This party instead of trying to push one agenda or another, will actually consider ALL the evidence and try to do what is right for the American people, realizing that that, and that alone is actually what's best for America. This party will also attempt to think in the long term, instead of the next election.

Thoughts??

It's hard to do. Everybody already *does* he or she considers all the evidence (or at least all the evidence that needs to be considered) in making political decisions. I would be stunned if liberals or conservatives on this forum came out and admitted that they only pay attetion to evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs (though, the long and the short of it is, that's what people who feel strongly political issues actually do).


The problem is that partisan's are not rational. Partisanship is an emotional reactions first and foremost, with rationality glommed on simply as a tool to help justify their pre-determined positions.

Evidence shows that partisans are highly susceptible to confirmation bias in how they evaluate evidence. So, if you started a "middle" party, liberals and conservatives would flock to it, until they saw you were taking positions contrary to what they preferred, and then they would complain that you were not looking at all the evidence, or were giving credence to evidence that is BS, or were failing to give due credence to evidence that is largely dispositive.

The second problem, assuming you want to set up a party for those who are "not liberal, not conservative, but balanced" is that there may not be that many of them. There are those (like libertarians) who are very conservative economically, for example, but for open borders, gay marriage and other liberal social positions. A lot of people identify that way. There are also those who are socially conservative, but economically liberal (many of whom vote for Democrats at the moment, as large sections of the poor sometimes break that way). I am not sure how large the group of "across the board moderates" would be.

I final challenge is that partisans are fueled by emotion, but you seem to be suggesting a party fueled by reason. Emotion will trump reason in several key ways. If I am purely reasonable, I will only vote with the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. In that calculus, my individual vote will never matter, as elections are almost never decided by "one" vote. That aside, my reasonable brain is more motivated by concerns like the weather than are the emotional people who will trudge through storms to not only get themselves to the polls, but to pick up voters and drive them to the polls. If my vote doesn't really net me more benefits than the costs, then imagine what a losing proposition political activism is.

So what you really need to find is people who are "passionate about moderation," so they will use that passion to fuel the political activity our country is driven by. That's a tough get.

It's hard to do. Everybody already *does* he or she considers all the evidence (or at least all the evidence that needs to be considered) in making political decisions. I would be stunned if liberals or conservatives on this forum came out and admitted that they only pay attetion to evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs (though, the long and the short of it is, that's what people who feel strongly political issues actually do).


The problem is that partisan's are not rational. Partisanship is an emotional reactions first and foremost, with rationality glommed on simply as a tool to help justify their pre-determined positions.

Evidence shows that partisans are highly susceptible to confirmation bias in how they evaluate evidence. So, if you started a "middle" party, liberals and conservatives would flock to it, until they saw you were taking positions contrary to what they preferred, and then they would complain that you were not looking at all the evidence, or were giving credence to evidence that is BS, or were failing to give due credence to evidence that is largely dispositive.

The second problem, assuming you want to set up a party for those who are "not liberal, not conservative, but balanced" is that there may not be that many of them. There are those (like libertarians) who are very conservative economically, for example, but for open borders, gay marriage and other liberal social positions. A lot of people identify that way. There are also those who are socially conservative, but economically liberal (many of whom vote for Democrats at the moment, as large sections of the poor sometimes break that way). I am not sure how large the group of "across the board moderates" would be.

I final challenge is that partisans are fueled by emotion, but you seem to be suggesting a party fueled by reason. Emotion will trump reason in several key ways. If I am purely reasonable, I will only vote with the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. In that calculus, my individual vote will never matter, as elections are almost never decided by "one" vote. That aside, my reasonable brain is more motivated by concerns like the weather than are the emotional people who will trudge through storms to not only get themselves to the polls, but to pick up voters and drive them to the polls. If my vote doesn't really net me more benefits than the costs, then imagine what a losing proposition political activism is.

So what you really need to find is people who are "passionate about moderation," so they will use that passion to fuel the political activity our country is driven by. That's a tough get.

How can they consider the evidence if they do not even read the bill they are signing? How many simply vote the party line without even checking?

The Obama health care is good example. The bill was at least 906 pages long, how many of them actually read the thing on both sides?

Nancy Pelosi had the rather famous quote to the effect of; pass the bill and you'll find out what's in it. WTF!!!!

I'm personally for some form of US health care and ultimately glad it passed but come on.

Depends, if a party is a group of like minded inderviduals do they all need to read every single bill. What is it inherently wrong to vote on most bills along party lines? Most legislation here at least goes through with bipartisan support and is non controversial, sure there are some screw ups like the bill which accidentally banned petrol stations from opening on good Friday but for the most part the system works well. Policy decisions are made by the party for most things which means that people can vote for a party with some idea of the policies that will be introduced if a particular party wins government. In theory this allows the parties to use experts to anylise bills which should minimise screwups. It also frees up local members to do the vital work they do in there community (which is a lot more than simply sitting in te parliament) and frees up minsters to run there departments

Depends, if a party is a group of like minded inderviduals do they all need to read every single bill. What is it inherently wrong to vote on most bills along party lines? Most legislation here at least goes through with bipartisan support and is non controversial, sure there are some screw ups like the bill which accidentally banned petrol stations from opening on good Friday but for the most part the system works well. Policy decisions are made by the party for most things which means that people can vote for a party with some idea of the policies that will be introduced if a particular party wins government. In theory this allows the parties to use experts to anylise bills which should minimise screwups. It also frees up local members to do the vital work they do in there community (which is a lot more than simply sitting in te parliament) and frees up minsters to run there departments

Except for the fact the when they sit in that chair there only job IS to vote on those bills. They are supposed to vote on them in way that is best for the country, not whats best for their state or their party. How can they possibly do that if they don't even read them for themselves??

Who said the party system ISN'T best for the country? The party develops policy which is put up by the parties to the public who then vote on which is the best for the country, that's the purpose of competitive politics. Otherwise why have parties at all? The system you are advocating is basically just a heep of independents which may work in your system but would be a disaster in ours where we need a constant stable goverment (look at what's happerning in the federal parliament currently because of the minority government). Government means the party which holds the majority of seats in the lower house (and can pass surply but since the constitutional crisis both parties have agreed not to block the budget)

How can they consider the evidence if they do not even read the bill they are signing? How many simply vote the party line without even checking?

The Obama health care is good example. The bill was at least 906 pages long, how many of them actually read the thing on both sides?

Nancy Pelosi had the rather famous quote to the effect of; pass the bill and you'll find out what's in it. WTF!!!!

I'm personally for some form of US health care and ultimately glad it passed but come on.

First just what is the "middle"? What is a "middle" position? To almost any Republican there is no "middle" everyone who disagrees with their ideology is a "liberal".

Two, are you advocating everyone read every piece of legislation that goes through Congress? Most people have jobs, families, school and other obligations that makes it unrealistic for them to do everything our legislators are supposed to do as well as all their normal activities like putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.

There has been so much misinformation spread about a number of issues, primarily by those that support and lead the Republican Party, the only way the average Joe and Jane is going to know what is in the Healthcare law is when the experience it. That is what Pelosi was saying. There are no death panels as Sarah Palin and other Republican/Tea Party leaders told people. It is not like the truth about healthcare reform has not been available. The entire bill has been published on line. A synopsis of the law has been published in many places. But most people would rather get their news/information predigested through the likes of Palin and Fox News.

What is needed is not another party. We have had numerous other parties. What we need is a good reliable honest source of information for voters. And people need to be better consumers of information and stop reacting to political ads. Voters need good honest information. Before the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" they could get that kind of information. But not today. Today they are being bombarded with constant streams of misinformation and outright lies - something you would not have seen under The Fairness Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

What is needed is a better informed voter. Who do they believe? They don't have time to read all of the legislation or get degrees in economics or business. They are busy living their lives.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, in its first incarnation, at the outset of the Obama campaign, arose out of the evidence that hospitals were dumping indigent patients out into the streets, to avoid the expense of giving them adequate treatment and release to survivable circumstances. Dumped patients were found dead from the cruelest of causes, such as dehydration and exposure.

What began as a corrective action to egregious harm and by overwhelming consensus of the voters who advocated for a health care bill - largely on account of these reports - became a bitter battle-to-the-death issue for the right wing, and the rest is history.

From this experience alone it's clear that evidence is of no value in determining what is best for America. As long as there are Americans who bury truth, deny history and disavow evidence, there will be no party, no platform, and no government that rises to the needs of the country. This is our self-imposed form of anarchy, one of marginal government, masquerading as a constitutional republic, the consequence of irreconcilable differences as old as the colonial period, and only delayed, not resolved, by the Civil War and the perennial strife that divides us. We are, in effect, a country perpetually at war with itself.

How can they consider the evidence if they do not even read the bill they are signing? How many simply vote the party line without even checking?

Congress relies on staffers to summarize the relevant parts of most bills and to provide analyses of the impacts. In general, there is no reason to assume that if the summary is unbiased that it will fail to contain "all the relevant information" since most bills have pages and pages of details that simply are not all that controversial. Obamacare is one example of that, in that the troubling ideas are (A) should we have federally mandated health insurance requirements and (B) how much should we trust the markets to handle the problem.

The details over whether an insurance plan needs to cover psychiatric counseling in order to qualify for purposes of avoiding the penalty, or the details of altering the tax code to require insurance reporting so that coverage and compliance can be checked...they are just not controversial in and of themselves once you buy into the concept of "mandated health insurance purchases."

In general, I think the demand that each member of Congress read each bill they vote for and never rely on summaries is a good idea if the goal is to restrict the number of bills passed each year (or if the goal is to subtly force them to write shorter less complicated bills). But I am not sure that is the goal we should be striving for (as opposed to smarter legislation).

Remember not every Congressman is a lawyer, and bills are written in legalese, especially bills that amend other bills. If you require each person to read and comprehend the bills they pass, then you make it very hard to ever elect a non-lawyer.

I do think it would serve us well, in contrast, if Congress were forced to attend every session and listen to the debates on these bills live. In part though, that is an emotional reaction to absentee Congressmen who only show up for formal votes and "controversial" debates.

Actually you do bring up one thing which parliament themselves brought up here and thats "plain english" legislation. If the courts are intelligent enough to follow the will of tr parliament and not demand stupid complicated terminology there is no reason why most bills can't be in plain English

Actually you do bring up one thing which parliament themselves brought up here and thats "plain english" legislation. If the courts are intelligent enough to follow the will of tr parliament and not demand stupid complicated terminology there is no reason why most bills can't be in plain English


Legalese is an interesting dialect of English, using terminology and syntax that it simply retyained from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. The rest of the language moved on, byu the lawyers did not. The reason it tends to evolve slowly is that case law interprets certain words and phrases in particular ways. So when you need to write the next statute or contract , sure you can put it in plain english...and hope that judge's still interpret it the same way they did the legalese version. Problem is, if you use different words, judges will be inclined to thing you *meant* something different.

So, if a judge in 1909 interpreted a clause in a man's will a certain way, and your (new) client in 1910 wants to do the same thing in his will, the *safe* thing to do is use the same words in exactly the same way. When 1911 comes along, the same thing happens, and so on until today. Eventually a certain clause becomes more or less standard. I have a partner who was screwed by a court because his lawyer forgot to include the words "and hold harmless" in the phrase list "Borrower agrees to indemnify [and hold harmless] the Lender from all costs, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, judgments, lawsuits, and other payments or expenses..." and it was based on just that sort of issue...that "hold harmless" has a lot of gloss on its meaning that has been added in the ancient past, so you omit it at your peril.

Statutes over rule precidet in all cases, so case law maybe like that but that shouldn't stop the parliament from using plain English in legislation especially as the first section is a set of definitions

First just what is the "middle"? What is a "middle" position? To almost any Republican there is no "middle" everyone who disagrees with their ideology is a "liberal".

Two, are you advocating everyone read every piece of legislation that goes through Congress? Most people have jobs, families, school and other obligations that makes it unrealistic for them to do everything our legislators are supposed to do as well as all their normal activities like putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.

There has been so much misinformation spread about a number of issues, primarily by those that support and lead the Republican Party, the only way the average Joe and Jane is going to know what is in the Healthcare law is when the experience it. That is what Pelosi was saying. There are no death panels as Sarah Palin and other Republican/Tea Party leaders told people. It is not like the truth about healthcare reform has not been available. The entire bill has been published on line. A synopsis of the law has been published in many places. But most people would rather get their news/information predigested through the likes of Palin and Fox News.

What is needed is not another party. We have had numerous other parties. What we need is a good reliable honest source of information for voters. And people need to be better consumers of information and stop reacting to political ads. Voters need good honest information. Before the repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" they could get that kind of information. But not today. Today they are being bombarded with constant streams of misinformation and outright lies - something you would not have seen under The Fairness Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

What is needed is a better informed voter. Who do they believe? They don't have time to read all of the legislation or get degrees in economics or business. They are busy living their lives.

The middle is as I said in the OP, they would not have a pre-existing agenda to push. They would simply take in the evidence available and try to do what is actually BEST for the country instead of walking some bull shit party line.

If you make $200,000+ a year to a congress person you should no other obligations other then your family. Seems to be a vacation now instead of a job.

I think we definetly need another party, each side has become extreame and again, both are more interested for voting with the party then for doing what is right for America, that is the problem.

Just allow for the voters to vote on any bill that comes up which way to go instead of those congresspeople. They should write the bill but we should decide if its what we want or what they want for us.

The middle is as I said in the OP, they would not have a pre-existing agenda to push. They would simply take in the evidence available and try to do what is actually BEST for the country instead of walking some bull shit party line.

What is best for the country? If I am coal producer, in my view, what would be good for the country is to increase coal demand and eliminate things like environmental and mine safety regulation. If I am a farmer, what is good for the country is to continue farm supports. Because should the nation ever need more food production, I can deliver. It's a matter of national safety.

The point is, there are many different views as to what is good for the country. Who is going to make the decisions as to what is best?



If you make $200,000+ a year to a congress person you should no other obligations other then your family. Seems to be a vacation now instead of a job.

I don't suppose you have some proof?



I think we definetly need another party, each side has become extreame and again, both are more interested for voting with the party then for doing what is right for America, that is the problem.

Please show me an example of an extreme position embraced by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Unless and until you change how our representatives are elected, adding an additional party will do nothing. Because you have done noting to change the incentive structure. Adding an additional party to the mix will not improve the quality of our legislators.

Your goal is noble. But your solution will not work. What is needed is to take the special interest money out of American politics. Elected representatives should be required to adhere to ethics rules most large American companies require of their employees. You can add all the parties you want. We already have many political parties. Adding another does nothing to change the way laws are passed in Washington. Until you change the motivation and ethics that drives decision making and empower the voter to make rational fact based decisions, nothing will change in Washington.

We need to eliminate the revolving door between industry and our elected officials. Elected officials and appointed officials should not be able to leave their government jobs and walk into multimillion dollar jobs working for those who have benefited for the legislative/regulatory actions while in government.

If you want good government, then you need to eliminate the effect of special interest money in our government. Unfortunately, we do have the best government that money can buy. Eliminating special interest money from our government will allow for that debate you claim to want to see in Washington.

As long as special interest money is allowed to spread misinformation, we will never get a government of and for the people. It will always be a government of and for the special interests.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3108688n

What is best for the country? If I am coal producer, in my view, what would be good for the country is to increase coal demand and eliminate things like environmental and mine safety regulation. If I am a farmer, what is good for the country is to continue farm supports. Because should the nation ever need more food production, I can deliver. It's a matter of national safety.

The point is, there are many different views as to what is good for the country. Who is going to make the decisions as to what is best?



I don't suppose you have some proof?



Please show me an example of an extreme position embraced by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Unless and until you change how our representatives are elected, adding an additional party will do nothing. Because you have done noting to change the incentive structure. Adding an additional party to the mix will not improve the quality of our legislators.

Your goal is noble. But your solution will not work. What is needed is to take the special interest money out of American politics. Elected representatives should be required to adhere to ethics rules most large American companies require of their employees. You can add all the parties you want. We already have many political parties. Adding another does nothing to change the way laws are passed in Washington. Until you change the motivation and ethics that drives decision making and empower the voter to make rational fact based decisions, nothing will change in Washington.

We need to eliminate the revolving door between industry and our elected officials. Elected officials and appointed officials should not be able to leave their government jobs and walk into multimillion dollar jobs working for those who have benefited for the legislative/regulatory actions while in government.

If you want good government, then you need to eliminate the effect of special interest money in our government. Unfortunately, we do have the best government that money can buy. Eliminating special interest money from our government will allow for that debate you claim to want to see in Washington.

As long as special interest money is allowed to spread misinformation, we will never get a government of and for the people. It will always be a government of and for the special interests.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3108688n

Pay proof:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PL%5B%3D%23P%20%20%0A

Only 174,000 so I was a little off, but still very much more then the average citizen, certainly enough to live comfortably. I actually thought this was commen knowledge. This figure also does not factor in other benifits such as health care, and them getting pensions for the rest of their life so the real cost of a congress person is higher.

Also, we have more then 2 parties? I could have sworn I only ever see 2 on the ballot, ever. The other parties at this point are a joke.

I think my solution would take care of your other points. Corperate money would cease to be an issue if the party voted on what was BEST (keyword) for the country, not whats best for their party or wallets.

Pay proof:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PL%5B%3D%23P%20%20%0A

Only 174,000 so I was a little off, but still very much more then the average citizen, certainly enough to live comfortably. I actually thought this was commen knowledge. This figure also does not factor in other benifits such as health care, and them getting pensions for the rest of their life so the real cost of a congress person is higher.

You seem to be missing the point. This is not what I asked for nor is it even the least bit germane, I asked for proof that President Obama had taken an extremist position. You claimed both parties had taken extremist positions. I asked for proof of same - not congressional salaries.



Also, we have more then 2 parties? I could have sworn I only ever see 2 on the ballot, ever. The other parties at this point are a joke.

The fact that you may not have seen another party on the ballot does not mean they do not exist. We have two "Independents" serving in the Senate. And we have the Libertarian Party, not to mention a whole host of other smaller parties that do not get much attention. What makes you think that adding another one will do anything? What makes you think that the existing parties will play nice with another party? What makes you think voters will vote for another party?



I think my solution would take care of your other points. Corperate money would cease to be an issue if the party voted on what was BEST (keyword) for the country, not whats best for their party or wallets.

You seem to be quite young and inexperienced with the world. What makes you think that suddenly, magically, we are all going to change our ways with the advent of another party? And again, how are you going to get voters to vote for your new party? How are you going to prevent the damage caused by the storm of ads that will be unleashed by special interests against your new party? How are you going to fund your new party? How are you going to end the deception that is integral to our current political structure? How are you going to convince voters that your party is the "rational" party especially when the accusations of "death panels" and the "swift boat" ads start flying? How are you going to react when Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, et al. start calling you socialist commie fascists day after day? And how is that different from what Democrats have done? You don't think voters are voting now based on what they think is best? You don't think our elected officials are voting for what they think is best? Take some time and think about this before you respond. And answer the questions I have asked, not the questions you wish I had asked.

List of American Political Parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

You seem to be missing the point. This is not what I asked for nor is it even the least bit germane, I asked for proof that President Obama had taken an extremist position. You claimed both parties had taken extremist positions. I asked for proof of same - not congressional salaries.



The fact that you may not have seen another party on the ballot does not mean they do not exist. We have two "Independents" serving in the Senate. And we have the Libertarian Party, not to mention a whole host of other smaller parties that do not get much attention. What makes you think that adding another one will do anything? What makes you think that the existing parties will play nice with another party? What makes you think voters will vote for another party?



You seem to be quite young and inexperienced with the world. What makes you think that suddenly, magically, we are all going to change our ways with the advent of another party? And again, how are you going to get voters to vote for your new party? How are you going to prevent the damage caused by the storm of ads that will be unleashed by special interests against your new party? How are you going to fund your new party? How are you going to end the deception that is integral to our current political structure? You don't think voters are voting now based on what they think is best? You don't think our elected officials are voting for what they think is best? Take some time and think about this before you respond. And answer the questions I have asked, not the questions you wish I had asked.

List of American Political Parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

I think you need to re-read your own post because you quoted my remark about the 200,000+ pay then asked for proof.

Also, you must be young and inexperienced if you think any of the other parties are more then a joke. There maybe 100's of parties but if they don't even get .01% of the vote are they more then a joke??? Don't even get started on the tea party because their congressional canidates are still in as republicans, and still vote with republicans.

Of course my system won't work if the people don't fucking stand up for themselves, just like anything else. Why on earth whould it have to be "magical" instead of a logical progression? Did I ever say it would be instant or easy?

You however don't seem to grasp that America is waking up to the hipocrisy of the 2 party system. Change is on the horizon one way or another. I am simply stating one way this change that I believe could work. It is unlikely I admit.

They elected officials do not vote for what they think is best, they vote for whatever their party tells them to vote. Again, if they don't even read the bill they are voting on how could they possibly know one way or another what is best.

As far as the democrates voting on something extreme, do you not feel that the passing of the health care bill was exteme? Especially since the a large of number of them didn't even know that they were voting for? You don't think that a land mark bill such as this should have thoroghly explained to the American people BEFORE it was voted on, rather then after?

How can they consider the evidence if they do not even read the bill they are signing? How many simply vote the party line without even checking?

For well over 2 years, they knew the original plan would:

. . . guarantee eligibility, provide coverage similar to the federal employee health insurance program, offer “affordable” premiums, co-pays and deductibles; and allow enrollees to keep their coverage when they change jobs. He would introduce a requirement for all children to have health insurance and pledges to expand eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Businesses that do not provide insurance to their employees would be assessed a fee based on a percentage of their payroll. His plan would allow states to continue developing their own reform plans. He would also make employer health plans eligible for reimbursement of catastrophic costs provided the savings would be used to offset employee premiums. Obama also pledges to support disease prevention programs, promote quality and cost transparency and reform medical malpractice insurance.
That's from the first campaign era, 2007.

They had about 2-1/2 years to learn this, and to catch up with the incremental changes it went through as Republicans stonewalled, chewed up and and spit out what they didn't want.

The appearance of a rush at the end was the result of final decision to put an end to the stonewalling.

I think that to recast this story in any other light is to engage in revisionism.

Nancy Pelosi had the rather famous quote to the effect of; pass the bill and you'll find out what's in it. WTF!!!!

Incidentally, that's not what she said, but a redaction of what she said, by the liars at Fox News.

She was referring to the cloud of controversy that Republicans erected which made it virtually impossible to state the bill's provisions without ending up in heated debate.

She never suggested that they should pass it without reading it. If you're not a Republican, you certainly are vulnerable to their propaganda.

I guess I should add that you have just demonstrated the reason that we cannot have a government that is based on truth and evidence.

Incidentally, that's not what she said, but a redaction of what she said, by the liars at Fox News.

She was referring to the cloud of controversy that Republicans erected which made it virtually impossible to state the bill's provisions without ending up in heated debate.

She never suggested that they should pass it without reading it. If you're not a Republican, you certainly are vulnerable to their propaganda.

The video of her saying it is available online with no cuts in the video (however I do admit that I could not find it without a faux news logo beneith it) . I'm not sure where you get that from. It may have taken out of context to an extent, but my greivence with the process remains the same. The american people should have been told about it in detail before it went to a vote, not after. Was the bill itself made publically available before it was voted on? If so is written in way normal people can understand it (no). Personally I am glad it passed, but it should have done with an informed public.

No way in hell I'm going to vote for the corperations are people too party, but the democrats are no picnic either.

I think we need to just get rid of every single congressional incumbant (supreame court too) and start fresh.

The video of her saying it is available online with no cuts in the video (however I do admit that I could not find it without a faux news logo beneith it) .


We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it away from the fog of the controversy


I'm not sure where you get that from.

From her mouth.


It may have taken out of context to an extent

GOP Manufactures Controversy Over Pelosi Health Care Comment (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201003100005)


but my greivence with the process remains the same.

If you don't grieve what the Republicans did to stonewall and sabotage the Affordable Health Care Act, then how does that satisfy the challenge you raise in the OP? If you don't grieve propaganda, how will you ever reach the truth of the evidence you speak of?


The american people should have been told about it in detail before it went to a vote, not after.

Here you are echoing Republican propaganda. Where were you between July, 2009, when the first version was introduced, and March, 2010, when it became law? The details were all over the web daily.


Was the bill itself made publically available before it was voted on?

Yes. Ad nauseum.


If so is written in way normal people can understand it (no).

Is it written to spoof the public, in a new language never before seen in crafting laws? No. So yes.


Personally I am glad it passed, but it should have done with an informed public.

You are demonstrating my proposition that we are at war with ourselves. You are reciting Republican propaganda. The public was informed by the sources it chose. Those who sought propaganda got propaganda. Those who sought best evidence got best evidence. Now: how do you create an informed public, when a vast sector is immersed in propaganda?


No way in hell I'm going to vote for the corperations are people too party, but the democrats are no picnic either.

Yes, I gathered you support neither party. From your comment that you support health care (a Democratic contribution) but you oppose the hysteria and confusion over its contents (a Republican contribution), then you might be a prime example of my proposition that we can not have truth and evidence in government as long as the Republican propaganda mill controls ideas such as yours. You are apparently not aware that you swallowed propaganda, believing it to be factual.


I think we need to just get rid of every single incumbant (supreame court too) and start fresh.
That's what they said in the last Congressional election and look where it got us - another prolonged crisis over shutting down the Treasury, this time with a hit on the US credit rating. Clearly that never would not have happened if the incumbents had been left in place. "Out with the bums" was successful in 2008, because it targeted actual bums. In 2010 it was a cop out, targeting the good guys, out of the belief that the propagandists had found some more "bums".

Incidentally, you would need to amend (or re-write) the Constitution to change the way the Supreme Court justices are removed from the bench. The former takes 2/3 approval by the House and Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. The latter may require a new constitutional convention. In a country that can't even agree on minor issues, as to what someone said, or what happened, or what a document contains, what do you think the odds are that we will ever see something as big as a constitutional amendment - or convention - anytime soon?

"Incidentally, you would need to amend (or re-write) the Constitution to change the way the Supreme Court justices are removed from the bench. The former takes 2/3 approval by the House and Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. The latter may require a new constitutional convention. In a country that can't even agree on minor issues, as to what someone said, or what happened, or what a document contains, what do you think the odds are that we will ever see something as big as a constitutional amendment - or convention - anytime soon?"

Never, I wasn't aware that it was so hard. But I'm sure the things that I'm not aware of could fill a library.

I think you need to re-read your own post because you quoted my remark about the 200,000+ pay then asked for proof.

I like your selectivity. :) The portion that I asked you to prove was this, "Seems to be a vacation now instead of a job". Do you have proof?

Additionally, I asked you several times now to identify and extreme position taken by Democrats and specifically President Obama. You have not been able to do so.



Also, you must be young and inexperienced if you think any of the other parties are more then a joke.

By the way, I am 57 years old. I have been in the business world since graduation from college. So I have some experience with organizations and organizational behaviors.



There maybe 100's of parties but if they don't even get .01% of the vote are they more then a joke??? Don't even get started on the tea party because their congressional canidates are still in as republicans, and still vote with republicans.

Did I mention Tea Party? No. Again my question is how is your new party going to solve anything as you have professed? How is your new party dedicated to "rational' policy going to be different from any of the scores of other parties dedicated to what they view as "rational" policy?



Of course my system won't work if the people don't fucking stand up for themselves, just like anything else. Why on earth whould it have to be "magical" instead of a logical progression? Did I ever say it would be instant or easy?

So they are not standing up for themselves now? What are they doing then when the go to the voting booth or contribute to candidates and parties of their choice?

Did I say you said, instant? No I didn't. What I am looking for from you is some sort of "logical progression". How is your new party going to be any different? And you have not answered any of the many questions I previously posited to you about your new party solution.

The bottom line here, is unless the rules change in how officials are elected and how they conduct themselves while in and out of office, nothing will change no matter how many parties exist. Because special interest money will continue to control the information and the political dialogue and motivations.



You however don't seem to grasp that America is waking up to the hipocrisy of the 2 party system. Change is on the horizon one way or another. I am simply stating one way this change that I believe could work. It is unlikely I admit.

And what hypocrisy would that be exactly? And where is this new party? Are you referring to the Tea Party? It surely didn't get very far before being folded into the Republican Party.

Here is the bottom line, until you change the way information flows, and the rewards system, nothing changes no matter how many parties exist. I have already shown you that we have many parties in this country, much more than the two parties you have claimed. But two parties are the dominate parties. Ask yourself why. Why is it we have only two dominate parties? Is there a law that says we can have only to dominate parties?



They elected officials do not vote for what they think is best, they vote for whatever their party tells them to vote. Again, if they don't even read the bill they are voting on how could they possibly know one way or another what is best.

How do you know they don't read the legislation? If they only voted the way their party told them, then why did not all Democrats not vote for the healthcare reform law? And why did some Republicans vote for the healthcare reform law?

Per our Constitution if voters do not like the way their representatives vote they can oust them every two years (e.g House of Representatives).



As far as the democrates voting on something extreme, do you not feel that the passing of the health care bill was exteme? Especially since the a large of number of them didn't even know that they were voting for? You don't think that a land mark bill such as this should have thoroghly explained to the American people BEFORE it was voted on, rather then after?

Again I ask you do you know "a large number of them didn't even know what they were voting for?" I personally doubt that. Do you think our representatives should take a test on the material they vote on to prove their subject matter knowledge before they vote?

The healthcare bill was thoroughly explained to the American people before it was voted on. As per my previous posts, the bill was publicly posted in detail and a synopsis was posted as well. Are you advocating testing of all Americans before congress votes on a major piece of legislation? Under our system of law, we cannot make people listen.

In any case none of this makes the healthcare law extreme in any sense. Now how about answering the rest of my questions regarding your new "rational" party solution to the nation's ills.

"You are demonstrating my proposition that we are at war with ourselves. You are reciting Republican propaganda. The public was informed by the sources it chose. Those who sought propaganda got propaganda. Those who sought best evidence got best evidence. Now: how do you create an informed public, when a vast sector is immersed in propaganda?"

You may speak a truth here that I had not realized. I have emmersed myself in the repulican retoric in what I thought was a know thy enemy strategy. Is it possible that I have been subconsously subverted, the mechanism of which would be in believing the democratic party to be weak, instead of fair? This is something I must ponder, thank you.

I like you selectivity. :) The portion that I asked you to prove was this, "Seems to be a vacation now instead of a job". Do you have proof?

Additionally, I asked you several times now to identify and extreme position taken by Democrats and specifically President Obama. You have not been able to do so.



My guess is you are about 13-14. Am I correct? By the way, I am 57 years old. I have been in the business world since graduation from college. So I have some experience with organizations and organizational behaviors.



Did I mention Tea Party? No. Again my question is how is your new party going to solve anything as you have professed? How is your new party dedicated to "rational' policy going to be different from any of the scores of other parties dedicated to what they view as "rational" policy?



So they are not standing up for themselves now? What are they doing then when the go to the voting booth or contribute to candidates and parties of their choice?

Did I say you said, instant? No I didn't. What I am looking for from you is some sort of "logical progression". How is your new party going to be any different? And you have not answered any of the many questions I previously posited to you about you new party solution.

The bottom line here, is unless the rules change in how officials are elected and how they conduct themselves while in and out of office, nothing will change no matter how many parties exist. Because special interest money will continue to control the information and the political dialogue.



And what hypocrisy would that be exactly? And where is this new party? Are you referring to the Tea Party? It surely didn't get very far before being folded into the Republican Party.

Here is the bottom line, until you change the way information flows, and the rewards system, nothing changes no matter how many parties exist. I have already shown you that we have many parties in this country, much more than the two parties you have claimed. But two parties are the dominate parties. Ask yourself why. Why is it we have only two dominate parties? Is there a law that says we can have only to dominate parties?



How do you know they don't read the legislation? If they only voted the way their party told them, then why did not all Democrats not vote for the healthcare reform law? And why did some Republicans vote for the healthcare reform law?

Per our Constitution if voters do not like the way their representatives vote they can oust them every two years (e.g House of Representatives).



Again I ask you do you know "a large number of them didn't even know what they were voting for?" I personally doubt that. Do you think our representatives should take a test on the material they vote on to prove their subject matter knowledge before they vote?

The healthcare bill was thoroughly explained to the American people before it was voted on. As per my previous posts, the bill was publicly posted in detail and a synopsis was posted as well. Are you advocating testing of all Americans before congress votes on a major piece of legislation? Under our system of law, we cannot make people listen.

In any case none of this makes the healthcare law extreme in any sense. Now how about answering the rest of my questions regarding your new "rational" party solution to the nation's ills.

I'm 30 thank you very much. Why does it matter to you? Whether I'm 3 or 80 by statements are still what they are, reguardless of my age.

I'm 30 thank you very much. Why does it matter to you? Whether I'm 3 or 80 by statements are still what they are, reguardless of my age.

Good, now how about answering the questions I have put to you. :)

Good, now how about answering the questions I have put to you. :)

Maybe try reading the other posts in this thread, #26 for instance.

I am not reciting Republican propaganda - anything but. What needed is not more of the same. What is needed to change the rules - change the behaviors.

I am not reciting Republican propaganda - anything but. What needed is not more of the same. What is needed to change the rules - change the behaviors.

I guess I have to spell it out for you then, I've already bowed out of the conversation. :rolleyes:

Feel free to keep talking about it though!!!

"You are demonstrating my proposition that we are at war with ourselves. You are reciting Republican propaganda. The public was informed by the sources it chose. Those who sought propaganda got propaganda. Those who sought best evidence got best evidence. Now: how do you create an informed public, when a vast sector is immersed in propaganda?"

You may speak a truth here that I had not realized. I have emmersed myself in the repulican retoric in what I thought was a know thy enemy strategy. Is it possible that I have been subconsously subverted, the mechanism of which would be in believing the democratic party to be weak, instead of fair? This is something I must ponder, thank you.

Thanks for your reply. Here you are demonstrating what this country needs most in its political discourse: a cool head, polite speech and respect for other folks' opinions.

Giving credit where credit is due, I should add that your idea of bringing the country together is one of the highest ideals we can have as a nation, recognizing that our fate depends upon cooperation.

Thanks for your reply. Here you are demonstrating what this country needs most in its political discourse: a cool head, polite speech and respect for other folks' opinions.

Giving credit where credit is due, I should add that your idea of bringing the country together is one of the highest ideals we can have as a nation, recognizing that our fate depends upon cooperation.

I'm a scientist what can say. Sometimes you learn more interesting things when you're wrong then you do when you're right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_Putty

You still haven't addressed one critical point, why do you think that the party shouldn't decide what bills are voted on which way. I don't know about your country but here people vote for a party for the most part and it's the party which puts out the policy platform so why shouldn't people vote along party lines? Again What makes your system any different from a congress of just independents? What is the purpose of having a party in the first place. If you want to run as an independent you can so what would be the purpose of "The middle party"?

This party instead of trying to push one agenda or another, will actually consider ALL the evidence and try to do what is right for the American people, realizing that that, and that alone is actually what's best for America. This party will also attempt to think in the long term, instead of the next election.

They will be no different than any other party.

Let's say they do all the research and decide that climate change is a threat. They will immediately be labeled as trying to force their environmentalist agenda down everyone's throat. The oil companies will claim their funding comes from rich anti-business interests and that Al Gore is behind this, trying to make a buck. The republicans will claim that they are harming Americans with their efforts to drive gas prices up. And they will retaliate.

Business as usual.

How about we start a new party, called "kick the can down the road" - It already has >90% popular support.