A Unicameral Legislature For Hawaii? (move, state, good)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TAM1972

I know what the problem is. You're confusing/conflating bi-cameral with two-party system. I hope my explanation has straightened you out, at least on that count.

To reiterate, I think going to a uni-lateral legislature would be horrible for Hawaii. The last thing the state should do is reduce/weaken any remaining checks & balances. In fact, if probably wouldn't be a bad idea to strengthen them if possible. Making structural changes to government as a band-aid for ineptitude/corruption (found in abundance) is a hugely-bad idea.

There isn't a person alive who doesn't, as you say, subscribe to any political, religious, social, or economic ideologies. Saying so, just makes one appear to be a liar.

What explanation? I haven’t confused anything. You submitted a pretty nasty post making numerous personal references (to me), which also revealed your partisan pov, conflating Hawaii unicameral potential with *democRAT*<sic> (your word) ideology. Do you deny that? And that it was edited out soon after? Now you want to position yourself as an educator? Heh.

There certainly are persons who live without ideological burdens.

[TAM1972]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What explanation? I haven’t confused anything. You submitted a pretty nasty post making numerous personal references (to me), which also revealed your partisan pov, conflating Hawaii unicameral potential with *democRAT*<sic> (your word) ideology. Do you deny that? And that it was edited out soon after? Now you want to position yourself as an educator? Heh.

There certainly are persons who live without ideological burdens.

No, if you believe in rights, if you believe in fair play, if you believe YOU have rights, you have ideology. IF you believe in live and let live, or kill' em all, you have ideology. Only those in a coma don't have an ideology, personal or otherwise..

I never said anything like unicameral was DemocRAT or RepubliCAN'T or anything like that You simply "mis-interpreted", no doubt deliberately, what I said. You have been corrected several times on it, but you still keep bobbing your head up and down, up and down.

I'll waste no more time or effort on you.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TAM1972

No, if you believe in rights, if you believe in fair play, if you believe YOU have rights, you have ideology. IF you believe in live and let live, or kill' em all, you have ideology. Only those in a coma don't have an ideology, personal or otherwise..

I never said anything like unicameral was DemocRAT or RepubliCAN'T or anything like that. Where you dug that up, I don't know. You have been corrected several times on it, but you still keep bobbing your head up and down, up and down.

I'll waste no more time or effort on you.

Oh you certainly did post a comment proposing that any Hawaii unicameral would be “democRAT” … and you are trying now to deftly dance around not admitting so. Yeah, fine. It’s gone.

That said (again), you just identified the essence of ideologies: all of which are founded in *belief* - as opposed to *knowledge based* living. *Beliefs* are unproven concepts based on faith - as opposed to *knowledge* which is based in science and logic. Not everyone lives *belief* based lives. Most do. Some don’t.

G’night

[TAM1972]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh you certainly did post a comment proposing that any Hawaii unicameral would be “democRAT” … and you are trying now to deftly dance around not admitting so. Yeah, fine. It’s gone.

That said (again), you just identified the essence of ideologies: all of which are founded in *belief* - as opposed to *knowledge based* living. *Beliefs* are unproven concepts based on faith - as opposed to *knowledge* which is based in science and logic. Not everyone lives *belief* based lives. Most do. Some don’t.

G’night

You get nothing correct, do you! That post is still there and it doesn't say what you mistakenly assert it says. But then if reading for comprehension was in play in your court, you'd know that.

Do I need to spoon-feed you?

BTW, in this era, any and all Hawaiian legislatures, uni or bi, will be run by DemocRATS. with a minority of RepublicCANT'S. I am surprised that that fact takes you by surprise.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TAM1972

You get nothing correct, do you! That post is still there and it doesn't say what you mistakenly assert it says. But then if reading for comprehension was in play in your court, you'd know that.

Do I need to spoon-feed you?

BTW, in this era, any and all Hawaiian legislatures, uni or bi, will be run by DemocRATS. with a minority of RepublicCANT'S. I am surprised that that fact takes you by surprise.

Lol … that post was edited, as I said. It does not include your original statements I refer to (speaking of spoon-feeding?).

But, keeping tossing in the personal attacks … that’ll make your point!

[TAM1972]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol … that post was edited, as I said. It does not include your original statements I refer to (speaking of spoon-feeding?).

But, keeping tossing in the personal attacks … that’ll make your point!

I often edit my posts to correct spelling issues. Sorry you can't process that, but there it is. If you are thinking I edited my post substantially in response to something YOU said, you flatter yourself unduly. Your postings simply don't rise to that level of significance.

You keep beating a dead horse, and that is fine, but you aren't going to get anywhere.

Why don't you try this.

I have cleared the air on any misunderstanding you might have had on this issue, and expressed my opinion on the proposed change, and the ”why” behind that opinion. Why don't you try to debate those, instead of beating the dead horse further - if you can! In other words, get back on topic.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TAM1972

I often edit my posts to correct spelling issues. Sorry you can't process that, but there it is. If you are thinking I edited my post substantially in response to something YOU said, you flatter yourself unduly. Your postings simply don't rise to that level of significance.

You keep beating a dead horse, and that is fine, but you aren't going to get anywhere.

Why don't you try this.

I have cleared the air on any misunderstanding you might have had on this issue, and expressed my opinion on the proposed change, and the ”why” behind that opinion. Why don't you try to debate those, instead of beating the dead horse further - if you can! In other words, get back on topic.

Lol again. It wasn’t a spelling issue. You, or moderators, removed a block of text and other personal references.

Now, that said (again), the reason I keep referring to that is because you continue to make this personal, including referencing how erudite you are in ‘schooling’ me. Fact is, your original text demonstrated your lack of understanding of unicameral bodies whilst going on a personal tack at me. And you persist even as I have not returned personal fire.

Now, you are of course as entitled to your opinion about the issue as anyone. What you are not entitled to, according to TOS, is responding with denigrations.

I didn’t express a preference one way or the other on the issue. I simply posted the link as *interesting to consider*. Now then: *consider* the issue all you want.

[TAM1972]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol again. It wasn’t a spelling issue. You, or moderators, removed a block of text and other personal references.

Now, that said (again), the reason I keep referring to that is because you continue to make this personal, including referencing how erudite you are in ‘schooling’ me. Fact is, your original text demonstrated your lack of understanding of unicameral bodies whilst going on a personal tack at me. And you persist even as I have not returned personal fire.

Now, you are of course as entitled to your opinion about the issue as anyone. What you are not entitled to, according to TOS, is responding with denigrations.

I didn’t express a preference one way or the other on the issue. I simply posted the link as *interesting to consider*. Now then: *consider* the issue all you want.

Whatever you say, old chum. Whatever you say.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by TAM1972

Whatever you say, old chum. Whatever you say.

Atta boy

[TAM1972]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Atta boy

I was a boy 60 years ago, FYI. How about we just call it a misunderstanding and leave it at that.