Bless you Senator Scott Brown

Post Reply New Topic

HEY! Sand wrote?[/quote]
_______________________
to all concerned, please accept my humble apologies, for i am technologically challenged [yes, there are aspies like me who can't think their way 'round a 'puter]
and i don't know how this GD thing (replies) works yet- i just pushed buttons. cut us tech-addled types some slack, por favor:+)

lame humor:
Q-what did the elephant say to the naked man?
A-"how d'ya breathe through that thing?"

Massholes self-describe as such. Especially us around Boston.



No, the reason congress is here is so that every state gets to voice ITS OWN opinion. If Mass. doesn't want to pay for national healthcare reform, we have a right to elect senators and congressmen who will support that view on the national level. That's the system that's been in place for almost 250 years.

Until recently, the Democrats had a supermajority, meaning if the party wanted to pass something, it'd be passed unconditionally. Now, they STILL have the majority in the senate, but they have to actually WORK to push it through. That's why it was so disconcerting that people from outside the state were trying to influence the election: it's OUR election, where we choose the views WE want represented in Washington. Our election isn't EVERYONE ELSE's easy way out.

If other states want healthcare reform, I can only suggest that they enact such bills on the STATE level. I know the men in DC want to think that what's good for one group is good universally, but the country is so diverse in ideals (part of the reason we all have representatives) that not everyone has the same needs. Political divides are as sharp as state lines, which is part of the reason why states are allowed some autonomy from the federal government.




In need of a reform to the STATE program!

In need of a reform to the STATE program![/quote]
__________________________
in my state, the repubs have long-stated that they would totally eliminate the basic health program if they had their way. i am sure that in your great state of mass. the repubs would do exactly the same thing, given the slightest economic excuse. your gop ex-gov was just a historical rarity of a man of good will in power who wanted to help the lesser classes on this issue.
you perhaps have had a comparatively fortunate life with no poverty, but for many years i've had no access to health care outside the ER [totally unjust state of affairs that the poor should get only the most bankrupcy-inducing healthcare], until this state passed the basic health program. doubtless you consider it a cliché, but imagine oneself in another's shoes.

The individual has no need to consider others when voting. If enough people have had experiences like yours and are convinced that universal healthcare is the way to go, they'll elect people who support it into public office and it'll pass into law, whether I like it or not. But if I don't want it, I won't vote for it, simple as that. I don't care if I'm in the majority, I don't care if I'm in the minority, I'll use my vote for what I believe in, not what the loudest party believes in. I can vote 3rd party and when my candidate isn't elected, I'll still know that I stood up for what I believed in.

_________________
whatever.

Extreme egoism runs counter to democracy, which is by its nature a collectivist ideology. You have to consider the effect upon society as a whole.


Bah, yet another led astray by the illusion of "letting your voice be heard." No one listens to the vote. You have made no stand by casting an impotent vote for some fringe candidate.

This isn't a true democracy, it's a republic, meaning that the opinion of EACH individual ego (expressed as a vote) should average out to satisfy the largest number of people.



No foolin? Everyone can't have their opinion expressed in full in a government this size, that's why we have a system of elected officials. A vote's a simplification of opinion, a way of saying "Generally I agree with X" I'm not going to compromise what little say I have in government because I want to feel like I won something.

Oh? And can you tell me how a republic differs from a democracy?


You missed my point. You have exactly 0 say in government.

A republic means that power is delegated to elected officials, rather than controlled directly by the people.



I realize I don't have a say in government, that's why it's not a true democracy. I elect the ideal candidate of a limited few who best represents the action I'd like to see taken on a government level.

No, that's just a representative democracy.


Still missing my point. You don't elect anyone. At what point in your life have you ever cast a decisive vote in any election?

1 - If he has no say in government, why are you critiquing his voting choices, rather than his decision to vote or care about politics in any way?

2 - He does *not* have 0 say in government. He has a very small but non-zero say in government. And the more local the government, the larger that non-zero say gets.

No one does. Yet voters still vote, and the will of the voters gets done. Just not the will of one individual voter.

Occasionally.

No one person can change the outcome of an election, and that's not what I'm trying to suggest. It's about the COLLECTIVE opinion of the population - the candidate backed by the largest number of people wins. I won't always be in the majority, but there's not much I can do about that - if more people want a certain candidate, he'll get elected, and there's nothing I can do but say that I made a choice, no matter how insignificant it is to the larger picture.

I disagree. If a person goes around convincing other people to vote for their candidate of choice, they can change the outcome. It may not be one person changing the outcome on their own, but it is one person changing the outcome.

In a Democracy a majority can cancel out a right. It takes more than that in a Republic. Theoretically, in a Republic the Law rules. In a Democracy the mob rules.

ruveyn