when some step up to the plate the press is there to knock them down. They run interference for the evil that has set in. You'll here garbage like.....racism claims, wanting to push the elderly off a cliff, hanging on to your guns and religion, blah blah.
I will admit too, that some who claim the moral high ground are nothing but phoney's. Pretty obvious actually, but are we that stupid as a people we can't even recognize character anymore ? Hmmm.....I'm starting to think so. Maybe because it's been absent in society for soo long now, we forgot what it even looks like.

We are a nation of laws, and those laws have to apply to everyone across the board or they mean nothing and the great experiment that was to be America will fail.

I have another question, a tad off the beaten track here, but relevant in the end. When you go to vote, when your about to pull that lever, are you voting for someone who's policy will benefit you personally, or benefit the country as a whole ? Lets face some facts here. People are selfish creatures. Whats good for the country may not necessarily benefit you in your situation. I have voted in the past for policy that would do me more harm than good because I knew it was the right thing to do for the country as a whole. Unfortunately most can't see beyond their own needs. Hence you get politicians that promiss everything to everyone on the campaign trail. We like to call that pandering.

All this comes back full circle to the quality of the man, and those in power. Just like in audio, you can only expect so much from a cheap piece of gear. It's the quality pieces we lust after, and the same should go for our representatives.

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

When you go to vote, when your about to pull that lever, are you voting for someone who's policy will benefit you personally, or benefit the country as a whole? Lets face some facts here. People are selfish creatures. Whats good for the country may not necessarily benefit you in your situation.

Excellent point Tony. I'm a Federal worker, Republicans HATE me; but I'm looking at the big picture, and on 99% of the issues, I fall in line with conservative values. People need to quit trying to find the "perfect" match for them, it's not going to happen. You vote the platform, not the "man." Right now there's Republican legislation that would freeze my pay AGAIN---for 5 MORE YEARS. Anyone care to guess what that does to my retirement plans? Considering our cost of living increases generally averaged between 2-3.5% annually (we haven't seen one since 2009), it's quite a hit. Do you think the congress or senate will have a pay freeze? Hell no; it's always the "little fish" that pay. But it is what it is, and there are far bigger fish to fry then whining about my pay hit. What kills me is to hear comments like "'well, if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting Obama...." HUH? Really? What ARE you? These are 2 totally different candidates, how do you make that leap? Stupid. Then the types that if their horse isn't in it, they don't vote at all...again HUH? No wonder there is a disconnect in America.

sucks2beme

News flash- those have become almost extinct in the real world.
You want a raise? Change jobs. That what they tell you in most places.
Even a promotion seldom increases pay. Cost of living doesn't happen.
Right now only a few unions and government employees get pensions.
My company scrapped theirs about 12 years ago. And few companies I've dealt with
over the last 10 years have one. That includes a LOT of fortune 500 ones.

steveinaz

...news flash, that's why I chose federal service.

tonyb

Public sector pensions are so under funded it isn't even funny anymore. Your going to see a shift away from pensions to 401k's, the public can't afford whats already on the books. Thats why I joined a union way back when too Steve, but even they are looking hard at reducing those.

Incidently, just because you were promissed a pension, doesn't mean you'll get it all. Case in point. My father in-law has been in the bricklayers union forever and retired about 8 years ago. All well and good, you get x amount as promissed. Last year he gets a letter saying he will be getting 200 bucks less a month to help balance the unfunded liability in the fund. Doesn't even sound legal to me. What they give, they can also take away. Always a legal loophole to do so. Same with Social security, a scam in my book. Your promissed x amount but by the time your ready to collect, or after you've been collecting, some B.S. comes up to take away some of what you were promissed. Thats a whole nutha discussion, but they can give me back everything I've put in, and we can call it even. The country won't have to bear that burden and I can invest that money better than the government can.

steveinaz

Oh, one thing I'm certainly aware of, as a government worker you are not "promised" anything---nor as a soldier. My response was to demonstrate that I vote my ideals---not which party will pay me the best.

nooshinjohn

The last time I didn't have to hold my nose and fight back a gag reflex in the booth was 1984...

sucks2beme

We are way too busy dealing with important issues like if birth control should be part of mandated
coverage to worry about things like trade deficits, pensions, immigration, and jobs.
Sadly, all four of those items are tied together. Both sides would rather fight it out over
meaningless crap. Add the cost of war(or better yet, a violent peace) in places
that no one gives a crap about.

SDA1C

steveinaz wrote: »

"'well, if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting Obama...." HUH? Really? What ARE you? These are 2 totally different candidates, how do you make that leap? Stupid. Then the types that if their horse isn't in it, they don't vote at all...again HUH? No wonder there is a disconnect in America.

Just a quick clari steveinaz. As I see it, the difference in platform across the Repub party is as big a stretch as across party lines. I am not sure the voters disconnect is that far out of line. I also don't quite get whether you are saying its better to vote for one you don't like if you don't have one you do just for the sake of voting? That line of thought seems a bit off to me. I wonder which ticket would prevail if there were a "Vote NONE option". Starting over with some true intellectuals and scholars is what I would vote for in a New York minute.

nooshinjohn

SDA1C wrote: »

Starting over with some true intellectuals and scholars is what I would vote for in a New York minute.

That's what we got last time, and look how well that is working so far. I personally think that the egghead Poindexters, and Ivy League nitwits that have been running the show have no freeking clue about how things should be. They paint a wonderful Utopia-type picture and then try to bend and break everything that stands in their way of their vision.

Give me somebody from the real world, farmer and car dealers, a lawyer or two and a school teacher... hell even a guy that fixes a semi truck for a living. I bet the people living a real life in real America somewhere has a better handle of what is wron and how to fix it than these snobish intellectual elites and scholars that collectively could't wipe their a$$es without help. God forbid they ever actually have held a real world job and earn a real paycheck from teh sweat of their brow.

obieone

Sorry Tony, but I'm MUCH more concerned with what SCOTUS does this week, than some po-po chief does in LA:sad:

txcoastal1

I live in a border state that health care, jobs, and school system is burdened by illegals. Here is a little reason behind our situation.

"In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh ,
had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can
vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the
most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has
been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota ,
points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Welfare can be a never ending cycle for most, especially the unwilling

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy,
with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached
the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the
USA in fewer than five years.

Realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic .

Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.

SDA1C

nooshinjohn wrote: »

That's what we got last time, and look how well that is working so far. I personally think that the egghead Poindexters, and Ivy League nitwits that have been running the show have no freeking clue about how things should be. They paint a wonderful Utopia-type picture and then try to bend and break everything that stands in their way of their vision.

Give me somebody from the real world, farmer and car dealers, a lawyer or two and a school teacher... hell even a guy that fixes a semi truck for a living. I bet the people living a real life in real America somewhere has a better handle of what is wron and how to fix it than these snobish intellectual elites and scholars that collectively could't wipe their a$$es without help. God forbid they ever actually have held a real world job and earn a real paycheck from teh sweat of their brow.

John...you sure run these guys in the dirt for thinking they are true scholars or intellectuals. Sorry I wasn't more clear. We need intellectuals and scholars that haven't been corrupted by the system yet. As I do appreciate the idea of having a diesel mechanic as a Pres. You can't be serious.

nooshinjohn

SDA1C wrote: »

John...you sure run these guys in the dirt for thinking they are true scholars or intellectuals. Sorry I wasn't more clear. We need intellectuals and scholars that haven't been corrupted by the system yet. As I do appreciate the idea of having a diesel mechanic as a Pres. You can't be serious.

I am speaking about members of Congress with my statement... and good luck with finding eggheads that haven't been corrupted. The problem with intellectuals and scholars is that they think their education has made them the smartest people in the room, and infinitely more intelligent than those "astro-turfers in flyover country", that out of ignorance, "cling to their guns and their God"They think they know what's best for everyone, and if we could only be "nudged" a bit in our choices, that they could save us from ourselves.

Than nudge becomes a shove however when we don't give up our SUV's, so they crank hard on our wallets by jacking the price of gas/cigarettes/beef/electricity... whatever it is they want us to change. Sorry, but I have no time for any elected official that hasn't been in the trenches with the troops, so to speak. And yes, I would take a diesel mechanic with 15 years of wrench time, that went into politics by joining the local school board, then state legistlature and then a seat in Congress as POTUS over the egghead that has done nothing but **** about our Constitution of "negative liberties", telling me that his plans with make energy costs "nessicarily SKYROCKET" while he bows to every foreign potentate that wants to kill us.


Can I get an AMEN!:cool:

gdb

Some of you learned scholars Really need to utilize the spell check feature....it may keep you from appearing less scholarly.

nooshinjohn

I phones suck for accuracy:cheesygrin:

SDA1C

Wow!

gdb

"nessicarily" is the iphone's work ?

DarqueKnight

nooshinjohn wrote: »

That's what we got last time, and look how well that is working so far. I personally think that the egghead Poindexters, and Ivy League nitwits that have been running the show have no freeking clue about how things should be. They paint a wonderful Utopia-type picture and then try to bend and break everything that stands in their way of their vision.

You brought up a good point which piqued my curiosity regarding the educational attainments and prior occupations of members of Congress. According to "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile", a research document obtained from the official U.S. Senate website, www.senate.gov, this is the educational profile of the current members of the Senate and House of Representatives:

"As has been true in recent Congresses, the vast majority of Members (92% of House Members and 99% of Senators) at the beginning of the 112th Congress held bachelor?s degrees. The CQ Roll Call Member Profiles indicate that 26 Members of the House and 1 Senator have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma. Seven Members of the House, but no Senators, have associate?s degrees as their highest degree, and one House Member has an LPN (nursing) degree. Eighty-three Members of the House and 16 Senators earned a master?s degree as their highest educational degree. Law degrees are held by 167 Members of the House (38% of the total House) and 55 Senators (55% of the total Senate). Of the Members holding a law degree, four (three House Members and one Senator) also hold an LLM (Master of Laws) degree. Eighteen Representatives (but no Senators) have doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees, and 20 Members of the House and 4 Senators have a medical degree."

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Give me somebody from the real world, farmer and car dealers, a lawyer or two and a school teacher... hell even a guy that fixes a semi truck for a living. I bet the people living a real life in real America somewhere has a better handle of what is wrong and how to fix it than these snobish intellectual elites and scholars that collectively could't wipe their a$$es without help. God forbid they ever actually have held a real world job and earn a real paycheck from the sweat of their brow.

Based on the official Congressional membership profile, I am not sure that the terms "intellectual elite" and "scholar" could be accurately applied. Most of them are lawyers, but law degrees are not considered "elite" degrees in academic circles.

While some members of Congress come from financially and socially privileged family backgrounds, it appears that they all were gainfully employed (working for a real paycheck at a real world job) prior to entering public service.

I am curious to know what you thought these people did prior to entering public service.

According to "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile", a research document obtained from the official U.S. Senate website, www.senate.gov, these are the prior occupations of the current members of the Senate and House of Representatives. A copy of the document is attached at the end of this post:

Of 439 members of the House, 167 (38%) list law as their occupation.

Of 100 members of the senate, 55 (55%) list law as their occupation.

The occupational distribution of the remaining members of Congress is as follows:

81 educators, employed as teachers, professors, instructors, fundraisers, counselors, administrators, or coaches (68 in the House, 13 in the Senate);

2 medical doctors in the Senate, plus 1 veterinarian and 1 ophthalmologist;

15 medical doctors in the House (including one delegate), plus 2 dentists, 1 veterinarian, 1 ophthalmologist, and 1 psychiatrist

2 psychologists (both in the House),

1 optometrist (in the Senate), and

6 nurses (all in the House);

5 ordained ministers, all in the House;

39 mayors (29 in the House, 10 in the Senate);

11 state governors (all in the Senate)

9 lieutenant governors (3 in the Senate, 6 in the House, including 2 Delegates);

10 judges (all in the House),

26 prosecutors (8 in the Senate, and 18 in the House, including a Delegate), who have served in city, county, state, federal, or military capacities;

1 cabinet secretary, 1 secretary of the navy, and one ambassador (all in the Senate);

4 Peace Corps volunteers, all in the House;

3 sheriffs and 2 deputy sheriffs, 2 FBI agents, a border patrol agent (all in the House), and a firefighter in the Senate;

1 physicist, 1 chemist, 6 engineers, and 1 microbiologist (all in the House);

4 radio talk show hosts (two House, two Senate),

3 radio or television broadcasters (all in the House), 6 reporters or journalists (2 in the House, 4 in the Senate),

1 radio station manager, 1 public television producer, 1 sportswriter, and 1 television commentator (all in the House);

7 accountants in the House and 2 in the Senate;

4 pilots, all in the House, including a former pilot of Marine One (the President?s helicopter), and 1 astronaut, in the Senate;

2 screenwriters (1 House, 1 Senate),

1 comedian, in the Senate,

1 documentary film maker, in the Senate,

2 professional football players, both in the House;

17 farmers (15 House, 2 Senate),

11 ranchers (9 House, 2 Senate);

2 almond orchard owners, both in the House,

1 farm manager (a Senator),

1 cattle farm owner (a Senator),

1 vintner (a House Member),

1 fruit orchard worker (a House Member);

7 social workers in the House and 2 in the Senate;

5 current members of the military Reserves (3 House, 2 Senate),

4 current members of the National Guard (3 House, 1 Senate).

Other occupations listed in the CQ Roll Call Member Profiles, although not necessarily the professions practiced immediately before entering Congress, include restaurateur, real estate agent, auctioneer, car dealership owner, construction worker, software engineer, paper mill worker, stockbroker, insurance agent, and funeral home owner.

steveinaz

SDA1C--

Well, I'm not a senator, congressman, speaker of the house--nor a majority/minority leader; and I made about $24,000 a year when deployed in desert storm. When I started federal service 15yrs ago, I made $11.00/hr---about $3.50/hr less than I did in the military with 15 years of service.

So what's your point?

What I'm saying is YOU VOTE the platform. If you don't vote, you have no right to **** about anything that happens as a result of you not voting. How does one make a leap from republican to democrat?? 2 totally different outlooks on how a country should be run, there shouldn't be any confusion over that. When I hear someone "voting" the man, I know immediately they have no concept of what either party stands for, or what its general policies are.

tonyb

Party platform is important Steve, no doubt, but one has to look at the man too. What good is it voting for a platform if the one to implement it is corrupt as all hell ?

TXCoastal- Excellent post bro, one needs not be a rocket scientist to see we are on the cusp. Question remains, does anyone give a crap ?

DK- By your own stats, it appears that almost half of congress is made up of lawyers. Whats not mentioned is the amount of time spent in private industry. You spend a good portion of your time before the age of 30 in school, if you practice law for 5 years and run for office, kinda dilutes the point. Same for the other occupations, no mention of the time spent in the private sector, just titles.

While I have no doubt there are some who indeed spent a good portion of time in the private sector, that still doesn't equate without background info. In other words, one can come from a priveleged family, get out of school, and Daddy can say sit your **** here, make sure nobody gets hurt, and sign the payroll checks.....while putting CEO after the kids name. Titles don't mean much, not without background info anyway.

SDA1C

My point is the moral split between the options (or prospective options) on the Repub side are so distant from one another they might as well be Dems there too. I feel my words aren't coming out right tonight so I will get out of this nose dive of a thread and sit back and watch the fur fly. Personally If I don't like my options I will not support someone simply because I have to choose. Nor will I **** about it when it goes either way.

In the words of Richard Pryor..."Vote none of the above" !

SDA1C

:eek:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

1 comedian, in the Senate,

UMMMM Joe Biden?

OK now I'm leaving lol.

tonyb

obieone wrote: »

Sorry Tony, but I'm MUCH more concerned with what SCOTUS does this week, than some po-po chief does in LA:sad:

Yeah man, I hear ya, but we have to at least June for that one big fish. Hope they do the right thing bro.

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

DK- By your own stats, it appears that almost half of congress is made up of lawyers.

Yeah, It's not too much of a stretch for me to imagine (hope) that most members of a law-making body might have some training and experience in the law.

tonyb wrote: »

Whats not mentioned is the amount of time spent in private industry. You spend a good portion of your time before the age of 30 in school, if you practice law for 5 years and run for office, kinda dilutes the point. Same for the other occupations, no mention of the time spent in the private sector, just titles.

Ok, the first erroneous premise was that members of Congress have no "real world" work experience.

Now that I have presented credible evidence to the contrary, you are now saying that members of Congress real world experience was not of sufficient length of time? LOL!!

What would you consider to be a "reasonable" length of "real world" experience prior to entering public service? Bear in mind that, according to the US Constitution, the highest public office in the land, President of the United States, has no requirements whatsoever for education or occupation. The only requirements listed are for age, U.S. citizenship and U.S. residency.

tonyb wrote: »

TXCoastal- Excellent post bro, one needs not be a rocket scientist to see we are on the cusp. Question remains, does anyone give a crap?

I give a crap. I also like to fact check:

Snopes.com: Fall of the Athenian Republic

Quote from Snopes:

"The item cited above began circulating on the Internet since shortly after the 2000 U.S. presidential election, reappeared briefly after the 2004 presidential election, and saw a strong resurgence (in a modified form which replaced the names "Bush" and "Gore" with "McCain and "Obama") after the 2008 presidential election. What follows is our analysis of the statements included in the original piece as it initially appeared in 2000, including information helpfully provided to us by Mike Powell of Kennewick, Washington."

cnh

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You brought up a good point which piqued my curiosity regarding the educational attainments and prior occupations of members of Congress. According to "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile", a research document obtained from the official U.S. Senate website, www.senate.gov, this is the educational profile of the current members of the Senate and House of Representatives:

"As has been true in recent Congresses, the vast majority of Members (92% of House Members and 99% of Senators) at the beginning of the 112th Congress held bachelor?s degrees. The CQ Roll Call Member Profiles indicate that 26 Members of the House and 1 Senator have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma. Seven Members of the House, but no Senators, have associate?s degrees as their highest degree, and one House Member has an LPN (nursing) degree. Eighty-three Members of the House and 16 Senators earned a master?s degree as their highest educational degree. Law degrees are held by 167 Members of the House (38% of the total House) and 55 Senators (55% of the total Senate). Of the Members holding a law degree, four (three House Members and one Senator) also hold an LLM (Master of Laws) degree. Eighteen Representatives (but no Senators) have doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees, and 20 Members of the House and 4 Senators have a medical degree."



Based on the official Congressional membership profile, I am not sure that the terms "intellectual elite" and "scholar" could be accurately applied. Most of them are lawyers, but law degrees are not considered "elite" degrees in academic circles.

While some members of Congress come from financially and socially privileged family backgrounds, it appears that they all were gainfully employed (working for a real paycheck at a real world job) prior to entering public service.

I am curious to know what you thought these people did prior to entering public service.

According to "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile", a research document obtained from the official U.S. Senate website, www.senate.gov, these are the prior occupations of the current members of the Senate and House of Representatives. A copy of the document is attached at the end of this post:

Of 439 members of the House, 167 (38%) list law as their occupation.

Of 100 members of the senate, 55 (55%) list law as their occupation.

The occupational distribution of the remaining members of Congress is as follows:

81 educators, employed as teachers, professors, instructors, fundraisers, counselors, administrators, or coaches (68 in the House, 13 in the Senate);

2 medical doctors in the Senate, plus 1 veterinarian and 1 ophthalmologist;

15 medical doctors in the House (including one delegate), plus 2 dentists, 1 veterinarian, 1 ophthalmologist, and 1 psychiatrist

2 psychologists (both in the House),

1 optometrist (in the Senate), and

6 nurses (all in the House);

5 ordained ministers, all in the House;

39 mayors (29 in the House, 10 in the Senate);

11 state governors (all in the Senate)

9 lieutenant governors (3 in the Senate, 6 in the House, including 2 Delegates);

10 judges (all in the House),

26 prosecutors (8 in the Senate, and 18 in the House, including a Delegate), who have served in city, county, state, federal, or military capacities;

1 cabinet secretary, 1 secretary of the navy, and one ambassador (all in the Senate);

4 Peace Corps volunteers, all in the House;

3 sheriffs and 2 deputy sheriffs, 2 FBI agents, a border patrol agent (all in the House), and a firefighter in the Senate;

1 physicist, 1 chemist, 6 engineers, and 1 microbiologist (all in the House);

4 radio talk show hosts (two House, two Senate),

3 radio or television broadcasters (all in the House), 6 reporters or journalists (2 in the House, 4 in the Senate),

1 radio station manager, 1 public television producer, 1 sportswriter, and 1 television commentator (all in the House);

7 accountants in the House and 2 in the Senate;

4 pilots, all in the House, including a former pilot of Marine One (the President?s helicopter), and 1 astronaut, in the Senate;

2 screenwriters (1 House, 1 Senate),

1 comedian, in the Senate,

1 documentary film maker, in the Senate,

2 professional football players, both in the House;

17 farmers (15 House, 2 Senate),

11 ranchers (9 House, 2 Senate);

2 almond orchard owners, both in the House,

1 farm manager (a Senator),

1 cattle farm owner (a Senator),

1 vintner (a House Member),

1 fruit orchard worker (a House Member);

7 social workers in the House and 2 in the Senate;

5 current members of the military Reserves (3 House, 2 Senate),

4 current members of the National Guard (3 House, 1 Senate).

Other occupations listed in the CQ Roll Call Member Profiles, although not necessarily the professions practiced immediately before entering Congress, include restaurateur, real estate agent, auctioneer, car dealership owner, construction worker, software engineer, paper mill worker, stockbroker, insurance agent, and funeral home owner.

Thanks,

This is fascinating. I'd agree with you; not "necessarily" an intellectual elite (I'm familiar with this group as I work within it, lol) but certainly a far cry from a lack of educational credentials. Lots of degrees and other experience here. In fact, considering just how much education this group actually has you have to wonder why it seems so "dense" most of the time!

The things many of our politicians believe and advocate leave many of us bewildered. And the fact that the SAME arguments, the very SAME are made over and over and over and over again.

Also recalls Einstein who said:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Really, when all is said and done. Haven't we seen ALL, I mean "everything" various people running for office have proposed in various administrations in the last 40 years? And when, during any "time" within that period did the majority of us agree that this period or that period was the Golden Age? What people do is idealize the "past", forget history and the fact that we've always been riddled with conflict and contradiction!

On another note. Has anyone ever seen Andy Warhol's film Empire? A film he made that you could walk in on, leave for a couple of hours, return and not have missed anything. This thread is looking a lot like a Warhol film. You leave, you return and...well..I'm off to make a sandwich...

cnh

tonyb

Absolutely DK, Titles mean didley squat if there is no EXPERIENCE behind it. Being a teacher for one year....thats good enough in your book ? If thats the case, your expectations are fairly low for what constitutes a good representative. I can go to school and get any title I want....if I don't have any practical experience, what good is the title ?

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Absolutely DK, Titles mean didley squat if there is no EXPERIENCE behind it. Being a teacher for one year....thats good enough in your book ? If thats the case, your expectations are fairly low for what constitutes a good representative. I can go to school and get any title I want....if I don't have any practical experience, what good is the title ?

You appear to be attepting to twist my meaning around. I agree about experience. Let me reiterate my questions:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

[Are you] now saying that members of Congress real world experience was not of sufficient length of time?

What would you consider to be a "reasonable" length of "real world" experience prior to entering public service?

Do you have any credible evidence which supports the supposition that members of Congress do not have significant real world work experience?

tonyb

No, I'm just pointing to the fact that such info is important. What constitutes a reasonable length of time in the private sector is up to each individual to decide. Can't make that call however if the info is not there....correct ?

If we can agree that experience counts, then thats all I'm saying.