How about we start a new party, called the middle....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Believe, Apr 29, 2012.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,727
    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.
     
  2. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,727
    From her mouth.
    GOP Manufactures Controversy Over Pelosi Health Care Comment
    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?
    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.
    Yes. Ad nauseum.
    Is it written to spoof the public, in a new language never before seen in crafting laws? No. So yes.
    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?
    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.
    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?
     
  4. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    "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.
     
  5. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,642
    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.

    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 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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  6. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    "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.
     
  7. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    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.
     
  8. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,642
    Good, now how about answering the questions I have put to you. :)
     
  9. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Maybe try reading the other posts in this thread, #26 for instance.
     
  10. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,642
    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.
     
  11. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    I guess I have to spell it out for you then, I've already bowed out of the conversation. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Feel free to keep talking about it though!!!
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,727
    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.
     
  14. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    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
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,052
    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"?
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,285
    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.
     
  17. Billy T Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Fuel Moderator

    Messages:
    20,137
    How about we start a new party, called "kick the can down the road" - It already has >90% popular support.
     

Share This Page