Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER
IMMORAL= not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
O.K., It is immoral to give people in Ca., NY, Fl, Tex so little representation in the Senate. In the Senate Health Care debate, each American in California was represented 1/70th the amount of an American in Wyoming. You can only lamely justify it (at all) on bills where money is spent on projects in a way that is non-uniform (for instance what state are we going to put a military base in.) On bills such as Medicare, Health Care etc. it's simply an excuse to give an advantage to small states that tend to often have Conservative Rural Populations. Health Care is not the same as military base closings etc. You simply can not make a legit moral argument why someone in a small state should have more say-so in the health care debate. They will all be immoral arguments. Go ahead. Start. I'll show you. This is not some minor issue. This unfair advantage enabled all this trouble to happen with health care. If you simply give Americans in California, New York, Texas, n' Florida their fair representation, then you wouldn't have this mess. Giving people in small states this unfair advantage (in a bill that is so uniform in it's effect on states) can't be justified. It can only be rationalized with flawed immoral arguments. That's why he can't get it through. The people that elected him aren't represented fairly. The people that voted against him are unfairly overrepresented. It's not about the bill. It's about the unfair underrepresentation of people in California, Florida, New York etc. The Democratic Senators in small states like Louisiana, Arkansas, and Nebraska are bowing to the Conservative voters in their states. These voters are the ones who had the say, and the price was paid by Americans in New York, California, and Florida (a classic case of taxation without equal representation.) Americans in certain states, that are poorly represented in the Senate, should have to pay tax only at a rate that is representative of their influence on these issues. Why tax Americans the same rate when you aren't giving them equal representation when making decisions on these bills? Our influence is 450% less than fair, and you want to tax us like any other American. It's bullshit. Tax us the same as you, and then have your views represented from 10-70 times more than ours? Wow. ZIG, YOU HAD 12.8 TIMES MORE INFLUENCE ON THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL THAN ME. If it's gunna effect most the people in all the states the same way, then why do you need that special privilege?
|
you are aware, aren't you, that both senators from arkansas voted for obamas health care bill? you're ranting about percentages without paying attention to how those senators voted.
the federal govt is made up of 50 individual states. that's why there are two senators from each, regardless of population. not sure why you refuse to pay attention to that.
bills begin in the house-where it's based on population. the house is who overrides vetoes. you're only paying attention to half of congress, while ignoring the realities of how the legislative body is made up, and why. sorry you don't like it. not my problem.