The Republicans are out to destroy the country

[Arcad]

I actually really like this idea. Go Republicans. Of course it's just a publicity stunt to make themselves look more pro-democracy, but still.

How do you figure that? Our country is a plutarchy. There's no real "democracy" anyway. And BTW, the federal government is too big anyway- we don't need a communist state.

[Conserative Morality]

How do you figure that? Our country is a plutarchy. There's no real "democracy" anyway. And BTW, the federal government is too big anyway- we don't need a communist state.

I don't think you understand Plutarchy. Or Communism, for that matter.

[Ashmoria]

you voted russ out because you think he didnt know what he was voting for?

i find that very hard to believe. and if that is what you did you were very much mistaken. mr feingold knew full well what he voted for and why.

Feingold lost on healthcare.

then why pretend that reading the bill is important to anyone (as you just did)?

[Sierra Lobo]

Not reading it wont even start comprehension ..... Do you comprehend a text you dont read?

Have you heard how the clerks read a bill?

Your point.... that the congress do not really need to know what is on it. As long as his earmarks are safe?

[Socialist Usonia]

I actually really like this idea. Go Republicans. Of course it's just a publicity stunt to make themselves look more pro-democracy, but still.

How do you figure that? Our country is a plutarchy. There's no real "democracy" anyway. And BTW, the federal government is too big anyway- we don't need a communist state.

How do I figure what? That it's just a publicity stunt? Because the Republicans are plutocrats, this would limit the plutocrats' authority, and therefore would be a bad thing for them if it actually passed. That the bill is pro-democracy? Because state legislatures are generally closer to the people than Congress is. A referendum-like option, where a 2/3 or 3/4 vote of all the citizens could nullify a federal law, would of course be preferable. Still, it's an improvement.

[anarcho-syndicalism] And of course we need a communist system. I'd rather do without the state part, though. [/anarcho-syndicalism]

[Free Soviets]

Feingold lost on healthcare.

no, he didn't. feingold lost for the same reason any other democrat lost. because the republicans were successful at preventing economic recovery and made the dems look weak and ineffectual in the process, and the demographics weren't enough to overcome this. this isn't exactly some hotly debated question in political science. we know how this works.

and if you really think its healthcare that did anyone in, ask yourself this - why did the blue dogs suffer the biggest losses, while the liberal bloc stayed strong? 64% of the dems that voted AGAINST health reform lost. they previously made up 13% of the total democrats in the house and yet accounted for 1/3 of the total loses on election day.

[Sierra Lobo]

Feingold lost on healthcare.

then why pretend that reading the bill is important to anyone (as you just did)?

Cause a segment believed that healthcare should be read. And free Soviets contested that NOBODY cared.

[Arcad]

How do you figure that? Our country is a plutarchy. There's no real "democracy" anyway. And BTW, the federal government is too big anyway- we don't need a communist state.

I don't think you understand Plutarchy. Or Communism, for that matter.

I'm pretty damn sure I do. A Plutarchy is rule by the rich. Do you know how much MONEY you have to have in order to run for office, or even be HEARD? And Communism? It's Statism by a different name. The state is there to provide law and order, NOT to rule our lives and make our choices for us.

[Sierra Lobo]

Feingold lost on healthcare.

no, he didn't. feingold lost for the same reason any other democrat lost. because the republicans were successful at preventing economic recovery and made the dems look weak and ineffectual in the process, and the demographics weren't enough to overcome this. this isn't exactly some hotly debated question in political science. we know how this works.

and if you really think its healthcare that did anyone in, ask yourself this - why did the blue dogs suffer the biggest losses, while the liberal bloc stayed strong? 64% of the dems that voted AGAINST health reform lost. they previously made up 13% of the total democrats in the house and yet accounted for 1/3 of the total loses on election day.

Did that change the fact that johnson ran on healthcare against feingold?

[Free Soviets]

then why pretend that reading the bill is important to anyone (as you just did)?

Cause a segment believed that healthcare should be read. And free Soviets contested that NOBODY cared.

it. was. read.

seriously, go check the records. we'll wait.

[Free Soviets]

Did that change the fact that johnson ran o healthcare against feingold?

no, but it calls into doubt that that had anything to do at all with his loss. if the economy was better, feingold would have cruised to reelection.

[United Dependencies]

Have you heard how the clerks read a bill?

Your point.... that the congress do not really need to know what is on it. As long as his earmarks are safe?

Congressmen only read the bill's that come through their comittee or that they sponsor. Otherwise they probably just look at the title and vote based on that.

[Texas Secessionists]

3. no, it wouldn't. in so far as legitimately silly crap is put in, it is put in mainly for purposes of vote gathering to pass something else. you see, everybody has various issues they care about deeply that nobody else gives a shit about. sometimes you need to convince people to come on board with something they don't really like all that much, and an easy way is to compromise by giving them something in return. such is politics in a system that gives large amounts of say to individual politicians. remove that option and all you'll get is even shittier bills.

This is the very thing that is wrong with Washington. Going along with bills you think are bad for your state or the country in general because your state is exempt from paying for it? or because you get a grant for the local university to do research on the mating habits of the spotted owl?

[Sierra Lobo]

Cause a segment believed that healthcare should be read. And free Soviets contested that NOBODY cared.

it. was. read.

seriously, go check the records. we'll wait.

In the final vote?

please go check the records please.

[United Dependencies]

This is the very thing that is wrong with Washington. Going along with bills you think are bad for your state or the country in general because your state is exempt from paying for it? or because you get a grant for the local university to do research on the mating habits of the spotted owl?

We either do that or nothing at all. And every politician has something like your example.

[Arcad]

This is the very thing that is wrong with Washington. Going along with bills you think are bad for your state or the country in general because your state is exempt from paying for it? or because you get a grant for the local university to do research on the mating habits of the spotted owl?

LESS BUREAUCRACY! MORE DEMOCRACY!
*gets out the signs*
LIBERTARIANISM FTW!!!!

[Arcad]

I actually really like this idea. Go Republicans. Of course it's just a publicity stunt to make themselves look more pro-democracy, but still.

How do you figure that? Our country is a plutarchy. There's no real "democracy" anyway. And BTW, the federal government is too big anyway- we don't need a communist state.

[Arcad]

I don't think you understand Plutarchy. Or Communism, for that matter.

I'm pretty damn sure I do. A Plutarchy is rule by the rich. Do you know how much MONEY you have to have in order to run for office, or even be HEARD? And Communism? It's Statism by a different name. The state is there to provide law and order, NOT to rule our lives and make our choices for us.

[Texas Secessionists]

We either do that or nothing at all.

I reject that notion all together, its just a crutch to keep from reaching a consensus on the best coarse of action.

[Socialist Usonia]

I'm pretty damn sure I do. A Plutarchy is rule by the rich. Do you know how much MONEY you have to have in order to run for office, or even be HEARD? And Communism? It's Statism by a different name. The state is there to provide law and order, NOT to rule our lives and make our choices for us.

I'm pretty damn sure I do. A Plutarchy is rule by the rich. Do you know how much MONEY you have to have in order to run for office, or even be HEARD? And Communism? It's Statism by a different name. The state is there to provide law and order, NOT to rule our lives and make our choices for us.

Why are you quoting yourself?

[Arcad]

Why are you quoting yourself?

Reposts, this is a fast-paced thread, so your replies are easily lost in the current.

[United Dependencies]

We either do that or nothing at all.

I reject that notion all together, its just a crutch to keep from reaching a consensus on the best coarse of action.

1) There is no "Best" course of action. There are just different actions.
2)Even if there was people are far too different and far too stubborn to agree without getting something for them out of it.

[Sierra Lobo]

Your point.... that the congress do not really need to know what is on it. As long as his earmarks are safe?

Congressmen only read the bill's that come through their comittee or that they sponsor. Otherwise they probably just look at the title and vote based on that.

Then this is a good case then why states should have a say. To prevent federal overreach, especially on federal actions that affect a big part of the citizens life. And especially on issues that congress do not bother to read and debate on the issue.

[United Dependencies]

Congressmen only read the bill's that come through their comittee or that they sponsor. Otherwise they probably just look at the title and vote based on that.

Then this is a good case then why states should have a say. To prevent federal overreach, especially on federal actions that affect a big part of the citizens life. And especially on issues that congress do not bother to read and debate on the issue.

State legislatures do the same thing. Trust me I've seen it in person.

[Arcad]

Then this is a good case then why states should have a say. To prevent federal overreach, especially on federal actions that affect a big part of the citizens life. And especially on issues that congress do not bother to read and debate on the issue.

State legislatures do the same thing. Trust me I've seen it in person.

Which is why government sucks ass. We don't need them to take care of us, because they can't DO it right. We need a night watchman state- a minimal government that is prevented from growing. That'd fix it.