Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know. I like DeGrasse and get where he is coming from. But I think you're naturally going to have more lawyers in congress because people who are generally interested in law and politics will likely pursue a degree in law.
I don't think that's his point though. It makes sense that lawyers would be INTERESTED in running for political office, but why are they being elected? Lawyers are basically paid to lie. Sure, some lawyers are defending the truly innocent, but others are clearly not and if I'm not mistaken, they tend to know if their client is actually guilty or not then try and prove there innocence regardless of their guilt.
And these people are paid (and insanely high amount that should be lowered by at least $50,000) to run out country.
What he's arguing is that we should be advocating to get other professions into politics. Get an engineer. Get a psychologist. Get a scientist. For whatever reason, we think that business men and lawyers are best for our country, lawyers because they understand law and businessmen because they can fix the economy, and neither is true. Lawyers to understand existing law but that only plays a small part in the creation of new laws or the betterment of existing laws; you know, the job they get paid to do. Understanding the complex nature of law does not give someone a moral compass or the intellect to make the right decisions. Just like a businessman can't 'fix the economy.' Running a business or being a board member of a company (which is objectively easier and wouldn't even give someone the know how to to save a business, let alone a country) does not give someone the ability to regulate and oversee a massively corporate and irresponsibly consumeristic nation.
Actually, laws are very complicated and subject to interpretation. Say what you will about lawyers, but all of the attorneys I have worked with are very smart and most are very nice people. Litigators are probably the nastiest and most aggressive, comparable to surgeons in the medical field. Many attorneys I have worked with despise the government and are libertarians. They find government intrusive and they believe outsmarting the government legally is the best challenge.
All attorneys are not greedy and obnoxious--though some are, but probably no more than you would find in any other field.
Basically a secret society with its own language that requires we hire one for every occassion.
No one can decipher a legal document which we have to live by, but cannot understand without a legal interpretation, appeal, reversal, pettition or a romp through local, county, state and federal courts.
And I'm just talking about a medical release in the dentist's office.
The official language of the USA is legalese. I'd call lawyers in politics violation of monopoly rules.
Mean what you say and say what you mean. Who the heck knows what it means when one says, 'you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor'.
Lawyers write, implement and enforce laws that we the people must all obey. And its all done in their own secret elastic language. You might say they have created a very profitable cartel for themselves.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Almost half of Congress has law degrees and I have yet to see any industry that comes anywhere close to the amount of money they donate to politicians. It was almost 300 million during the '08 election. You could combine the energy sector, health and some other major ones and the total is no where near. It's predominantly donated to Democrats.
Having lawyers in charge of Congress is like having Exxon in charge of the EPA.
The bold phrase only works when there is no combination that adds up to the same as the one you are comparing it to, there obviously is a combination seeing as that is only 1/4 of campaign contributions.
The bold phrase only works when there is no combination that adds up to the same as the one you are comparing it to, there obviously is a combination seeing as that is only 1/4 of campaign contributions.
Unless it's qualified.
"and some other major ones "
some
1.an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
Now if I had used the term "all" then you may have a point for your failed attempt at nit picking.
all 1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
