What is the difference in fussing and arguing?

8 Aug

I am sure that many people don’t know, but he lawyers in congress should know.  They don’t practice what they know.  As with many of us it isn’t that we don’t know what to do; we don’t do what we know.


In the mid 1900’s when I was growing up I knew even then that the statement many fools even in my own family would say, “I don’t argue about the bible or politics.”  Even then I knew that was a stupid statement.  However, I had and still have many arguments about both, but I don’t fuss about either. 


To fuss means we say I’m right and you’re wrong.  An argument says that I believe something and this is why.  In other words we make a point using some degree of logic.  The fussing category is what we hear from Washington and many of my friends.  We need more arguments the campaigns.  We need arguments in Congress.


Constantly we have opinions instead of facts and conclusions, too many times, bases on the wishes of controllers.  If one cannot listen to an opposite view, take a position, and enter facts or suggestions that will bring that opposing view and his own view closer together; one should not be in Congress. 


In the history of democracy we learn that everyone cannot agree on anything no matter what the subject becomes to be.  Our republic has its drawbacks simply because of control of numbers.  If one owns ten percent of the stock of any company and has a reasonable influential position over another forty one percent, one has a better than even chance of controlling the chairman, several board member, and thus the policies and procedures of the company.  As a result the company’s goals become the goals of the one rather than the many.


This is the way of congress now.  The Tea Party fusses about nonsense in order to keep the rest of Congress from debating the issues.  The way this works is Congress over many years has taught the public to listen to phrases and other sound bites instead of doing some research themselves on the issues.  The Team Party uses this fact to keep up the rhetoric which seems to be strong enough to keep the more reasonable members of Congress from fearing the electorate. 


I wanted to find a group of people trying to fight the ridiculous methods and laws produced by Congress, but I find that they are using the same tactics of sound bites they are trying to fight.


I plead with the electorate first to grow your numbers and become involved in the process, but be careful.  Now the organization best to lead this revolution is the White House.  The problem there is that they use the same people who are causing the problems of our country as advisors.  They will not look for people that think outside the box. 


When I say think outside the box, I don’t mean people that have radical ideas.  There are no new ideas.  There are only idea expansions.


The people that run these United States made their money and/or gained their power within a system they refuse to change because it will hit their bottom line.  Of course their bottom line is so large that it doesn’t matter what they give up, so the threat then becomes losing power.


The electorate’s problem then becomes to be to elect and/or direct those in Congress to think of the electorate’s best interest then the interest of the country with emphasis on how the national laws passed effect their particular electorate’s interest and also protect the country’s power to keep the structure created by the founders safe from outside influence.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: