We win the debate and health care is still going through?

[The T]

BINGO!

That's how our system works!

Except that people as a whole don't like change, and never seem to vote anyone out of office.

As Long as their Reps get their 'Sweetheart Deals" paid for by the Other States? No Shit.

I see talk of Succession by many...and outright insurrection by many I speak to daily. They're FED UP.

I support sucession as legal right of the states as a last ditch tool that prevents the federal government from encroaching on state sovriegnty or I believe in the Robert E. Lee's vision of a voluntary union.

When the Federal UNION causes the STATES to overreach their budgets as the FED is proposing to do, and even the FED cannot PAY for it...

WHAT are they to do? WHAT recourse have they when the 10th Amendment is so flagrantly violated?

 

[EriktheRed]

After being explained the bill, it is a majority that greatly approves the bill.Will pass despite Republicans in the morning.

Pretty much the point I've been trying to make.

 

[ihopehefails]

As Long as their Reps get their 'Sweetheart Deals" paid for by the Other States? No Shit.

I see talk of Succession by many...and outright insurrection by many I speak to daily. They're FED UP.

I support sucession as legal right of the states as a last ditch tool that prevents the federal government from encroaching on state sovriegnty or I believe in the Robert E. Lee's vision of a voluntary union.

When the Federal UNION causes the STATES to overreach their budgets as the FED is proposing to do, and even the FED cannot PAY for it...

WHAT are they to do? WHAT recourse have they when the 10th Amendment is so flagrantly violated?

Exactly, sucession is the last resort for preventing federal government abuses but its a LAST resort because being in a federal system keeps state governments from abusing its people. I think if my state left and declared itself a country our own state government would become just as bad simply because its the nature of absolute power.

 

[ihopehefails]

After being explained the bill, it is a majority that greatly approves the bill.Will pass despite Republicans in the morning.

Pretty much the point I've been trying to make.

Question: Why coudldn't it be explained before it gets passed?

Answer: because no one read it. And no one knows what is in it accept the people who wrote it which should make everyone a little concened.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes because the whole invention of representative democracy was created because none of us have time to sit in vote on every single thing so we elect people to do it for us. They in turn vote the way we would vote ourselves as if we were there because its our will that they do and not there will.

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

 

[Immanuel]

After being explained the bill, it is a majority that greatly approves the bill.Will pass despite Republicans in the morning.

Pretty much the point I've been trying to make.

Question: Why coudldn't it be explained before it gets passed?

Answer: because no one read it. And no one knows what is in it accept the people who wrote it which should make everyone a little concened.

Their explanations are lies in and of themselves. They claim to not want to eliminate the private insurer, but the public option part of the bill was written with the express intention of driving private insurers out of business.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

Sorry, I am not following you. They don't what?

Also, typically, we do vote for a person who initially seems to be willing to do what the people want, unfortunately, once they get to Washington and have played the game for a while corruption takes hold and they no longer give a damned what the people of their district want.

Hence, I am a strong proponent of Congressional term limits.

Immie

 

[The T]

But it's not just YOUR will. It's YOUR will along with everyone else in their district. Do you think that every senator should spend all of their time polling their district to find out what their district wants? Our system is based on the will of our representatives, and our individual votes should be based on which representatives will most matches my own.

And no, we are not a democratic republic because it takes too much time for everyone to vote. We are a democratic republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the average person to make a decision for themselves. See also the electoral college system.

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

Exactly. But then the system is geared to enforce this belief in government by design. And people aren't awakened until they have to answer unto their masters...

 

[Oscar Wao]

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

Exactly. But then the system is geared to enforce this belief in government by design. And people aren't awakened until they have to answer unto their masters...

Careful, the socialists will call you a racist for using such terms!

 

[Darkwind]

Except that our representatives are supposed to represent OUR will and not the lobbyists will. They are doing it backwards.

They should listen to their constituents. They are supposed to represent their constituents. They are not there to represent themselves or the railroad that wants to take over that large plot of land via eminent domain. They are supposed to represent the people of their district which means they are supposed to listen to the people of their district and vote accordingly.

Immie

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

Sorry, I am not following you. They don't what?

Also, typically, we do vote for a person who initially seems to be willing to do what the people want, unfortunately, once they get to Washington and have played the game for a while corruption takes hold and they no longer give a damned what the people of their district want.

Hence, I am a strong proponent of Congressional term limits.

Immie

They don't have to do what their constituents demand of them.

They run and get elected upon their own values. We vote for or against them because we agree with those values or not. No one agrees 100% of the time, but people should understand that about our form of government.

When an elected official backs off of a vote, they do so because they are afraid that they are going to lose the next election and that is the single greatest concern of every elected official. To get re-elected.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are willing to give up their majorities in Congress to pass this legislation. For Reid, that is going to cost him is job. For Pelosi, she'll get re-elected and keep her job because the people in San Francisco are about as stupid and crazy as any group of people can possibly be. The only thing she will lose is being speaker of the house. She will still make millions of dollars being where she is.

The only way we can even begin to stop the slow slide down to indentured servitude to the government is to begin to elect people who believe that government is not the answer. That in fact, people, while flawed, will do better on our own then to have a nanny state dictate to us what we will buy, what we will work at, what we will accept as entertainment, what we will accept as a suitable home.....etc., etc..

I'm afraid that what has been going on, bribery and all, has been part of the fabric of our government for over a century.

And we have allowed it to get to this point. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

 

[Oscar Wao]

True DW.

But you can't exactly put out someone that says "Government isn't the answer!" in the 21st century (where government dependence is worse than ever), and expect a win.

Think of a family intervention for a drug addict x 1 gazillion.

 

[Darkwind]

True DW.

But you can't exactly put out someone that says "Government isn't the answer!" in the 21st century (where government dependence is worse than ever), and expect a win.

Think of a family intervention for a drug addict x 1 gazillion.

But you can. You just have to be sure that the person you are voting for understands that if there is a need, that need must be answered at the state level. That the Federal Government does not exist to solve every whim, every problem. One just needs to point at the generational slavery that has been fostered upon us to pay off debts to the federal government for programs they have no Constitutional authority to be running.

The real problem is that our schools are teaching our children that the only answer is the Federal Government. The the Feds are the only possible answer. They no longer teach our children that we were once a proud country that helped the down-trodden and unfortunate among us without the help of the Feds. They no longer teach our children how to solve problems without taking another mans labor from him. We no longer teach ourselves how to be self reliant.

As long as people believe that it is their right to put their hand in the cookie jar and take out what they need, we are lost as a society.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

Sorry, I am not following you. They don't what?

Also, typically, we do vote for a person who initially seems to be willing to do what the people want, unfortunately, once they get to Washington and have played the game for a while corruption takes hold and they no longer give a damned what the people of their district want.

Hence, I am a strong proponent of Congressional term limits.

Immie

They don't have to do what their constituents demand of them.

They run and get elected upon their own values. We vote for or against them because we agree with those values or not. No one agrees 100% of the time, but people should understand that about our form of government.

When an elected official backs off of a vote, they do so because they are afraid that they are going to lose the next election and that is the single greatest concern of every elected official. To get re-elected.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are willing to give up their majorities in Congress to pass this legislation. For Reid, that is going to cost him is job. For Pelosi, she'll get re-elected and keep her job because the people in San Francisco are about as stupid and crazy as any group of people can possibly be. The only thing she will lose is being speaker of the house. She will still make millions of dollars being where she is.

The only way we can even begin to stop the slow slide down to indentured servitude to the government is to begin to elect people who believe that government is not the answer. That in fact, people, while flawed, will do better on our own then to have a nanny state dictate to us what we will buy, what we will work at, what we will accept as entertainment, what we will accept as a suitable home.....etc., etc..

I'm afraid that what has been going on, bribery and all, has been part of the fabric of our government for over a century.

And we have allowed it to get to this point. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

The way I see it is that they are supposed to represent the people of their districts. That is what Representative means. Each district should be electing representatives that hold the values of the people of the district. The representative should be voting in the interest of the district, not the interest of his or her party.

Immie

 

[Darkwind]

Sorry, I am not following you. They don't what?

Also, typically, we do vote for a person who initially seems to be willing to do what the people want, unfortunately, once they get to Washington and have played the game for a while corruption takes hold and they no longer give a damned what the people of their district want.

Hence, I am a strong proponent of Congressional term limits.

Immie

They don't have to do what their constituents demand of them.

They run and get elected upon their own values. We vote for or against them because we agree with those values or not. No one agrees 100% of the time, but people should understand that about our form of government.

When an elected official backs off of a vote, they do so because they are afraid that they are going to lose the next election and that is the single greatest concern of every elected official. To get re-elected.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are willing to give up their majorities in Congress to pass this legislation. For Reid, that is going to cost him is job. For Pelosi, she'll get re-elected and keep her job because the people in San Francisco are about as stupid and crazy as any group of people can possibly be. The only thing she will lose is being speaker of the house. She will still make millions of dollars being where she is.

The only way we can even begin to stop the slow slide down to indentured servitude to the government is to begin to elect people who believe that government is not the answer. That in fact, people, while flawed, will do better on our own then to have a nanny state dictate to us what we will buy, what we will work at, what we will accept as entertainment, what we will accept as a suitable home.....etc., etc..

I'm afraid that what has been going on, bribery and all, has been part of the fabric of our government for over a century.

And we have allowed it to get to this point. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

The way I see it is that they are supposed to represent the people of their districts. That is what Representative means. Each district should be electing representatives that hold the values of the people of the district. The representative should be voting in the interest of the district, not the interest of his or her party.

Immie

In an ideal world, that is what they would do. They are not required to however.

What can happen however is that if they do not support the values of their district, they can be voted out.

In My opinion, every person who currently holds an elected office should be voted out. Every one of them.

 

[The T]

Actually, they don't. We elect them because they most closely resemble the will of the majority in that district. We also allow them the free will to make choices for us.

Thats just how it works.

Elections have consequences.

What we can do, and given the hugely unpopularity of this legislation, is remove them from office.

What needs to be done is to support and vote for someone who will be willing to do what the people want and to repeal this law if it manages to get passed.

But we get what we deserve. Elect people who believe that government is the answer and you'll soon be a slave.

Exactly. But then the system is geared to enforce this belief in government by design. And people aren't awakened until they have to answer unto their masters...

Careful, the socialists will call you a racist for using such terms!

LOL...That's quite alright. They may tag me as they think they see fit...But I'm here to tell you? I tagged them first for what they are.

 

[Immanuel]

They don't have to do what their constituents demand of them.

They run and get elected upon their own values. We vote for or against them because we agree with those values or not. No one agrees 100% of the time, but people should understand that about our form of government.

When an elected official backs off of a vote, they do so because they are afraid that they are going to lose the next election and that is the single greatest concern of every elected official. To get re-elected.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are willing to give up their majorities in Congress to pass this legislation. For Reid, that is going to cost him is job. For Pelosi, she'll get re-elected and keep her job because the people in San Francisco are about as stupid and crazy as any group of people can possibly be. The only thing she will lose is being speaker of the house. She will still make millions of dollars being where she is.

The only way we can even begin to stop the slow slide down to indentured servitude to the government is to begin to elect people who believe that government is not the answer. That in fact, people, while flawed, will do better on our own then to have a nanny state dictate to us what we will buy, what we will work at, what we will accept as entertainment, what we will accept as a suitable home.....etc., etc..

I'm afraid that what has been going on, bribery and all, has been part of the fabric of our government for over a century.

And we have allowed it to get to this point. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

The way I see it is that they are supposed to represent the people of their districts. That is what Representative means. Each district should be electing representatives that hold the values of the people of the district. The representative should be voting in the interest of the district, not the interest of his or her party.

Immie

In an ideal world, that is what they would do. They are not required to however.

What can happen however is that if they do not support the values of their district, they can be voted out.

In My opinion, every person who currently holds an elected office should be voted out. Every one of them.

Isn't that what I said... "supposed to"?

I didn't say they had to.

For instance, hypothetically, a Republican Congressman represents a Florida Coastal district which stands to lose valuable coastal beaches if an off shore accident occurs. The Republican Party is strongly pushing to open up offshore drilling, but the people of the district want assurance that should an accident occur they will not have to foot the bill for clean up alone. The people of the district support an amendment proposed by a Democratic Congressman that protects coastal communities in case of a disaster and the people of the Republican's district support the amendment, but the Republican Party does not because it taxes oil rigs. Shouldn't the congressman represent the district rather than the party?

Immie

 

[Darkwind]

The way I see it is that they are supposed to represent the people of their districts. That is what Representative means. Each district should be electing representatives that hold the values of the people of the district. The representative should be voting in the interest of the district, not the interest of his or her party.

Immie

In an ideal world, that is what they would do. They are not required to however.

What can happen however is that if they do not support the values of their district, they can be voted out.

In My opinion, every person who currently holds an elected office should be voted out. Every one of them.

Isn't that what I said... "supposed to"?

I didn't say they had to.

For instance, hypothetically, a Republican Congressman represents a Florida Coastal district which stands to lose valuable coastal beaches if an off shore accident occurs. The Republican Party is strongly pushing to open up offshore drilling, but the people of the district want assurance that should an accident occur they will not have to foot the bill for clean up alone. The people of the district support an amendment proposed by a Democratic Congressman that protects coastal communities in case of a disaster and the people of the Republican's district support the amendment, but the Republican Party does not because it taxes oil rigs. Shouldn't the congressman represent the district rather than the party?

Immie

Yes. And in any agreement to allow offshore drilling, that should an accident actually occur, the drilling company would then be 100% responsible for cleaning up their own mess.

Wouldn't you say that was fair?

 

[xsited1]

Almost 2/3 of people oppose health care reform proposed by yet it is going through anyways. We win the debate and it still is getting done. This is not democracy. This is a dictatorship.

The elected Congress Critters know better than their constituents.

 

[Immanuel]

In an ideal world, that is what they would do. They are not required to however.

What can happen however is that if they do not support the values of their district, they can be voted out.

In My opinion, every person who currently holds an elected office should be voted out. Every one of them.

Isn't that what I said... "supposed to"?

I didn't say they had to.

For instance, hypothetically, a Republican Congressman represents a Florida Coastal district which stands to lose valuable coastal beaches if an off shore accident occurs. The Republican Party is strongly pushing to open up offshore drilling, but the people of the district want assurance that should an accident occur they will not have to foot the bill for clean up alone. The people of the district support an amendment proposed by a Democratic Congressman that protects coastal communities in case of a disaster and the people of the Republican's district support the amendment, but the Republican Party does not because it taxes oil rigs. Shouldn't the congressman represent the district rather than the party?

Immie

Yes. And in any agreement to allow offshore drilling, that should an accident actually occur, the drilling company would then be 100% responsible for cleaning up their own mess.

Wouldn't you say that was fair?

haha, come on it was a hypothetical!

And besides, yes, I would say that it was fair, but let me remind you that in politics, what is fair is always the last thing considered. Case in point the Healthcare bill going through congress right now.

Immie

 

[Darkwind]

Isn't that what I said... "supposed to"?

I didn't say they had to.

For instance, hypothetically, a Republican Congressman represents a Florida Coastal district which stands to lose valuable coastal beaches if an off shore accident occurs. The Republican Party is strongly pushing to open up offshore drilling, but the people of the district want assurance that should an accident occur they will not have to foot the bill for clean up alone. The people of the district support an amendment proposed by a Democratic Congressman that protects coastal communities in case of a disaster and the people of the Republican's district support the amendment, but the Republican Party does not because it taxes oil rigs. Shouldn't the congressman represent the district rather than the party?

Immie

Yes. And in any agreement to allow offshore drilling, that should an accident actually occur, the drilling company would then be 100% responsible for cleaning up their own mess.

Wouldn't you say that was fair?

haha, come on it was a hypothetical!

And besides, yes, I would say that it was fair, but let me remind you that in politics, what is fair is always the last thing considered. Case in point the Healthcare bill going through congress right now.

Immie

Of course.

Personal and Corporate responsibility are dead.

Have a good night.