Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, profound impact might turn out to be the case, but the question of whether for better or worse would remain. Technology (if it is the gremlin) has not seemingly spurred very much interest at all in "exactly what laws our legislators are passing". Instead, it has spurred rabid interest in opposing the provisions of entirely imaginary laws that no lawmaker has proposed or would ever vote for. Dealing with the problems that we confront as a society will be difficult enough. Prospects only darken if we are expected to deal with random hordes of hyper-ventilating delusional people at the same time.
You see the glass as half-empty, I see it as half-full. Even those who are hyper-ventilating over imaginary provisions are engaged. The worst thing for a democracy is apathy. The majority of people do want to be knowledgable about these bills. That they've chosen to trust bad sources is a concern, but we need to examine the reasons why they make those trust choices. It's important for people on the left to recognize that there is a lack of objective media in this country. When we sell the news, we're marketing it. It's hard to objectively market any product. We also need to understand that some conservatives have sensible, rational arguments. Dismissing arguments out of hand because they are made by conservatives isn't part of the constructive debate that our system depends upon. I loathe racism, and find myself recoiling whenever I hear such remarks. And yet, there are racist Americans, who are going to express their ideas, and no matter how offensive I find those ideas, I have to defend their right to speak out. That's why the ACLU is defending Reverend Phelps. Not because they agree with his twisted tenets, but because we'd rather live in a country where light can be shined on these shadowy ideas, rather than in a country where shadowy ideas thrive underground and weaken the foundation of a nation. The internet is just another flashlight, casting light on these movements, allowing us an opportunity to rebut them. It's not the people speaking out that damage a democracy. It's the ones that give up.
i don't think that any citizen thinks that these politicians are writing these 1,000 plus page bills by themselves. in part, that is the problem.
They aren't writing any parts of any bills at all, except in relatively unusual situations. There are two groups who do nearly all of the legislative drafting -- staff and lobbyists. By the same token, if you go down to the library and pull out a copy of War and Peace, you will need to know that Tolstoy did not write a single word of any of the English found in it. All of that was written by a translator who took the words and ideas of Tolstoy and transcribed them into a different language. This is how the world works.
You see the glass as half-empty, I see it as half-full. Even those who are hyper-ventilating over imaginary provisions are engaged. The worst thing for a democracy is apathy. The majority of people do want to be knowledgable about these bills. That they've chosen to trust bad sources is a concern, but we need to examine the reasons why they make those trust choices. It's important for people on the left to recognize that there is a lack of objective media in this country. When we sell the news, we're marketing it. It's hard to objectively market any product. We also need to understand that some conservatives have sensible, rational arguments. Dismissing arguments out of hand because they are made by conservatives isn't part of the constructive debate that our system depends upon. I loathe racism, and find myself recoiling whenever I hear such remarks. And yet, there are racist Americans, who are going to express their ideas, and no matter how offensive I find those ideas, I have to defend their right to speak out. That's why the ACLU is defending Reverend Phelps. Not because they agree with his twisted tenets, but because we'd rather live in a country where light can be shined on these shadowy ideas, rather than in a country where shadowy ideas thrive underground and weaken the foundation of a nation. The internet is just another flashlight, casting light on these movements, allowing us an opportunity to rebut them. It's not the people speaking out that damage a democracy. It's the ones that give up.
The points are well-taken, as most will likely have become accustomed to in your posts. But there was no intent on my part to imply that conservative ideas about health care should be excluded from the debate. I work with many actual conservatives. Not a one of them however has ever raised a question over death panels. None has ever set his hair on fire and gone running about the room screaming "Socialism! Socialism!" Yet that is the spectacle we are treated to here every day -- and at tea parties, and through the antics of many of these Town Hall meeting maniacs, and in the regular rantings and harangues that emanate from disinformation media outlets. The quality of the democratic process is not improved in these displays any more than the water quality of a river is improved by dumping thousands of gallons of untreated toxic sludge into it every day. This crap is going to make some people sick. So I help fund both the ACLU and the Nature Conservancy. And I speak out when all that free speech produces is the vile acid of deliberate lies and distortions. In my view, those need to be sternly challenged no matter how full the glass might be...
They aren't writing any parts of any bills at all, except in relatively unusual situations. There are two groups who do nearly all of the legislative drafting -- staff and lobbyists. By the same token, if you go down to the library and pull out a copy of War and Peace, you will need to know that Tolstoy did not write a single word of any of the English found in it. All of that was written by a translator who took the words and ideas of Tolstoy and transcribed them into a different language. This is how the world works.
however, tolstoy did write the original book and translations from the russian are designated as translations.
our congressional representatives are paid by us to represent us, not lobbyists. (although i am sure that the lobbyists pay them more)
this may be how the world has worked, but i think things are changing.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,100,649 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
That is not true for a lot of voters. Many vote against a candidate by voting for the other candidate, even when they know that neither candidate represents them. They call it "voting for the lesser of two evils", but what they fail to comprehend is that method of voting only ensures that "evil" will be elected.
I do agree with you somewhat on this,but just like the last three elections,THAT'S what it comes down to...so you can vote and complain or not vote and shut up.
That's the choice I was forced into last election along with the rest of the nation ....THANK GOD the worse of the two evils lost last time though instead of the way it was in the two elections prior.
Given the problems California is having partially caused by voter initiatives, I'd rather not see the entire country start having them.
california's problems stem from inept running of the state, at all levels. they made bad decisions and ran their pension funds poorly, which are probably going to lose even more money. you can't blame the voters for this, since they had limited say in what the california legislature did.
We don't fear discussion. We've been discussing things, and doing so rather reasonably.
Calling the opposition thugs, wingnuts, bigots and racist is reasonable discussion? Answering only selected (planted) questions is reasonable? Not so with you, just prominent from the left wing.
Quote:
But you have made repeated blanket accusations that the people who disagree with you are the ones failing to compromise.
Has it occurred to you that is because it is true? The majority party now is openly discussing bulling through this bill without compromise because they can. They have no intention of seeking input. This is compromise?
Quote:
And yet I haven't seen any signs of compromise on your behalf. It's not meant as an attack on you, but it seems a fair observation, no?
No, not a fair observation. Re-read my posts. I have agreed that reform needs to occur, that there should be an open discussion and that it should be bi-partisan. If you feel that is not compromise, what would you consider it? Is it only compromise if there is total capitulation to the liberal side?
Get with the program. The vast majority of bills isn't even voted on. They pass under unanimous consent.
Get with the program, that is a method of voting. A bill is never passed without some sort of vote. Even you should know that.
Quote:
Meanwhile, those in Congress, particularly on the House side, hear thousands of times a day from their constituents. They maintain one or more offices in their home districts,
You mean like Barbara Boxer, who called the police on the seniors who came to her office in California to speak with her on health care? She had the police called because she didn't want to hear from them.
Usually, the congresscritters just ignore the voters.
Quote:
spend practically every waking hour of most House recesses touring around and talking to folks in those districts, and devote a very significant portion of their staff and office budgets to the matter of constituent services. This is what YOU call "avoiding".
Touring and really listening and reacting to their constituents are two vastly different things.
Define "significant portion of their staff". Most of their staff is in DC, not the offices at their alleged home states. That is what YOU call listening? Try to get in to see your congresscritter. Chances are you will be queried as to subject and, depending on that, a waiting time will be determined or you will be thanked for your input and sent away with nothing to show for your time.
Quote:
Even if it were the case that a townhall conversation consisted of exchanges with two genteel and well-informed spokespersons for different but still worthwhile points of view, one of those in the end would have to be ignored.
Ignored? Gee, that tells us what form of government you want. At the least, whether accepted or not, it is due consideration. Now look up the definition of "ignore".
[quote]
In the event of there being one such person on one side, and a gaggle of clueless screaming harpies and meemies ranting away on the other, why the choice of which side to ignore should be quite the simple one./QUOTE]
Once again you show that the only policy that you would agree with is your own personal one. Your opinions and judgments have always, to me, been suspect. Now they declare themselves as bigoted against anyone but you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
