Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?

[emilynghiem]

Wow. I just got off the phone with a leading activist in state and national politics and reform, who didn't believe that the conservative/Republican opposition to ACA was real, was based on states' rights or individual liberties vs. federalism, but was merely an expression of racially embedded rejection of Obama as President. Wow.

Am I the only one who tries to include and respect beliefs in prolife and prochoice, for and against the death penalty, for and against legalization or decriminalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. and just hold people accountable and responsible for their own views, and either working out conflicts or "separating out" by party to avoid imposition on others.

Does everyone else require "voiding or discrediting" the views of others as "false, wrong, invalid, intellectually dishonest or politically motivated" in order to understand the opposition?

Or am I the one being fooled?

Already I ran into prochoice people who keep pushing the ACA mandates despite this being "against free choice" -- but now it is being "explained to me" that the opposition to ACA is "all false anyway because Republicans pushed the insurance mandates long before this."

But maybe that is why it never got anywhere, because it was inherently against govt structure that is supposed to respect states and individual rights from overreaching by feds.

Now I'm told this is completely false, and Republicans are just pushing political points against Obama because they reject him.

Oh well.

Below are the RESOLUTIONS I had proposed to the Democrat Party that got rejected,
I thought I could revise and rewrite them. But now I'm told the opposition is fake anyway, so I am addressing nonissues trying to include and address objections that aren't even real.

Really? So all these people objecting to federal mandates are just racist against Obama?

I thought there was a big difference between states and federal govt,
but now I'm told the opposition is all political.

=====================================

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
(g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

Given the wide opposition to current health care laws that do not represent or include many Citizens in Texas with diverse political views on Pro-Life, Singlepayer Health Care, and/or liberty to pay for health care without federal mandates or penalty,
the Democrat Party will support a Bipartisan task force to negotiate an agreement with the Governor and State Legislature on “State Innovations” to reform the budget as necessary to provide medical care, health care and mental health care for the public by agreement to decriminalize drugs and replace capital punishment with more cost-effective systems for rehabilitation and treatment, so that tax money saved is invested in expanding medical education, internships, facilities and programs to serve both the populations inside and outside prison with the same resources currently spent on a failed system of prisons, drug enforcement, and criminal justice.

I thought this solution could open the door to working WITH Gov Perry and Republican leaders against the federal mandates, and introduce much needed reforms to free up resources and start converting correctional facilities into a medical model for diagnosing, treating, preventing and correcting criminal behavior, illness, addiction and abuse.

Am I the only one who takes people's objections seriously, political or not,
and tries to find a way to RESOLVE those conflicts with a comprehensive solution?

Is everyone really NOT objecting to the insurance mandates, and will benefit from the reforms anyway, and do not care about any other possible solutions?

I thought the opposition was holding up the process.
Now I'm told it's not even real, but just empty political posturing for election points?
Really?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Wow. I just got off the phone with a leading activist in state and national politics and reform, who didn't believe that the conservative/Republican opposition to ACA was real, was based on states' rights or individual liberties vs. federalism, but was merely an expression of racially embedded rejection of Obama as President. Wow.

Am I the only one who tries to include and respect beliefs in prolife and prochoice, for and against the death penalty, for and against legalization or decriminalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. and just hold people accountable and responsible for their own views, and either working out conflicts or "separating out" by party to avoid imposition on others.

Does everyone else require "voiding or discrediting" the views of others as "false, wrong, invalid, intellectually dishonest or politically motivated" in order to understand the opposition?

Or am I the one being fooled?

Already I ran into prochoice people who keep pushing the ACA mandates despite this being "against free choice" -- but now it is being "explained to me" that the opposition to ACA is "all false anyway because Republicans pushed the insurance mandates long before this."

But maybe that is why it never got anywhere, because it was inherently against govt structure that is supposed to respect states and individual rights from overreaching by feds.

Now I'm told this is completely false, and Republicans are just pushing political points against Obama because they reject him.

Oh well.

Below are the RESOLUTIONS I had proposed to the Democrat Party that got rejected,
I thought I could revise and rewrite them. But now I'm told the opposition is fake anyway, so I am addressing nonissues trying to include and address objections that aren't even real.

Really? So all these people objecting to federal mandates are just racist against Obama?

I thought there was a big difference between states and federal govt,
but now I'm told the opposition is all political.

=====================================

WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
(g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

Given the wide opposition to current health care laws that do not represent or include many Citizens in Texas with diverse political views on Pro-Life, Singlepayer Health Care, and/or liberty to pay for health care without federal mandates or penalty,
the Democrat Party will support a Bipartisan task force to negotiate an agreement with the Governor and State Legislature on “State Innovations” to reform the budget as necessary to provide medical care, health care and mental health care for the public by agreement to decriminalize drugs and replace capital punishment with more cost-effective systems for rehabilitation and treatment, so that tax money saved is invested in expanding medical education, internships, facilities and programs to serve both the populations inside and outside prison with the same resources currently spent on a failed system of prisons, drug enforcement, and criminal justice.

I thought this solution could open the door to working WITH Gov Perry and Republican leaders against the federal mandates, and introduce much needed reforms to free up resources and start converting correctional facilities into a medical model for diagnosing, treating, preventing and correcting criminal behavior, illness, addiction and abuse.

Am I the only one who takes people's objections seriously, political or not,
and tries to find a way to RESOLVE those conflicts with a comprehensive solution?

Is everyone really NOT objecting to the insurance mandates, and will benefit from the reforms anyway, and do not care about any other possible solutions?

I thought the opposition was holding up the process.
Now I'm told it's not even real, but just empty political posturing for election points?
Really?

(emphasis added)

It's more of the same bullshit to try and convince everyone anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist or just hates Obama.

The same amount of criticism was leveled at the Clinton health care plan or what became to be known as "Hillarycare" later.

Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan. Instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal...Opponents of the bill organized against it before it was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993.[8] The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The full text of the November 20 bill (the Health Security Act) is available online

Clinton health care plan of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The message from many on the left who try to say the opposition is a result of a black president is far from honest, just something to muddy the waters and try to paint those against it as racist or obstructionists.