Quote:I'm sorry, but you're just bloviating here. Are you Madame Ruby? You know which Reps. and Senators "has an interest at how the county fares" and which ones don't? Let me guess - the ones that agree with you are the "statesmen" and the ones that don't are the ones that only care about getting reelected. Funny how that works.

 

You don't seem to want a representative republic (I looked it up!). You want a House of Lords.

 

Quote:I'm sorry, but you're just bloviating here. Are you Madame Ruby? You know which Reps. and Senators "has an interest at how the county fares" and which ones don't? Let me guess - the ones that agree with you are the "statesmen" and the ones that don't are the ones that only care about getting reelected. Funny how that works.

 

You don't seem to want a representative republic (I looked it up!). You want a House of Lords.

Are you even reading my post or just skimming key words?  How you draw your conclusions are incomprehensible to me.  With that said let me try again:

 

For some reason you seem to be in love with the idea of a 90 year old man dozing through half of the senate meetings he attends then voting a party line just because he has experience in office.  I counter that notion that common men rotating in and out of political office also have experience, it is called life experience. Serving 30 years or more in politics does not make you a genius, it makes you bought and paid for by the powers that put you there.  That to me is what a politician is, one who serves the man behind the dollars that keep him in office.  

 

On the other hand why can't a janitor serve in the house of representatives for 8 years?  How about a restaurant owner?  An electronics engineer?  A district manager for any company?  I advocate putting these people in office.  Each one has unique skills that lawyers and professional politicians do not possess.  Yet somehow in your mind that concept constitutes me wanting a "House of Lords"

---