Satan is for healthcareGod wants you to suffer and only “the elect” (which, since Calvin’s time has always meant the rich, like the C street boys) to have the benefit of healthcare as their earthly reward for being one of the “chosen”

Oh, the irony.

“Well it would take a demon to be this dishonest about a bill,” the Texas Republican told the Huffington Post. “If they would just read the bill, they would see what they are saying is dishonest.”

So the GOP and the Teabaggers aren’t just cynically lying for political gain, they’re possessed?

They are no longer bothering to hide their desire for JihadI fear that the Talibangelicals will soon start openly agitating for holy war. How long until people being attempting to assassinate federal judges, members of Congress or White House staffers because of religious, hate-based rhetoric like Rep. Gomer’s?

“I fear that the Talibangelicals will soon start openly agitating for holy war.”Start?
Recall Ann Coulter’s suggestion for poisoning Justice Stevens: http://www.americanchronicle.c…

WowThe Texans will be the downfall of the republic.

Demons.Did he then begin to talk in tongues?

We really need to considerdoing away with elections and selecting our public officials by lottery.  We elect juries that way, and we trust them to make life-and-death decisions and to pass judgment in cases involving complex legal and technical issues.  Why not choose congress members and even judges that same way?  If we can choose people at random to make decisions in capital punishment cases, we can certainly trust them to deal with corn subsidies and the like.
Right-wingers, birthers, tenthers, overt bigots and other such riffraff are over-represented in our current system of government.  Every Louie Gohmert, Micheelle Bachmann, Virginia Foxx and their like would be in only for a fixed term, which would automatically limit the amount of damage they could do.  And officials chosen by lottery would only serve for a fixed term, till the next lottery comes up, so it would be a lot harder for corporations and churches to corrupt them.  
I even have a name for this system: DEMOCRACY.

QScribe, you are so right, however, I fear that the lottery would only serve to put more ignorant, religious nutballs into Congress than we already have.  At least the wingnuts that are in Congress usually have a college degree and should be able to think critically.  The people like Gohmert know better, only they know that to get the votes, they have to play to the crowd’s lowest denonminator, usually someone like Phyllis Schlafly, Hartline, Gallagher, and their ilk.  Can you imagine having those people in Congress?  UGH

Texas wingnut GohmertMeanwhile the taliban plots the destruction of America, but our own homegrown religious zealots like Gohmert have turned themselves into a ‘fifth column’ attacking from within. How’s that again? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy?  

You aren’t quite right about juriesJuries do not make life-and-death decisions, nor do they pass judgement in cases involving complex legal and technical issues. Juries only judge the evidence itself: a grand jury decides whether there is enough evidence to merit sending an accusation to trial, and a petit jury decides whether the evidence is sufficient to support the accusation.

Aren’t grand juries selected by lottery too?They are here in PA.  Not sure that’s the case everywhere.

True, there is always that danger in a random process.But by the same token, we’d get a much higher percentage of college professors, scientists, writers and other intellectuals in congress.  For as long as I can remember, people have been bemoaning the fact that our “best and brightest” want nothing to do with politics, because our electoral system is so toxic.  This proposal would remedy that and, and cure the toxicity in the system as well.  For every Junior Samples put in congress, we’d get at least one and quite possibly more Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, Stephen Fry or some such.  
And the Louie Gohmerts would not have to pander to the lowest common denominator to get elected.  It it’s a concern that politicians have to pander to imbeciles to get elected, why not scrap the system that makes it necessary?

No more watching Supernatural for them, I guessIf they can’t tell it from reality.

Statistically speakingwe would get the 80% of the population that has no college degree and are religious.  I fear that statistic.  In order for your lottery to work, we would have to take out 80% of the population from the lottery.

Huge problem, QWith juries we have Voir Dire, to exclude the wingnuts

Most, if not all, US juries are selected by lotteryMy only point was on the purpose of a jury. Sorry, but I’ve done jury duty three times (city, county and state) in the last 18 months, and I’m half expecting a federal summons to appear any day now. The introductory lectures kind of stick. :-b
And I seem to remember a Greek philosopher — Plato? — who wrote about selecting magistrates and other civic leaders by lottery. I do remember that it was Plato who wrote that any person who wanted to govern was therefore unfit.

That’s not what I’ve seenI’ve been called to jury duty three times in the last year and a half and been through four jury selections. From what I’ve seen, lawyers use voir dire to weed out the obviously intelligent and capable as much as the wingnuts. They want “average” and, sadly, that window is pretty low.

Right on BettyYou said it, Betty.  These fringe christians always fail to recognize they operate in exactly the same way as fringe islamists.  The repubs and tea partiers complain about moderate moslems not taking their extemists to task, while at the same time they are inciting christian extremists at home to new and more irrational acts.  

I’ve done jury duty tooA few years ago, I was foreman of a jury in a very complex case involving real estate finances and swindling.  This despite the fact that I’m severely math-challenged; balancing my checkbook is a serious challenge for me.  None of the other jurors on the panel had any serious math/accounting background either.  But we sat patiently and listened to more than a week of expert testimony, and came to a verdict that everyone (except the defendant) thought was fair.  If we could do that, with no special background or temperament for it, we could probably be trusted to do the things Gohmert, Foxx and the rest do on a daily basis.

Would you alsoargue that that same 80% should be excluded from jury duty?  And from voting?  You don’t have much faith in democracy, do you?
And in case it’s escaped your notice, Louie Gohmert has a college degree and is religious.

Exactly.Lawyers tend to weed out educated, independent thinkers, or people they think are likely to be.  They want jurors who can be led, not jurors who can spot the flaws in their (the lawyers’) arguments.

It depends upon the kind of caseMost of my own cases had technical arguments and I liked intelligent juries.

Louie Lou AYEI think the devil is his hair dresser and he should be arrested as a follicular felon.

Nice idea, but . . .Juries are not elected by lottery.
Candidates for jury duty are selected, but attorneys have the right to question and to dismiss jurors. And they do it.
Jury candidates also are not a true cross-section of society. They are picked from various rolls, such as voter rolls, driver license registrations, and so on.
That said, your idea is worth consideration.
Maybe we could create a third house that way? Or designate a percent of the total congress to lottery-selected membership?
I do want to believe that we elect members actually to represent us, but that has become so corrupt as to be a quaint relic of yesteryear. (If ever it was true.)
I prefer a single-payer approach to campaigning: Government funding totally and only.

Many years ago, I toyed with the idea of a new constitution It was for extra credit in a college government class.
Basically, every citizen (as defined in Article I) was a member of the Althing (defined in Article II.) The Althing was a deliberative body, operating much like the old Usenet boards. All citizens had a voice and could vote in elections, but only those citizens who participated in the debate could vote on a bill. Non-citizen residents could follow debate but not participate.
With some exceptions, legislation was drafted by the Senate (defined in Article III, consisting of professional legislators elected by districts to staggered 6 year terms) and submitted to the Althing for debate. After a period of time, the Althing would vote. Depending on the outcome of the vote the bill could be rejected, sent back to the Senate for revision or approved and passed to the Chief Executive. Among the exceptions were issues of national secrecy, which bypassed the Althing.
My country was small, about 60 million people. I don’t think it would work for a nation as populous as the US, the Althing would be unworkably huge.