on the filibuster

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

I don't think that a person needs to "go back to civics class" just because they disagree with the way Senate seats are apportioned. I certainly understand why the Senate was constructed the way it was - much as I understand why the electoral college was created - but that doesn't mean I can't wish that these things could be changed now.
After all, there is also a reason that state legislatures (rather than voters) were the ones who elected U.S. Senators for decades in this country. Eventually people made the case that this system was undemocratic and should therefore be changed (which it obviously was). Something tells me that if DT had been around at that time, and someone came on here and argued that voters rather than state legislatures should elect U.S. senators.....they would have been told that they must just not understand why the always brilliant authors of the Constitution set up the system the way they did, and if they wanted to make that change they might as well decide everything by having an opinion poll.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't think that a person needs to "go back to civics class" just because they disagree with the way Senate seats are apportioned. I certainly understand why the Senate was constructed the way it was - much as I understand why the electoral college was created - but that doesn't mean I can't wish that these things could be changed now.
After all, there is also a reason that state legislatures (rather than voters) were the ones who elected U.S. Senators for decades in this country. Eventually people made the case that this system was undemocratic and should therefore be changed (which it obviously was). Something tells me that if DT had been around at that time, and someone came on here and argued that voters rather than state legislatures should elect U.S. senators.....they would have been told that they must just not understand why the always brilliant authors of the Constitution set up the system the way they did, and if they wanted to make that change they might as well decide everything by having an opinion poll.

the reason i said to go back to class was so he could understand why everything is the way it is, not because i disagree with him or his opinion.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't think that a person needs to "go back to civics class" just because they disagree with the way Senate seats are apportioned. I certainly understand why the Senate was constructed the way it was - much as I understand why the electoral college was created - but that doesn't mean I can't wish that these things could be changed now.
After all, there is also a reason that state legislatures (rather than voters) were the ones who elected U.S. Senators for decades in this country. Eventually people made the case that this system was undemocratic and should therefore be changed (which it obviously was). Something tells me that if DT had been around at that time, and someone came on here and argued that voters rather than state legislatures should elect U.S. senators.....they would have been told that they must just not understand why the always brilliant authors of the Constitution set up the system the way they did, and if they wanted to make that change they might as well decide everything by having an opinion poll.

His opinion that the senate is "immoral" based on 2 seats per state makes no sense unless there is a definition of immoral that has some hidden meaning. The idea that the Senate being voted on by legislatures rather than individual voters being changed could be compared to changing Senate representation along population numbers is like comparing apples to oranges. One just changes who votes, the other completely changes the system of govt and creates a second House of Reps. It makes no sense.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

His opinion that the senate is "immoral" based on 2 seats per state makes no sense unless there is a definition of immoral that has some hidden meaning. The idea that the Senate being voted on by legislatures rather than individual voters being changed could be compared to changing Senate representation along population numbers is like comparing apples to oranges. One just changes who votes, the other completely changes the system of govt and creates a second House of Reps. It makes no sense.

I agree that scuds employs a fairly loose definition of "immoral" in his analysis of the Senate. However, saying that making changes to a state's representation in the Senate would "create a second House of Reps" is completely and obviously false. Senators serve 6 year terms and are elected by the voters throughout the whole state rather than just a congressional district. If the apportionment was changed - but those aspects of the Senate remain unchanged - the two houses would still be fairly different.

Also, if people wanted to keep the Senate significantly smaller than the House, that could probably be done too (obviously I mean hypothetically speaking, since none of this will ever happen). Let's say they changed the Senate so that the ten largest states received 4 senators. The next fifteen largest received 3 senators. The next fifteen largest received 2 senators. And the ten smallest states only got one. That would only increase the senate to a total of 125 members, and while it would not completely erase the disparity in representation that currently exists in the senate, it would rectify it considerably.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

What matters is the least widest part of the pipe (Senate.) I'm ignoring it (H.R.,) because it is not the excuse (for the immoral Senate Design) that you think it is. That's a totally fair situation (H OF R.) Why would anyone have a problem with that legislative body? God forbid we all get the same representation for our taxation. Wow. It doesn't somehow balance out the evil done to some citizens in the Senate. Why should I act like it does? Brainwashing? Didn't take. Just because I learned all this stuff in Civics Class, doesn't mean I think it's a fair way to do it. I think that's where we disagree. You think just because you get some weird immoral rationalization in Civics Class, then you need to buy into it. Civics Class gives you the rationalization for the bad design. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CORRECT. They counted slaves as 3/5 citizens. Do you buy into that just because you read it in Civics Class? I ignored the House of Rep, because it is not the balance weight you people state it to be. Someone in a large state is simply equally represented in that body. That, in no way, is a balance to giving some Americans more say in the Senate than other Americans. There is no balance here. That is simply flawed thinking that people follow like sheep. They aren't the lil beautiful oil n' vinegar balancing combo that you're brainwashed into thinking it is.

[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?

[Danzig]

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.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

No, I said that the Dems Senators from Arkansas, Nebraska, Louisiana forced the bill to become more n' more like their Conservative Voters back home wanted. They voted for a bill that was deadened to satisfy their voters back home in Arkansas etc.(while Americans in California, and New York were 12x less represented than you.) That's why the bill got more in favor of Insurance Companies, and it's why the House won't pass it (It doesn't represent what they want..It represents more what people in Louisiana, Arkansas, n' Nebraska want.) Hence..Gridlock. See, their lil design doesn't work now, because it favors Conservatives States in the Senate. Maybe it wasn't back when they designed it, but it is now. That Conservatism is not the way the country is. The House n' President aren't Conservative. So, you've got one body (Senate) causing trouble because of a horrible design problem (messed up because of a built in advantage to Conservative States, and the filibuster.) It's broken. Would be more tolerable if the Republicans weren't using the filibuster on almost everything, but they know Americans are clueless about how often the filibuster is normally used. They've already used it twice as much as ever in history. They are abusing something that's supposed to be used sparingly. If, like you say, people were up on their civics, then they'd know this is not what the filibuster is supposed to be used for (everything.) There are only a few things in the Constitution requiring a super majority to pass. Not every damn thing is suppose to need a super majority to pass. You haven't answered my question about why Americans in New York n' California pay the same tax rates as you, but get less representation for the Federal Tax money paid in. 11.95% of the tax payers in this country had only a 2% say in the Senate health care bill. Your people are 0.93% of the U.S. Population, but you had a 2% say. I think Cali., Texas, Florida, n' New York tax payers should realize they aren't getting their fair representation at all. Pay tax n' others getting to decide.

[joeydb]

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.

The arbitrary redistribution of wealth is immoral. It's immoral to take money from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who didn't work.

The redistribution of wealth through the conduct of business between private parties is just fine, and is in fact called commerce.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's immoral to take money from someone who worked for it and give it to someone else who didn't work.

So let's say the owner of a major manufacturer dies and leaves the business to his or her child. The person who inherits the business keeps all of the same management and labor that the parent employed, and simply enjoys the profits from the company.
Isn't this person guilty of taking the wealth generated by the management and labor of the company without personally doing any work? Would you consider this an immoral act?

The odd thing about the statement I quoted from you is that I am pretty sure Marx would agree with the statement 100%.....although you two would mean something a bit different.

[SOREHOOF]

The Estate Tax is immoral.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So let's say the owner of a major manufacturer dies and leaves the business to his or her child. The person who inherits the business keeps all of the same management and labor that the parent employed, and simply enjoys the profits from the company.
Isn't this person guilty of taking the wealth generated by the management and labor of the company without personally doing any work? Would you consider this an immoral act?

The odd thing about the statement I quoted from you is that I am pretty sure Marx would agree with the statement 100%.....although you two would mean something a bit different.

said owner worked to provide for his child I presume? Otherwise the owner probably would have sold out to his 'management and labor' and laid up on a beach for the rest of his life, long before death. Pretty sure labor and management are happy with their jobs or they would have left long before owner died. If not whose fault is that?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're completely ignoring half of the legislative body! the house is based on population, or do you just conveniently ignore that??
i think you need to go back to civics class.

Exactly. I was going to post something very similar, but I see now I don't have to. SCUDS apparently thinks that both houses of Congress need to be population based, in which case we would need both, would we?

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Here is the result of the immoral way of handing out senate seats. A person from:

California is 497% less represented than they should be....Immoral

Texas is 290% less represented than they should be....Immoral

New York is 215% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Florida is 198% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Illinois is 110% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Penn is 103% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ohio is 87.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mich is 64.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Georgia is 56% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NC is 54% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

NJ is 42% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Virginia is 26% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Wash is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Mass is 5.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

AZ is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Ind. is 3.5% less represented than they should be...Immoral.

Tenn. is 0.5% less represented than they should be.

Missouri gets 4.16% Overrepresented

Maryland 8.7% Overrepresented

Wiscon. gets 9.3% Overrepresented

MINN 18%Overrepresented

COL 26% Overrepresented

ALA 32% Overrepresented

SC 39% Overrepresented

LOU 43% Overrepresented

KENTUCKY 44% Overrepresented (you can see why Cannon's for this cheating.)

Oregon 63% Overrepresented

O.K. 69% Overrepresented

Conn 74% Overrepresented

IOWA 104% Overrepresented

MISS 111% Overrepresented

ARK 115% ...Overrepresented
That's right, Zig, you get 115% more say than you should (just because you're in a certain favored location in America.) Oh, how easy it is to rationalize evil when it works in your favor.

Kansas 120% Overrepresented


Utah 130% Overrepresented


Nev 138% Overrepresented


NM 212.5% Overrepresented

WV 239% Overrepresented

NEB 245% Overrepresented

ID 308% Overrepresented

ME 365% Overrepresented

NH 365% Overrepresented

HAWAII 376% Overrepresented

R.I. 471% Overrepresented

MONTANA 545% Overrepresented

DEL 614% Overrepresented

SD 669% Overrepresented

AK 809% Overrepresented

ND 852% Overrepresented

VER 900% Overrepresented

WYO 1076% Overrepresented

544 thousand people in Wyoming get a total of 2 senators.

36.96 million people in California get a total of 2 senators.

That's a 70x difference in representation for the citizens involved.

Only Americans can couch up some lame rationalization for this elitism. Don't live in a certain unfavored area. You'll get screwed. Giving citizens varying amounts of representation is wrong, and there is no rationalization that can make it right.

Gee whiz, New Jersey is under represented? Probably could correct that number if they let some of our politicians out of jail.