that's why I said, 'or listen to people who do'



you can't write legislation in plain language -- you have to spell out every conceivable way the bill could be misinterpreted so that corporations can't get around the intent of the legislation -- it's a preventative measure

and for understanding exactly HOW the bill could be misused if it WERE written in plain language, who better than lawyers to predict that and write it in such a way that it could NOT be misused?

also, where are you getting your facts about the bill being written by the lawyers of the health insurance companies?


a constitutionalist is someone who believes the government should exist according to the original constitution -- even in cases where 'we the people' amended the constitution to protect the rights of people who weren't covered under the original constitution

a libertarian is someone who believes corporations and business should not be regulated (like democrats try to do), but neither should people's behavior be regulated (like republicans try to do)

the reason I boiled down the positions of all the groups the way I did is because each group has many attributes, and I believe I picked the one that defines the group the most -- that is, the description of the group that fits the most people in the group


most conservative republicans ARE against legalizing it, and gays, and other moral issues -- and all the other stuff you said -- but that's mainly because the Republican party has been hijacked by the far right -- ACTUAL conservative republicans fall into two groups -- rich ones and everyone else -- the rich ones are only pro-business and for the most part, aside from not wanting black people and hippies (or anyone that doesn't own a boat) running wild, they don't give a shit about people -- they only pretend to be pro-life and pro-gun, anti-gay and anti-abortion so they can get votes -- the poor folks actually DO believe in all the pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion shit -- which is why they vote Republican

it's sad too, they are voting to have industrial waste dumped in their backyards, to have all their money stolen from them, their manufacturing jobs shipped overseas -- all because they think all Democrats want to hand out abortions like ice cream cones and put everyone in reeducation camps and turn everyone gay... to be fair though, some of them cannot bring themselves to vote for Democrats because even though they may totally disagree with everything else the Republicans stand for -- at least they're anti-abortion... or at least they pretend to be...

I think the Democrats should drop their pro-choice stance from their platform

another interesting tidbit -- there's an element of racism here -- why do almost all poor black folks vote Democrat and almost all poor white folks vote Republican?

I think it's because poor black folks are smart enough to know that the Republicans don't like them, and won't fight for them, and the poor white folks just don't want to be in the same party as black folks... I have a lot of firsthand knowledge of poor white folks -- most of them are racists

so in a sense, poor white folks are getting what they deserve voting for Republicans -- I just feel bad for the poor black folks living in places where they are outnumbered by racist poor white folks, and for the poor white folks in the same places that aren't racist and know better than to support Republicans -- because those people have it the worst in this country -- living in places where the Republicans are in charge... allowing companies to dump toxic waste... rape the land drilling for oil and natural gas... steal all the best land... poor people in those areas have by far the highest incidences of cancer and many other diseases than anywhere else in the country

You can accuse me of many things, but one thing you can't accuse me of is watching cable news.  I tend to go the C-SPAN route if I have to, but I truly prefer print media to television.  There's less of a tendency entertain when it comes to newspapers and that's my main source.  Where did you get the idea that I did anyway?


I just talk to a lot of people, the people who I refer to as the real America.  That's why I prefer these discussions than watching the 'experts'.  No one that I talk to really knows much about it nor thinks it's very clear, and that's the % that I go by.  Your quote from the bill proves that it's not clear.  You CAN'T read the bill because of how it's written.  And that quote....the whole bill is pretty much like that.  It's obvious it wasn't written by a politician elected by the people, but a team of attorneys who are looking out for the industry who hired them.  As for being a Red Herring, making the print smaller isn't going to simplify the bill, which contains more words than War and Peace.  The reason I have a problem with the bill being long is the issue of transparency.  Passing it and amending it later may be how politics work in Washington, and maybe Pelosi is being realistic and I'm romanticizing the way I'd like to see clarity in legislature, but my gripe is that that's not how our government SHOULD work.


Your second post has some interesting numbers, but I'm not sure I like how your descriptions.  To say a conservative republican is someone who wants people to fend for themselves I feel describes the Constitutionalists/Libertarians.  A conservative republican, I feel, is against the legalization of cannabis, gay rights, and other moral issues, and loves these naked body scanners and cameras at every intersection in the name of public safety, in that regard APPRECIATES big government.  The conservative republican is also somewhat of an imperialist who feels the need to spend billions on unconstitutional wars -- to me.

I definitely got a kick out of that -- great job man

okay -- to be fair and honest here, after studying some polls I've come to decide that I'm off on my percentages -- they were pretty accurate for the first few months of the Obama administration, but they've changed since then

(and please forgive me for prattling on, but I just think this stuff is really interesting)

instead of the 40/30/30 breakdown, I think there are probably more like five main groups in the country -- moderate democrats, moderate republicans, liberal democrats, conservative republicans, and then independent/undecided

here's approximately where I'd put those five main groups for January 2009:

30% moderate democrats (willing to sacrifice party ideals in the name of fiscal responsibility)
15% moderate republicans (willing to sacrifice party ideals in the name of caring for the poor and middle class)
15% liberal democrats (wanting to tax the rich to make life better for the poor and middle class)
20% conservative republicans (wanting to do away with most of the federal government and let everybody fend for themselves)
20% independent/undecided (see below)

the last group is the most interesting -- just off the top of my head, I'd say the independents/undecided group is made up of:

1. conservatives that are too conservative to wholeheartedly support the republican party
2. liberals who have no faith in government because it's controlled by corporations
3. people who refuse to be pidgeon-holed into picking a party because they agree with things from both parties
4. people who admit they don't know or don't care either way

the main thing that has changed since January 2009 is that each group in the independent/undecided group has grown:

A. all of the negativity in general has turned people off to Washington, increasing group #4 -- probably pulling off more Democrats than Republians

B. the fact that legislation has had to be watered down to get a few Republican votes has increased group #2, because they see it as evidence the whole thing is bought and paid for by corporations -- and this WHOLE group comes out of the Democrats

C. all of the astroturfing (fake grassroots organization funded by rich right-wing groups) has increased group #1 considerably -- THIS group comes largely from the Republicans

D. group #3 has maybe increased a little

you take all of that into account and I'd say the five main groups right now are probably at:

24% moderate democrats
10% moderate republicans
12% liberal democrats
22% conservative republicans
32% independent

if we say 35% of the independents (11% of the total) support the democrats when push comes to shove, then the updated version of the 40/30/30 scenario is now more like 35/12/53 -- meaning the new 70% is now probably 47% in support of Democrats and 53% supporting Republicans

but there's a lot of time between now and November, and since the Democrats are no longer working on legislation (like most of the Republicans for the last two years) they have all the time in the world to go out there and fight the message of the Republicans 

it's gonna be a pretty exciting two months 

I haven't seen The Cry Baby Killer yet -- pretty much all the rest I've seen

I have to watch Psych-Out again though, not sure how much of that I saw

music to be high to 

in your 40/30/30 breakdown, the reason I 'go with' the 40% is because the liberal 30% is DEFINITELY in agreement with the 40% moderate group when it comes to opposing the conservative 30% group -- even if it means they can't get what they want out of the 40%

when it passed, about 70% agreed the healthcare bill was at least adequate for now -- calling the 30% that disagreed 'the people' doesn't really work -- and of course Republicans (while Democrats are busily working on other legislation) have had all the time in the world to repeatedly go on Fox News and lie about what's in the bill to the point that that 70% number has dropped to around 50% -- once people start benefiting from the provisions in the bill that number will rise again -- you can read about the timetable for benefits at the wikipedia page for the bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#2010_Reform_details

but you and I are in complete agreement on corporate influence over our government -- our biggest problem in American today is corporate personhood

because a corporation is a 'person' under the law they are entitled to free speech, including not only the maximum allowable campaign contributions, but unlimited spending on television advertising, which as we all know is what gets people elected these days... but even if corporate personhood weren't the law of the land, we'd still have to do away with the CLEAR conflict of interest where a politician can hold stock in (or get contributions from) a company that would be affected by a vote he casts... and then of course we have to do away with the bottleneck in the Senate -- we saw a clear example of why during the healthcare debacle... all corporations have to do to prevent legislation from reaching the president's desk is concentrate on ONE senator to stop up the works -- there is a huge pile of legislation that the House under Nancy Pelosi has passed -- the Senate is the big problem -- go back to a majority vote and do away with the filibuster -- or at least make the super majority 55 instead of 60... make the corporations concentrate their efforts on 10 senators instead of the four or five they needed to prevent the Public Option and all the other shit that came in with the Healthcare bill

I understand your concern about the healthcare bill, but it's a lot easier to fix something once it's established law -- look at how many times other major pieces of landmark legislation have been amended over the years -- like Social Security for instance

focusing in on how many pages the bill is -- it's a red herring -- make the font smaller if you want less pages

as far as whether any one congressman read the whole bill, I'll just quote an article I liked on politico.com:

"The text defines dozens of words and phrases, including “family” (“an individual and . . . the individual’s dependents”), “health insurance coverage,” “exchange-eligible individual” and “Indian.”


And for those who cry “read the bill,” beware. There are plenty of paragraphs like this one:


“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.""


another red herring -- the pelosi quote -- your version isn't correct -- here's what she actually said:

"But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

what she is saying is, once we pass it, you (The American People) will get a chance to read it yourselves without being told by people who oppose it what's in it -- you'll see what's REALLY in it

your version of her quote makes it sound like she said TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- "let's pass it without reading it"

come on man -- you really gotta stop watching Fox News -- or listening to people who do -- seriously haha

but other than the propaganda, you and I are mostly in agreement I think 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/V4k1Gsrqh8M&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/V4k1Gsrqh8M&rel=0</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1LS8EGwpMtg&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/1LS8EGwpMtg&rel=0</a>

reminds me of the songs from Dreams Of Freedom Album

I'll stick to the issue of health care since you brought it up.  Jack, I'm going to agree with you in theory.

If 30% believe one way, 30% believe another, and 40% believe yet another, you go with the 40% even though it isn't majority... I have no problem with that.  The process is what I have a problem with, and this is why I defend my argument that the people were not fairly represented with the passing of this health bill.

Congress is supposed to write the law, according to our Constitution.  Congress, however, did not write the health care bill.  A special interest - the insurance companies and their lawyers - wrote the bill.  Should this bill flop like the No Child Left Behind bill, should we blame us, the people who elected congress?  I think that's an unfair party to blame.  Hell, I'm an insurance agent and I don't think that's fair. 

This bill was also voted on before it had sufficient time to be reviewed.  The 2,000 page bill -- containing 5 times the amount of words as the Torah -- was rushed through congress like the world depended on it.  No one could have read the entire bill and voted with a clear conscious.  Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying "Let's pass it and find out what's in it later."  Again, if this bill were to flop, can we blame the American people?

I could go on about other issues if need be, but this country is run by corporations, special interests, and the ultra-wealthy, not the American people who vote for figureheads.

you better believe it