reply to post by gwydionblack
You are missing it because you are IGNORANT!
By definition...ignorance is a lack of knowledge in a subject. So as I asked before...educate me if you think I am ignorant. So we are right back to
where we started...me asking you to show me what the hell you are talking about...and you dodging that question.
How is a "blind vote" legal and Constitutional?
See my post above...this self-executing procedural rule is perfectly legal and constitutional. It's a way for them to say...we deem it passed...but
would like ammendments to it. Now there is no guarantee those amendments will happen and it may go right to Obama as-is...but it is still a perfectly
legal procedure that has been used EXTENSIVELY by both parties in the past. So why the outrage now?
How is blatantly hiding decisions of our representatives for the sole fact that we the people can not see it rational and representative of our
interests?
If you would EDUCATE yourself and not be IGNORANT of the procedure yourself...you would know that you will know exactly how each and every member will
have voted on this rule. It's not hidden.
The second statement is true, but to claim that we aren't a democracy and aren't run by "mob rule" is just ludicrous
Mod rule would be looking at a non-accurate national poll of maybe 1000 people...taking the results of that and demanding that our representatives use
that as their guide.
OR...each representative listens to it's OWN constituents and votes accordingly. Do you have PROOF that any representative is directly going against
his/her constituents??? Has there been a district wide all inclusive vote in ANY district about the health care bill? Town halls aren't exactly a
scientific way of determining the voice of the people...by default you are going to get people how are against the way the representative is going to
vote then you would supporters. If they already know their rep is going to vote with what they support...what motivation do they have to go to a town
hall? To say what...."I agree"??? I know my representative is voting EXACTLY how I want them to. Not everyone in my district agrees with
that...but they don't need 100% approval...just the majority in THEIR DISTRICT...NOT A NATION WIDE TELEPHONE POLL.
So show me PROOF (not your opinion) that all the reps and senators that are voting "yes" to this have had district wide elections on the decision of
healthcare and that they are voting in the opposite direction.
Where do we draw the line?
No one seemed to have a problem with 112 times the repulicans used this self-executing rule in previous congresses (and that is only recent history).
So why are you drawing the line now??? Seems very hypocritical to me.
If your definition of true representation is anything close to what is happening today
What is happening today? Reps are voting in a way their constituents want...or will be voted out. Where is the flaw in that? If some right now are
not doing what their constituents want on this healthcare bill...they will most likely be voted out. Some dems are holding strong and saying they
won't vote because their district overwhelmingly don't like this bill...isn't that how it should work? If there was this big conspiracy that you
suggest...there wouldn't even be a question about it...all dems would be voting for this regardless of what their districts think. But that isn't
happening...you are seeing the system work...those who's districts support it are voting for it, those that don't are voting against, some my vote
for it whose districts don't support it...and it is the responsibility of that district to take action and vote that person out.
Seems like the system is working to me...how would you like to change it???
The fact that you consider freedom to be "vague" goes to show why you will never understand my definition of it. Freedom, by any definition
to me, is never vague.
"Freedom" is vague...when the slaves were "freed"...did they have "Freedom"??? Were women "free" directly after the revolution? You claim
that today you are not "free"...and yet others claim they are "free". Are you "free" compared to a women in Afganistan? Are women in
Afganistan today "free" compared to slaves in pre-civil war America? Are illegal immigrants "free" now...are they "free" if you would have your
revolution and deport all of them???
If it isn't vague...then simply give me the universal definition of "Freedom". You can end this discussion at any time...but you choose not to.