Party loyalty damages the USA

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:15 pm

The latest is that the dems & repubs are thinking about mixing the seating for the State of the Union address, rather than sitting one party on one side and one on the other. This is the way it should always be, imo. I believe it was George Washington that warned against allowing party politics a foothold in the gov't, because it risks having a gov't official with more loyalty to the party than to the people he's supposed to be serving.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:43 pm

Give them a number, and take a seat. Make it a randsom assignment, except for those who are supposed to be behind the President on the podium, and the Supreme Court.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:10 pm

chonsigirl;1350979 wrote: Give them a number, and take a seat. Make it a randsom assignment, except for those who are supposed to be behind the President on the podium, and the Supreme Court.Nice Freudian slip. :wah:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:41 pm

:wah: you can tell it's a 3 day weekend, I don't have to spell check anything.......

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:26 pm

chonsigirl;1350990 wrote: :wah: you can tell it's a 3 day weekend, I don't have to spell check anything.......But really, I think they should do this on a daily basis. The different pundits keep talking about the message it sends, but think about the message they send loud and clear when they divide themselves up not by state, but by political party. It's crystal clear what their priority is: toeing the line for reelection.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:16 pm

Yes, I never thought how they sat in the House and Senate, I always assumed it was by state.

The practice of assigned seating for members was abolished during the 63rd Congress in 1913. Now, Members may sit wherever they please. Generally, Democrats occupy the east side of the Chamber on the Speaker's right, while Republicans sit across the main aisle on the Speaker's left. The tables on either side of the aisle are reserved for committee leaders during debate on a bill reported from their committee and for party leaders.

House Clerk's office FAQ

I think they should either sit by state, or mix 'em up good. I'll be happy to shuffle the deck for them........................

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:53 pm

I'd even by happy if they seated by seniority - old guys up front, freshmen in the back. Anything but party segregation.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:51 am

I think they should be seated by their respected net worth. Richest to the front poorest to the back. If one gets to moving towards the front too quickly we could investigate just how they lined their pockets.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:20 pm

I believe they should be seated by state. Then they can, hopefully, remember that it was the people of the state that elected them to represent their state, not the party.

They should be putting the best interest of the state ahead of that of the party.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:21 pm

How about seating them according to their largest campaign contributors?

Hey! :yh_idea maybe we could make them wear sponsor patches, like Nascar. At least then we'll know who they really work for. :yh_bigsmi

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:23 pm

LarsMac;1351072 wrote: I believe they should be seated by state. Then they can, hopefully, remember that it was the people of the state that elected them to represent their state, not the party.

They should be putting the best interest of the state ahead of that of the party.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:30 pm

Accountable;1351073 wrote: How about seating them according to their largest campaign contributors?

Hey! :yh_idea maybe we could make them wear sponsor patches, like Nascar. At least then we'll know who they really work for. :yh_bigsmi

Yeah, there you go.

Make them wear those jumpsuits the drivers wear, and even deck out their limo's with all the sponsors' logos.

Have to make the sponsors pay for repainting the limos, and new jumpsuits, though.

Don't think that should come out of the federal budget.

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:51 pm

If I was the janitor it would be whoopie cushions for all and a chicken in every pair of pants. Vote Librtyhead for janitor! They all need to go and have a big BBQ on the South lawn and have a huge office party.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:30 pm

LarsMac;1351214 wrote: Yeah, there you go.

Make them wear those jumpsuits the drivers wear, and even deck out their limo's with all the sponsors' logos.

Have to make the sponsors pay for repainting the limos, and new jumpsuits, though.

Don't think that should come out of the federal budget.
New orange jumpsuits :yh_mean

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:33 pm

Accountable;1351225 wrote: New orange jumpsuits :yh_mean

I think you're on to something, here.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:52 pm

I see political parties as gangs, intimidating party members to vote in line or be ejected. I have no idea why it's desirable to have representatives that can't vote every issue based on their conscience and what they think is best for the people they represent.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:51 am

Exactly, Koan, and yet it plays into the human tendency to categorize and stereotype in order to make decisions. Voters don't have to work so hard if they can slap a label on someone.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:44 am

So if there were a Strict Constitution Party which obeyed your interpretation of The Constitution and many people belonged to and voted for members of that party would the statement "Party loyalty damages the USA" still hold true?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:34 pm

[QUOTE]They should be putting the best interest of the state ahead of that of the party[/QUOTE].

Accountable;1351074 wrote:

Ever consider the best interests of the people, statist?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:40 pm

BaghdadBob;1351275 wrote: Ever consider the best interests of the people, statist?And what are the best interests of the people, BDB? Would you please list a few.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:34 pm

BaghdadBob;1351275 wrote: .

Ever consider the best interests of the people, statist?

Best interest of of the people is the best interest of the state.

If you prefer anarchy, perhaps you should move to Somalia.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:50 pm

Ahso!;1351276 wrote: And what are the best interests of the people, BDB? Would you please list a few.

Sure, I'll bite.

The best interests of the people is free market capitalism* with anti-monopoly regulation and multi-capitalist laws to ensure equal access to prosperity.

Capitalism is the most compasionate form of socio-governance as it advances the cause of man - freedom and wealth. From that wealth comes the livings standards we enjoy now.

Capitalism absent government intervention never fails. Socialism always fails.

*Capitalism is the respect for other's property and contracts and the antithesis of socialism.

Now it's your turn. Tell everyone why you think Marxism is such a winning strategy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:02 pm

BaghdadBob;1351283 wrote: Sure, I'll bite.

The best interests of the people is free market capitalism* with anti-monopoly regulation and multi-capitalist laws to ensure equal access to prosperity.

Capitalism is the most compasionate form of socio-governance as it advances the cause of man - freedom and wealth. From that wealth comes the livings standards we enjoy now.

Capitalism absent government intervention never fails. Socialism always fails.

*Capitalism is the respect for other's property and contracts and the antithesis of socialism.Is that it, BDB? This post addresses what the best interest's of the people are? Jobs?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:09 pm

Ahso!;1351288 wrote: Is that it, BDB? This post addresses what the best interest's of the people are? Jobs?

Read it again. Your comprehension is lacking.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:28 pm

Well, if you're not talking about jobs, clue me in more. Isn't it a popular belief that capitalism works well because it provides this standard of living via jobs?

In your view the best interest's of the people does not include: clean water; nutritious non-toxic food; breathable air; health care; a peaceful coexistence; equal rights; proper education; renewable power and biodegradable products and so on. For you people only want property and wealth. Do I have that right, BDB?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:36 pm

Ahso!;1351292 wrote: Well, if you're not talking about jobs, clue me in more. Isn't it a popular belief that capitalism works well because it provides this standard of living via jobs?

In your view the best interest's of the people does not include: clean water; nutritious non-toxic food; breathable air; health care; a peaceful coexistence; equal rights; proper education; renewable power and biodegradable products and so on. For you people only want property and wealth. Do I have that right, BDB?

As with most things; no.

You truly have no concept about how free markets work for the betterment of man, do you? (Don't ask. Retorical question as I'm not gonna splain it to you.)

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:42 pm

So then you'd agree what I listed is also in the best interest of the people?

You won't explain it because you can't, not because you won't. You're full of excuses whenever the conversation gets serious.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:53 pm

Ahso!;1351294 wrote: So then you'd agree what I listed is also in the best interest of the people?

Absolutely! And, they are part and parcel of and acccomplished more successfully in Capitalism than in Marxism.

I bet you think that if we had more government intervention in the free market things would be much better. Like there wouldn't have been the BP oil spill in the GofM if govt had been more involved. :wah:

The fact is had it been handled with a free market bias it would likely have never happened.

Tell everyone why you think marxism is such a delight.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:12 pm

Ahso!;1351294 wrote: So then you'd agree what I listed is also in the best interest of the people?

You prolly think that socialized medicine is good. Liked that healthcare overhaul bill, did you? :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:17 pm

BaghdadBob;1351283 wrote: free market capitalism* with anti-monopoly regulation This is an oxymoron; other than that, I agree completely.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:27 pm

Accountable;1351302 wrote: This is an oxymoron; other than that, I agree completely.

Not at all but I'm not surprised that you don't get it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:39 pm

BaghdadBob;1351306 wrote: Not at all but I'm not surprised that you don't get it.
Name one successful American monopoly not protected by the government. In a free market, which we both support, an abusive monopoly cannot survive.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:00 pm

Accountable;1351309 wrote: Name one successful American monopoly not protected by the government. In a free market, which we both support, an abusive monopoly cannot survive.

Umm, let's see...

John D Rockefeller w/Standard Oil. Carnegie and US Steel. Vanderbilt and the railroads.

None were 'protected'.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:19 pm

BaghdadBob;1351315 wrote: Umm, let's see...

John D Rockefeller w/Standard Oil. Carnegie and US Steel. Vanderbilt and the railroads.

None were 'protected'.The railroads definitely had gov't help.

I'll have to check on the other two & what actually happened to them in the end.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:22 pm

Accountable;1351318 wrote: The railroads definitely had gov't help.

I'll have to check on the other two & what actually happened to them in the end.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is what happened to them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:08 pm

BaghdadBob;1351319 wrote: Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is what happened to them.
I'm sure that's the textbook answer, and it may be the truth. Do you think that such a strangle-hold type of monopoly is possible today? We're much more sophisticated now.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:38 am

BaghdadBob;1351319 wrote: Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is what happened to them.

Let's continue this in another thread.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/wall- ... ost1351331

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:42 am

Ahso!;1351251 wrote: So if there were a Strict Constitution Party which obeyed your interpretation of The Constitution and many people belonged to and voted for members of that party would the statement "Party loyalty damages the USA" still hold true?Yes, completely and totally. Little pisses me off more than Machiavellian thought. Do you disagree with my statement that party loyalty damages the USA or are you just poking with sticks to find a flaw without taking a stance of your own?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:59 am

BaghdadBob;1351297 wrote: Absolutely! And, they are part and parcel of and acccomplished more successfully in Capitalism than in Marxism.

I bet you think that if we had more government intervention in the free market things would be much better. Like there wouldn't have been the BP oil spill in the GofM if govt had been more involved. :wah:

The fact is had it been handled with a free market bias it would likely have never happened.

Tell everyone why you think marxism is such a delight.You speak in generalities, so let's get specific, shall we.

Let's look at a can manufacturing plant.

This plant manufacturers 20,000 cans daily; puts out carbon emissions at a high rate (though it does not know that, in fact being a can manufacturing plant does not even know what carbon emission are); dumps waste into the river it is situated near; and does not provide basic benefits such as job safety and a clean working environment for its employees.

Tell me, BDB, should any of these issues be a concern and addressed? And if so, by whom? And how in your opinion is that best accomplished?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:18 am

Accountable;1351334 wrote: Do you disagree with my statement that party loyalty damages the USA or are you just poking with sticks to find a flaw without taking a stance of your own?

omg. that's awesome.

I suspect it's not nearly as funny as I think right now but just wanted to pay homage for a moment.

What does it take to truly instigate change? People are so afraid of it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:37 am

Accountable;1351334 wrote: Yes, completely and totally. Little pisses me off more than Machiavellian thought. Do you disagree with my statement that party loyalty damages the USA or are you just poking with sticks to find a flaw without taking a stance of your own?We certainly don't want to p!ss you off.

There really is no mystery to group loyalty. America is as good as it's capable of given it's educational structure. Grouping is what humans do, in fact, it's probably what every species does. People group under the label of Democrat, Republican, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Black, White, Male, Female, American, British, Jets, Steelers, The Stock Market and even Rich, Poor or what have you in varying degrees for the purpose of short term survival needs - mainly because it feels right. It's an adaptation. Since grouping is what it is, the question for those who understand this behavior becomes: Which group is the least destructive to the species and most helpful for long term survival of the species?

In the body politic, my choice is liberal because liberalism depends on a shared coexistence. The feelings we humans experience in a competitive atmosphere come from the joy of the hunt and kill and those feelings need to be honored carefully due to the fact that our life is very different than that of our ancestors. The problem we have in my view is that when members of ones own species become the hunted, that species has engaged in cannibalism. We've fooled ourselves into thinking we should feed off one another rather than together. The consequences of our behavior is catching up with us and is why, in m view, America is now suffering. We were able to withstand the negative consequences of our cannibalism provided we fed on minority parties or the appetite was suppressed enough to keep the damage to a minimum, but now the minority is feeding on the majority in an unrelenting manner.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:52 am

Ahso!;1351390 wrote: We certainly don't want to p!ss you off.

There really is no mystery to group loyalty. America is as good as it's capable of given it's educational structure. Grouping is what humans do, in fact, it's probably what every species does. People group under the label of Democrat, Republican, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Black, White, Male, Female, American, British, Jets, Steelers, The Stock Market and even Rich, Poor or what have you in varying degrees for the purpose of short term survival needs - mainly because it feels right. It's an adaptation. Since grouping is what it is, the question for those who understand this behavior becomes: Which group is the least destructive to the species and most helpful for long term survival of the species?

In the body politic, my choice is liberal because liberalism depends on a shared coexistence. The feelings we humans experience in a competitive atmosphere come from the joy of the hunt and kill and those feelings need to be honored carefully due to the fact that our life is very different than that of our ancestors. The problem we have in my view is that when members of ones own species become the hunted, that species has engaged in cannibalism. We've fooled ourselves into thinking we should feed off one another rather than together. The consequences of our behavior is catching up with us and is why, in m view, America is now suffering. We were able to withstand the negative consequences of our cannibalism provided we fed on minority parties or the appetite was suppressed enough to keep the damage to a minimum, but now the minority is feeding on the majority in an unrelenting manner.A well thought out and honorable point of view.

It seems as if you agree that, though natural, party loyalty is damaging the USA, but I have to use a really heavy dose of inferrence to come to that conclusion. Can you clarify, please?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:26 am

Loyalty and grouping is not damaging in themselves, IMV, they enhance survival and reproduction, the problem lies in our way of thinking and therefore within our education. Our children need to be taught what we are rather than what we insist we are. We're an animal species, lets start there.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:02 am

Ahso!;1351395 wrote: Loyalty and grouping is not damaging in themselves, IMV, they enhance survival and reproduction, the problem lies in our way of thinking and therefore within our education. Our children need to be taught what we are rather than what we insist we are. We're an animal species, lets start there.

"Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:06 am

BaghdadBob;1351398 wrote: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!":wah:

Ahso!;1351395 wrote: Loyalty and grouping is not damaging in themselves, IMV, they enhance survival and reproduction, the problem lies in our way of thinking and therefore within our education. Our children need to be taught what we are rather than what we insist we are. We're an animal species, lets start there.I agree generally, but doesn't the current system of party politics discourage critical thinking?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:14 am

We, as a society discourage critical thinking. If the education changes, everything will change.

I think what you're actually opposing is the competitiveness of a two party system, though I'm pretty certain you'd appreciate more variety. They're not necessarily dependent on each other you know, variety and competition.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:55 am

Accountable;1351399 wrote: :wah:

I agree generally, but doesn't the current system of party politics discourage critical thinking?

Ahso!;1351402 wrote: We, as a society discourage critical thinking. If the education changes, everything will change.

I think what you're actually opposing is the competitiveness of a two party system, though I'm pretty certain you'd appreciate more variety. They're not necessarily dependent on each other you know, variety and competition.

Critical thinking is what brought the homo-species through the last several millenia and allowed them to reach the point we find them at today.

The herd mentality that they are beginning to develop, however will probably be the death of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:38 am

There should not be pensions available for public offices that are elected positions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:52 am

flopstock;1351441 wrote: There should not be pensions available for public offices that are elected positions.Completely agree.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:02 pm

flopstock;1351441 wrote: There should not be pensions available for public offices that are elected positions.

Ahso!;1351447 wrote: Completely agree.
Yup!