The question is: Will Obama come to the center like Clinton did to buy himself another term? I would argue that is a politically wise thing to do but Obama will have to give up some ideals and goals to do it. For Clinton that was no sacrifice. He cared more about his popularity than his goals. I would argue that Obama cares more about his goals.

There is another section of history we are repeating right now: The 1970. In the 70s people were concerned about where this county would be in a decade. They were concerned that we were not going to be a world leader anymore. We were going through an extended repression and the economic policies of spend money to make money were not working (big surprise). We elected an Economic Conservative named Reagan. He implemented new fiscal policy with an Economic Conservative DEMOCRAT Congress and the US got back on out feet. This came about because he started running the US how you would run a successful household. It’s not hard. Very little “change” is actually required. It’s more about logic and thought instead of emotion which is fully in control of politics right now.

So these are the two ways I see us repeating history. I wonder why we didn’t learn form it the first time. Let’s see if we can learn from it the second time.

That really is all you need to know. The majority of this country is angry at Obama and the Democrats. Why? They are spending like crazy. In fact so did Bush…. Obama was able to run on a policy of economic conservatism and won partly because of it. It’s not what he believes or actually wanted to do but that’s what he said he wanted to do.

The last true economic conservative was Reagan. Republicans are either social conservatives, economic conservatives or both. Democrats are either social liberals, economic liberals or both. Most people in this country, I believe are economic conservatives and social liberals. That is what we call a Libertarian. Imagine a bell curve between liberalism and conservatism with the middle being Libertarians… That is the United States. That majority of the country right now is angry about all the spending that’s occurred since Reagan.

That gives a platform to run on. Cut spending, bring the budget back to a stable level. No political person would want to say ‘raise taxes’ but depending on where you are it may be necessary. However, cutting spending and going back to “economic conservatism” is the way to go right now. Although the moment you open topics like gay rights and abortion you’re treading on social issues, I’d suggest to stay away from those….

Now I’m no expert in politics…. I have no degree in politics… Not that I understand why politics needs to be made that complicated. Politics is a very simple thing if you ask people around you what they believe and stop listening to the ‘pundits’. They try to confuse you to sound more intelligent. If they sound intelligent they must be right…. Or at least that’s what people think. Wake up America. You don’t need to listen to them. Just listen to yourself!

I just know what I want, I’m just a voter. Someone that could consider anyone put in front of me. I can only say what I see from friends, family, and people I meet. However, we’ve come to a consensus… There’s too much spending! Cut it out!

A1: That is a very broad question. So let’s give a broad answer in return. A libertarian is someone who is an economic conservative and a social liberal. It is a party much like democrat or republican. However unlike those two parties it has never gotten very organized because libertarians have many different views on the best way to govern. We, generally, believe more then anything else you should vote for the person you most agree with… Not necessarily for your party. Libertarians frequently do not vote for libertarians. Libertarians generally promote a very small federal government. Which means they have agreements with both of the major parties, and will vote for whichever one convinces them their topics are more important right now. You may call this being “wishy-washy”. I call it being “open minded”.

Q2: Limited government? Do you mean no government? Are you anarchists?

A2: Short answer: Some are some are not. There are may different people that call themselves libertarians. Just like there are many different kinds of democrats and republicans. Some libertarians wish for the government to be returned to a state of almost nothing these are the extremest libertarians. I would never vote for them but I carry the name because I agree to limited government just not that limited. My belief is this: Federal government should do defense and keeping private companies from becoming national monopolies. If you remove most of the “interventionist federal government” you can completely remove the income tax if that’s all the feds do as the constitution originally said (Remember the Federal Income Tax used to be banned.) States can maintain education and statewide initiatives and handouts to the “poor” (this would need a state level income tax [the most room for government growth is here]). County level government should cover health and wellness issues as well as all prisons. Municipalities are responsible for police & fire departments and the protection of their citizens. This way we have very little waste and absolutely no government redundancy that is the big thing. Right now there is a lot of government redundancy, and because of that a lot of wasted money.

Q3: So the state would be the biggest governmental body? Why do you hate the federal government?

A3: First of all, I don’t hate the federal government. I just think it’s gotten too large and gangly and too detached from it’s own people. “The government that governs the best is the one closest to its people.” -Thomas Jefferson. If you don’t like what your state is doing… You have two options: One is “simple” to say but not very easy to do: move to a different state. The second one is harder to decide to do, but much easier to do then most people think: Run for office and change things. Right now the problem with government is that it’s so hard to get elected to a job that can actually “change” things (federal level jobs) The candidate gets so detached from the people they are intending to serve. Also, they may be beholden to many companies who donated to their campaign. You cannot run for federal office without some kind of support from companies, therefore detaching yourself from your own people.

Q4: How do you feel about social issues like gay marriage or abortion? What about things like Education and Healthcare?

A4: Those are issues for states to decided if those governments worked on it. Then people can move to states they agree with. Spend their tax money wherever they decide is right. This may sound over-simplified, but I would argue that most of the problem with government these days is that it’s become over-complicated. Remember it’s easier to get anything passed in full at a state level. It’s easier to make a difference at a smaller level. However, it’s all about picking your battles and timing. For instance Gay Marriage is something that at least right now needs to be done at a federal level, because of income taxes (see question 2) See my post about the topic: The Gay Marriage Fight, A Gay Mans Frustration. But Abortion is something that would be much easier solved at a state level. And many other social issues are really built to be solved on a state level. Education and Healthcare are both shown to be more efficient and cost-effective at a state level. There is also a lot of overlap from federal government right now wasting money. I’d rather the states control most if not all of those two issues.

There’s a lot more to be said:

Q5: Why would you vote for a Republican or Democrat above a Libertarian?

A5: First and foremost, I will vote for whomever I agree with the most. If that is a Libertarian, I will vote for a Libertarian. However, a good instance of a “libertarian” movement is that of the Tea Party Movement in the USA right now (2010). This is a group of libertarians that have put aside their disagreements on Social Issues and decided because of the economic state of the US to stand as one for economic conservatism. This is why you see a lot of people who were “quiet voters” didn’t really come to political events and rallies showing up for the first time in their lives. Libertarians generally will not go to Democrat or Republican sponsored events. However, this truly is an event organized by libertarians. And the first one in the world like it, of course they are not calling them selves libertarians because of the anarchist stereotype that gets around. Or because they don’t even know they are libertarians! The goal is to make either Republicans or Democrats more Economically Conservative then sweep them into office. It doesn’t matter which party stops this massive amount of government spending, as long as one of them does. We will vote for whomever does turn more economically conservative, I promise you.

Q6: Would you like the Libertarian party to get organized and become a operable third party?

A6: NO! Because libertarians are the deciding vote in elections these days. They are a part of the very coveted “independent vote” a lot of libertarians just don’t realize the power they have, if they even realize they are libertarians (which some do not). I thought I was a “moderate republican” before I realized I was a libertarian. And before I cared about Economic issues I thought I was a moderate democrat. I realized after a little while, I was a little bit of both parties and therefore I called myself an Independent. Then I found the Libertarian Party, basically a party of Independents who don’t alway agree with each other but can generally agree on economic conservatism and social liberalism… The hardest part is drawing the line between an economic issue and a social issue. I have a very strict definition of that, most libertarians do not. So I’m more likely to agree with republicans then the “average” libertarian. But to make our own party that runs for office and competes with republicans or democrats would do one of two things 1) get no votes. 2) sacrifice all the power that libertarians have today. Neither of those are happy solutions for libertarians.

Q7: Is it even possible to go back to small government with the advanced and immediate nature of the world today?

A7: Some may call me diluted or blind, but I would argue that it is. The problem with big government in my mind is that it gets people dependent on the government then the citizens ask for more and government gets even bigger. People will never be happy with what they have, they want to always continue improving their position in life. That is human nature, eventually government will break. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t want to be in a better position this time next year. The problem is that it would take an entire mentality shift of not only the nation, but the world. There will always be a need for police and military, for laws, and limited regulation, but then it starts moving into providing for people. The moment you start providing for people instead of giving people the opportunity to provide for themselves government, in my opinion, has gotten too big. The problem these days are people are for big government or small government. We need to start to strike a balance between the two. Government in my opinion is too large when it provides for people. But you need to have regulations so that people can compete with large companies and provide for themselves!

Q8: How can you guys support both parties? Isn’t that Called flip-flopping?

A8.1: First of all we support parts of both parties. It becomes a matter of which is more important at the time. Right now, (August 2010) Economic Conservatism is more important to me. So I will most likely vote for republicans in November. When things become more fiscally responsible in Washington, I will be more likely to vote for the Social Liberalism of Democrats. I elect Republicans when times the economy bad to fix things and I elect Democrats when times are good to come in and advance a social agenda…

A8.2: As to flip-flopping, I do not consider it a bad thing. Whenever someone is called a Flip-Flopper on TV or in the news media they are railed against, however, I’m more likely to support them! A flip flopper is just someone who changes their mind. What if someone came to you and presented you a good argument as to why you were wrong about whatever topic you’ve been speaking about. They presented before you fact and made a reasoned logical argument. It makes sense and your position no longer does… You’d be convinced right? I’d sure hope so. You’d be a “flip-flopper”…. And a smarter person….

Q9: How would things have to be refined or changed for libertarians to be able to be effectively influential as an organized entity?

A9.1: Ah, this is a difficult question because I argued in Question 6 that the Libertarians should NOT be an organized entity. Because a very big step would have to happen first. Education! So let’s assume the libertarians get organized and rails around a platform of economic conservationism and social liberalism they would start talking about views and comments that would attract probably about 50% of America (a rough guess). There are those in the democrat party that are truly Liberal both on Social and Economic Issues (like the party is), and there are those in the republican party that are truly Conservative both on Social and Economic Issues (like the party is). However I expect them to be about 25% of the country each. (The other 50% of America). The problem is a lot of the 50% that are libertarians don’t know what or who they are. They think they are Republicans (because they see themselves as Economic Conservatives) or they think they are Democrats (because they see themselves as Social Liberals). When in fact they are both of those things. The first thing that needs to happen is Education, we need to teach people what Libertarians actually and show them they are Libertarians too!

A9.2: With that done Libertarians may win some seats in Congress or even the Presidency. From there we can stop the pendulum effect that has taken over this country. You see America right now swings between far left and far right. The middle right now is always forgotten. Government is about compromise not about getting your agenda done. That is what Washington forgets. If compromise cannot be reached you leave the decision to the government smaller then you. That is the true way to make the most people possible happy. It’s not to force though your legislation, it’s not control the government until people get angry at your party and kick you out…. This is not the way government should work. We’ve gone astray with these two parties both parties are under control by their fringe and moderate people in the US (of which the majority are) are being forgotten about. The answer may be to teach people what Libertarians are and get organized around a truly moderate perspective but for that we must educate what libertarians are first. That is going to be the hardest part. Gaining the respect the Libertarian mentality, in my mind, deserves. Once that happens we may be able to make a difference as an organized party.

Q10: Why do you feel so strongly about the Federal Government being so small and the States having more control?

A10: We are a nation of various beliefs, morals, religions, loves, priorities, and well everything. We are a nation of many different people. The Federal Government was always intended to do things we could all agree on. Things like security, some taxes, and control and maintain a military…. well that’s about it. You see reading the Constitution of the United States in college (yes it was not required reading, we were just taught pieces of it in public school — mostly the bill of rights) really opened up my eyes. It is a very concise and to the point document. And the linchpin of the document for me is where it talks about what the government CAN DO… Anything not included in this part of the Constitution the Federal Government should have no business being involved in. The Idea of Enumerated Powers: Article 1 Section 8. If you haven’t read that at least. Please do. Because here’s the important part…. The Federal Government was never intended to do anything more then the actions listed there… And some things not listed: Universal Healthcare, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, and other such social projects. They were never intended to be jobs of the federal government. However, state governments can! If a state government does it (which most do anyway [creating redundancy and waste]) It is shown to cost less and be more effective with less waste. I suggest everyone read the Constitution… if you choose not to however at least read Article 1 Section 8.

The most important part to me is the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Let’s first by taking look at the intent of the bill from S.B. 1070 page 1 rows 7-10: “The Provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” it IS NOT intend like much of the opposition of this bill says to gather up and remove all the “Mexicans” legal or illegal. The key word in that sentence is UNLAWFULLY.

But of course some will say the bill does not do what it intends. So let’s take head on the biggest worry from the opposition that people who look Mexican are just going to get stopped and checked, and it will be an invasion of privacy. SB 1040 page 1 rows 30-34: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.” This is an interesting wording. It specifically you can be racist unless it’s permitted by larger documents. In all honesty this is kinda creepy wording. I’m not sure a like the last bit of that sentence. It’s a poorly worded way to make sure the law stayed inline with other federal and state laws. The wording isn’t always perfect, but let’s dig a little deeper.

Let’s continue with page 1 rows 20-26″ “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or… (list of similar people in a position to enforce this law) … where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt stall be made made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.” The two keys to this are lawful contact and reasonable suspicion. The law enforcement personal that are looking to confirm your immigration status cannot even ask unless they’ve pulled you over for another reason, or are called to your house for noise or some other similar reason they would already be in contact with you. The other bit is that they can’t ask unless they have reasonable suspicion that you are not a legal resident and as we established in the above paragraph they cannot be solely because of race.

Here’s something that could be classified as Big Brother (if the feds in any way kept up with this information) Page 2 Rows 1-5: “If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United Stats Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection shall be immediately notified.” I’m not sure the US Gov’t would not do anything with that information even if they watched it. Although they could. This could be much more severe by the way…. It could be deportations instead of release back into the country…..

There is so much in this law it’s very overwhelming to try to hit all the good and bad points. But just like anything else in government there is good and there is bad. I’m so sick of people attacking or promoting a bill on pure emotion… These are just two examples of WHY I think what I think about this bill. And in fact, I’ve never actually said if I’m pro or against this bill. I’m just trying to get people to finally watch care and be informed about the world around them. I implore each and everyone one of you to READ the law and come to your own conclusions instead of being told by some blogger, or news station, or talking head, or co-worker….. They are only pointing out what they wish to point out…. Just like I do! There’s no way I can cover the information. The only thing I can do is get you interested and look for more details… I’m not here to convince or persuade I’m here to start you looking for the information yourself.

Don’t trust anyone… be an informed citizen and read it yourself! The complete text of the Arizona law is below!

Most people will now be completely confused or angry with me for that matter. Well let me clarify a little bit for those who are not blinded by emotion, because all those who are stopped at the first paragraph. I am a gay man, who wishes to settle down with a husband for the rest of my life, however, I strongly oppose gay marriage. As do all Republicans (as stated in their various campaigns) and most Democrats (also stated in their campaigns [Clinton, Obama]) at a national level… Gay marriage is going to be hard to do and going to take 10-15 years at least.

Civil Unions are similar in most ways. It depends on what state they are in and they cannot be taken across state lines. Here’s the catch… Some Republicans (even Rush Limbaugh) and all Democrats support Gay Civil Unions on a national level. NOW!

What they oppose is the use of the word “marriage”. Something I don’t particularly care about anyway. They can have this small victory as long as I can have my big victory of being able to live my life with my partner! Or did we all forget about something called compromise?

If we could pass a law to make Civil Unions a Federal Law instead of various State Laws I could create a union with my partner tomorrow. This method would create making a Federal Law of Civil Unions of which there is already one for Marriage. This is the way to fight for my rights, not hold out for the word “marriage”.

Also, you don’t have to fight with all these court battles, you don’t have to deal with various state’s laws. The Civil Union fight would be much simpler to do. Just mirror the rights and responsibilities of a marriage call it a civil union and make it a Federal Law that cannot be denied between any two humans. Most congressmen and women as well as most senators these days would support this today! I know Obama would…. This is the kind of solution he himself has proposed! Yet he, and I are opposed to Gay Marriage….

Let’s take the state of Oregon for instance. They have a State Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, yet the gays there are able to wed and be happy and have all the rights they would have if they were “married” because they have state Civil Unions that Mirror the Federal Marriage (rights and responsibility) calling them Civil Unions. If I wished to live in that state I would be perfectly happy….

We are currently attacking this the wrong way. The current strategy seems to be fight on a state by state level for the word “marriage” which we are not getting anywhere except the far left states. Although, we even failed to get that word in California. Then(?) work to get it solidified on a national level? I have no idea what the long term strategy of the current fight for “gay marriage” is. The fight right now seems disjointed and different in each state. Divided we will never get anywhere, we need to unify around an attainable goal.

Make something new, don’t try to change something already existing…  I hate to tell you guys out there fighting for “gay rights” and “gay marriage”… You are not fighting for my rights, you are fighting for a word. To be honest it’s a word I don’t really care for or particularly want. If you wish to continue fighting for that word I won’t begrudge you, but if you wish to fight for my rights, please…. please! Give up on the word Marriage.

Support my right to have a Union!

In 2008 Obama won the war of words. That is how he got elected. He chose a target (Bush) and battled a war of words against him. Obama spoke well, I can’t say I agreed with what he said, but he said it in a way that was mass marketable. Also it was a good time for him to come along after a president that by all accounts didn’t always choose the English language as well has he could have.  Now that I’ve gotten this politically charged let me take a giant step back.

Words hold a power that no other object in the course of human history has had. Words also work in very mysterious ways. If I were to say the world “Liberalism” it would stir up emotions immediately. That word just by it self has the power to bring forth pure anger, or pure happiness. From the far-right of US politics this word brings forth anger with the response ”It will ruin the economy of the United States and the world as a whole”. From the far-left of US politics it will bring for happiness with a response of “It will bring fairness and the equality of each and every person.”

I would argue that both of these responses are wrong. However, that one word “Liberalism” can create those reactions. That is, to me, out of phase with reality. Liberalism does not have that power, because everyone in the world I believe is part Liberal, part Conservative… It’s just a matter of how much of each. I would argue that if you added a word to support Liberalism, you could make those thoughts realistically true. That support word would be “Unrestrained”. Unrestrained Liberalism has the power to reach both of the emotional feelings that appear when using the one world. Yet, now a lot of the emotional power has been removed from the word Liberalism. This is a result of the magic power of words.

My goal of this post is not to convince you of any political argument or position. My intent is to show just how much power words have. The best way I know how to do that is through politics and emotion. Words can destroy relationships, but by the same token they can also save a relationship that’s on the rocks (at least for a little while). They have been shown to both start and end wars.

In terms of magic, the pagan belief that we can all effect the world around us, the most simple of spells are just charms… Nothing but words repeated over and over again to yourself, to create a result. “Calm down”, “Get excited”, “Do better”, “Don’t forget the ear plugs”

Words have hidden meanings as well, more so then any other way to communicate. This is where part of the fun is… Miscommunication. If you glare at someone with an angry face it is usually very clear your intent. However if you say something like “No, I’m not angry,” Some people actually are. Sometimes that’s quite a bit harder to tell. Sarcasm isn’t always clear… And my personal favorite set of double/triple meanings: Fag (faggot), a derogatory term for a gay man. A Fag also a British slang term for cigarette. My personal favorite however a fag (fagot) is a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc.

So please, choose your words carefully… Also, start looking at people’s word choice and why they choose the words they do. They may be telling you more then you realize. You can have more effects then you realize. You may even completely change the universe around you.

Yep, you heard me. If republicans take over Congress Obama will move more toward the center and become more popular and be reelected. Look back into history and see us repeat it…

Obama saw a chance in 2008. A chance to get what Democrats have been wanting for decades but couldn’t get passed. Healthcare. Republicans forced it to be a little watered down, but they did get it passed. And he (Obama) has had many far left policies and actions, many people in the U.S. right now are pushing to get back to economic conservatism. The word economic is the important one. I don’t vote for republicans because of abortion and social policy. I trust them with my money…. Because they take less of it. Leave the real use of my money to… me.

Anyway with that said, I know a lot of people that support republicans economically and democrats socially, as I do. This means they want to see some conservative economic policy in Washington again. The only people up for vote in 2010 is congress, congress will be taken over by Republicans and we’ll put a body block in government spending. I hope…..

Well, these are only my predictions.

If you would like to learn more about The Political Compass, please see their website or my Feb 1st 2008 post.

I looked at my old posts and compared my results then to my results now. I was shocked. I moved, my political beliefs have changed over the last couple of years. But let me step back for a moment.

The two axises are Economic and Social. Going Left and Right as we know it the economic scale. Rating from Economic Conservatism to Socialism.

Going Up and Down the axis we are not used to measuring, Social issues going from Fascism on the top to Libertarian on the bottom. Please keep in mind the way they use Libertarian is not the way I’d use it, but I’ll get to that later. I would call the bottom of the Social Graph Anarchy, because that in short is what it is. A lack of laws to control how people act in society. A lack of police, a lack of control in the society as a whole. Complete Social Freedom.

Going Left and Right the axis we are used to measuring, economic issues, measured from left to right as we do in the US, Conservative to Liberal. That everyone is used to. The question is what’s a social issue and what’s an economic issue. That’s harder to answer in fact many are both. I think, however, the political compass does a good job breaking it up.

Here is the grid:

Now, onto my specific graphs. And their change over two years.

Two years ago, I was very close to center I was at: Economic Left/Right: 2.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00. Here is that graph:

Since then I’ve moved more right, and a little bit down, but not much. My new position is at: Economic Left/Right: 6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62. Here is that graph:

Why has this happened? Maybe it’s because I feel more strongly now about economic issues, to me THAT is the biggest problem in this country right now, we’re spending way too much. So I was more likely to “strongly” agree or disagree on those.  I’m sure however as I’ve gotten older more mature and more concerned about money over these last two years, I’ve gotten more conservative. All I can say is that political belief is not a fixed thing… Your beliefs change… And if the party doesn’t change with you they no longer support you…

Be individuals, not party members, vote with your mind, not your party.

If you can’t consider it from that angle. Please stop reading. You are not ready to take a step into a broader larger world. For those of you who would like to keep and open mind and broaden horizons a little bit please stay with me.

So first and foremost, let’s take the issue of Logical Thought. What defines logical thought? My definition of logical thought would be thought processes that are unclouded by emotion. Generally logical thought is a slow ponderous process of weighing risk and reward. The bigger the problem the longer it takes. Correction, the bigger the problem the longer it should take.

In comparison, there’s Emotional Thought. These are thoughts driven by fear, anger, pity, sadness, desperation, guilt. You can find these types of thoughts in the main reason for each bill congress puts forward these days. Healthcare is a great example. “We the richest country in the world do not cover every one of our citizens with health insurance.” This is a heaven of emotion. Pity for those who don’t have the kind of healthcare you do. Guilt that you have good healthcare and you don’t see why other people shouldn’t because good health is a “human right”. Possible anger that you do not have health insurance and other people do. Desperation that your health insurance may run out and you need to be covered by something soon and you either have pre-existing conditions or cannot afford health insurance.

Decisions made on Emotional Thought usually will not consider all the angles and will not be a complete decision, they may need to be changed or modified shortly after being implemented. They are very frequently crisis. They need to be handled and solved immediately. This leads to rash and incomplete decision making. Even those who have “thought” about it emotionally are incapable of seeing it from certain angles. That is a genetic fact of humans. When you get emotional part of your brain shuts down and you become incapable of seeing the issue from any perspective but your own.

And now, I’d like to continue with the other issues I planned on raising.The leaders of this country, mainly because of the way the media works these days, are in constant campaign mode. Trying to “sell” their ideas. Trying to convince you why their idea is right. I think this is a disaster of American Politics. Campaigns are dirty things. Anyone that has watched a campaign in detail know it’s filled with personal attacks, slander, twisting of facts and picking and choosing what to listen to and believe. Please keep in mind when I say all this the campaigns of your POLITICAL ENEMIES.

Regardless of what you believe, attacks slander and mutations of the truth go both ways. What has become of the American Political system… War.

Do you know anyone that does not have a bit to chew or an opinion or a side to fight in American Politics these days? Everyone has an agenda, everyone wants to see their issues go their way, which would be fine, but we’ve coalesced around two parties “Democrats” and “Republicans”. This has created nothing short of a battle between Good and Evil. I don’t care what side you’re on… The other side is Evil, at least that’s what American Politics has become.

Therefore, you don’t notice when your side slanders the other, but you are outraged when your side gets slandered. This reinforces your already built political beliefs, that the other side is bad and not trust worthy.

There will be no bi-partisan support anymore. There will be no non-partisan issues. There will be no compromise until we can get past our issues of good and evil. Both sides are guilty of this. They may claim to create a non-partisan or bi-partisan bill. However, most bills that claim that these days are not truly that way.

To make a compromise is to meet somewhere between issue A and B, to get point C. That is the definition of a compromise. Instead political law these days to create a “compromise” just include A and B. So therefore, a lot of times the bill is meaningless, it tries to take both sides of one issue and ends up a completely meaningless bill.

I digress. There will be no compromise, there will be no bi-partisanship. there will be no non-partisan issues until we get past this war of “Good” and “Evil”. Whatever those sides may be. That is the next step to move our country forward in my opinion. Let’s strip the emotion out of American Politics and start thinking about our leaders.

I promise you this. No matter how much you think you are a Logical person, and not motivated by emotion there’s always room for improvement. Myself included.

If you would like to start watching your leaders and what they say on the floor of the house/senate, instead of what they say to you…. Because I’ve noticed it’s vastly different! I’ve found a very good website for that purpose. It’s called Gov Track. That website also has full text of bills and most of the time it can also tell you what’s in every amendment and also has the record of how your congressman/congresswoman/senator voted. Also, if you are around a TV during the day, I’ve found it very interesting to watch C-SPAN and C-SPAN2. Unfiltered cameras on OUR politicians.

And so, I finish with a Plea. Please, let’s take the emotion out of American Politics. Let’s get this country back on the right track. Let’s make reasoned, considered, and logical decisions.

And on this topic. I’ll be honest. I agree with Republicans about healthcare (mostly). For those of you that are leftists and don’t have an open mind, and want to get this passed now regardless of the 10-20 year consequences, that’s fine you can stop reading now.

I’m here to talk to everyone that has an open mind and is willing to think and challenge their ‘leaders’. And i’m going to talk about this bill by talking about something everyone knows and should have been to and should have learned from…

I’m going to talk about an experence everyone had.

KINDERGARTEN

Yes, i’m going to try to convince you that this healthcare bill is a bad idea based on what I learned in kindergarten. Healthcare is a massive issue, and there are massive amounts of people in this country that don’t have health insurance (for whatever reason) and can only get healthcare by waiting until it’s a major problem and going to the E.R. (if they don’t have a savings account to pay for it out of). To the majority of Americans that is unacceptable. Myself included.

Another major problem is those that have pre-existing conditions find themselves uninsured. This in my opinion is the largest problem facing our healthcare industry right now.

So all in all, it’s a big problem, a massive problem… In kindergarten, what was the first thing you were taught to do when face a problem? For me it was very simple, break it down into very small problems and take them one at a time, see if they help the situation over time, if not undo them and try something else.

So, why shouldn’t congress do that? Why should it pass a super huge bloated bill that tries to fix everything at the same time. I’m sure some of the things in there will do well, and some clearly will not (everyone admits this). So why even do the things that won’t work!?

Why not just pass 100-200 smaller bills that can be easily undone if they don’t work? Why not fix the topics one at a time? This would be my solution. Fix the problems one at a time, and see where they stand with the populace of this great country of ours. I bet most of the country would support something to put people with pre-existing conditions that have been denied private insurance on medicare or medicaid. I also bet people would oppose the idea of people with pre-existing conditions put into a new bureaucracy to handle “all Americans”.

And that’s how I see this problem. Rip it apart… Make it many smaller problems… Take them one by one. Why can’t the people in Washington take the simple straightforward answer?

The only time I want them to act like children, they refuse to.

So, in short, I oppose some of the things in this bill, but I am also in favor of some of this thing about this bill… However, I think this bill should be defeated because of it’s SIZE…