Democrats lose me again

[emilynghiem]

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

First of all, your claim is completely false. Nobody is required to buy auto insurance if they do not drive.

Second, auto insurance is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the authority to make anyone buy a product.

If you have a DWI and don't drive, you must still get insurance and file an SR-22 for two years..

Dear Moonglow if Convicted of a DWI. That means you went through due process, were found guilty, under laws that prescribe a loss of liberty for a crime.

What CRIME did taxpayers commit to lose our freedom under ACA mandates? Where was the DUE PROCESS to show WHICH people incurred WHICH debts or violations that THOSE people need to pay for?
Do you see the difference?

The govt is barred from depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law. So where is it? Where have you proven which people owe what amount or refused to pay using other means besides insurance before that's forced on people as a PENALTY.

Moonglow if you follow this line of reasoning, you may end up at my conclusion: why not go after convicted felons and corporate abusers who have been proven to incur debts to the public. Go collect on those damages and use those funds or credits to finance medical education facilities and program development. Why go after law abiding citizens with no due process to prove responsibility for any crime or debt, when there are plenty of people proven to cost the state and public billions if not trillions of dollars. That COULD be collected on and or credited back to taxpayers to invest in public health care, education and other programs in demand. We're talking billions of dollars per state, currently wasted on failed prison and mental health systems that warehouse people for corporate contracts and profits at taxpayer expense and just make people sicker while we foot the bill.

If the goal is responsibility for costs, why let criminals abuse tax resources with no accountability or restitution, then go punish law abiding taxpayers with penalties or loss of liberty to PAY for the crimes and debts by others?

 

[jon_berzerk]

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

if none of that has lost ya

the willingness of democrats to die on the

cops as pigs hill should convince you

 

[LordBrownTrout]

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

Not me, emily. It doesn't blow my mind as to how screwed up abortion supporters are. They'll scream like schoolgirls when they see infomercials about neglected cats but won't lose a wink of sleep over aborted babies. Why would you be surprised that there is absolutely no logic in their demented thought?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

First of all, your claim is completely false. Nobody is required to buy auto insurance if they do not drive.

Second, auto insurance is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the authority to make anyone buy a product.

If you have a DWI and don't drive, you must still get insurance and file an SR-22 for two years..

That may be a law in your state, but that isn't what you said.

 

[FA_Q2]

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

First of all, your claim is completely false. Nobody is required to buy auto insurance if they do not drive.

Second, auto insurance is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the authority to make anyone buy a product.

If you have a DWI and don't drive, you must still get insurance and file an SR-22 for two years..

Do you not understand the difference of losing rights outright and losing rights under due process after you have broken the law?

The government can also put you in a 10x10 cell for the rest of your life if you are found guilty of murder. By your logic, that means the government can do that at any time for any reason and that is just fine. It is nonsensical.

 

[BULLDOG]

BULLDOG okay here's my attempt to explain why the left is allowed to be so biased
and contradict its own principles:

The conservatives who believe in following the spirit of the laws, and take equal responsibility, have their churches and other means of enforcing their own free exercise. They are expected to promote their beliefs and practices VOLUNTARILY and in PRIVATE through their churches and religious activities and outreach. They do not need govt to establish their beliefs and rights in order to exercise their ability to practice and enforce these directly themselves.

The left that is secular does not have these advantages.
They depend on govt to act as their central authority to endorse and establish collective identity policy and practice. (And in order to get these through govt, they rely on PARTY and MEDIA the way the right uses their church networks to organize and represent themselves collectively.)

This isn't just another choice to the left "to go through govt".
it is a REQUIREMENT for their equal exercise and equal rights and protections.
many do not feel they have equality WITHOUT laws being established through govt
which is their way of expressing and representing their beliefs and identity collectively.

For the right, if they want to establish their beliefs, it has to be done by education and free choice. They are not allowed to force it through govt. They have their churches to use.

For the left, their beliefs do not count as religious. Since these are secular, they are not barred from establishing through govt (unless a law is passed that specifies this). Currently the First Amendment only cites RELIGIOUS beliefs, but there is no legal precedent for applying "religious freedom" more universally to include POLITICAL beliefs.

Until and unless that happens, the left uses this law as written and interpreted by precedent
to bar RELIGIOUS beliefs from being pushed through govt
while allowing their POLITICAL SECULAR BELIEFS to be mandated as "not religious."

The liberals and secularist may always have this bias in their favor.

It could be that the church laws are meant to be dominated by the rightwing conservative/religious
and the civil govt is meant to be dominated by the leftwing secular bias in beliefs and practice.

As long as the right excludes the left and teaches the church policies to be EXCLUSIVE
the left will seek to balance this power by using the GOVT to be equally biased the other way.

So to change this
the right would have to open up the churches to teach more UNIVERSALLY INCLUSIVE of all faiths,
before the left would no longer depend on govt to protect them equally
and could open up the govt policies to be truly INCLUSIVE instead of biased against the religious right.

I got as far as the right are all god fearing people, and the left are all heathens before I stopped. If you continue to believe all the crap that right wing radio claims about liberals, you will remain just as ignorant as you are today.

 

[Pete7469]

Further, you only need insurance to drive on public roads. You can buy a car and only operate it on private property and never require insurance or a licence.

Such is fairly common in more rural areas.

We have an old pick up we drive out on the road without any tags. The sheriffs don't care unless you're out on the highway. Otherwise you can go from ranch to ranch or out to the store without being hassled, unless you're known to them as a problem child.

 

[emilynghiem]

BULLDOG okay here's my attempt to explain why the left is allowed to be so biased
and contradict its own principles:

The conservatives who believe in following the spirit of the laws, and take equal responsibility, have their churches and other means of enforcing their own free exercise. They are expected to promote their beliefs and practices VOLUNTARILY and in PRIVATE through their churches and religious activities and outreach. They do not need govt to establish their beliefs and rights in order to exercise their ability to practice and enforce these directly themselves.

The left that is secular does not have these advantages.
They depend on govt to act as their central authority to endorse and establish collective identity policy and practice. (And in order to get these through govt, they rely on PARTY and MEDIA the way the right uses their church networks to organize and represent themselves collectively.)

This isn't just another choice to the left "to go through govt".
it is a REQUIREMENT for their equal exercise and equal rights and protections.
many do not feel they have equality WITHOUT laws being established through govt
which is their way of expressing and representing their beliefs and identity collectively.

For the right, if they want to establish their beliefs, it has to be done by education and free choice. They are not allowed to force it through govt. They have their churches to use.

For the left, their beliefs do not count as religious. Since these are secular, they are not barred from establishing through govt (unless a law is passed that specifies this). Currently the First Amendment only cites RELIGIOUS beliefs, but there is no legal precedent for applying "religious freedom" more universally to include POLITICAL beliefs.

Until and unless that happens, the left uses this law as written and interpreted by precedent
to bar RELIGIOUS beliefs from being pushed through govt
while allowing their POLITICAL SECULAR BELIEFS to be mandated as "not religious."

The liberals and secularist may always have this bias in their favor.

It could be that the church laws are meant to be dominated by the rightwing conservative/religious
and the civil govt is meant to be dominated by the leftwing secular bias in beliefs and practice.

As long as the right excludes the left and teaches the church policies to be EXCLUSIVE
the left will seek to balance this power by using the GOVT to be equally biased the other way.

So to change this
the right would have to open up the churches to teach more UNIVERSALLY INCLUSIVE of all faiths,
before the left would no longer depend on govt to protect them equally
and could open up the govt policies to be truly INCLUSIVE instead of biased against the religious right.

I got as far as the right are all god fearing people, and the left are all heathens before I stopped. If you continue to believe all the crap that right wing radio claims about liberals, you will remain just as ignorant as you are today.

Dear BULLDOG I consider myself equally a secular gentile brought up under natural laws and nontheistic terms.
So that's why I am harder on liberals and Democrats because I am one, and I take responsibility for my peers
and what we do as a group. If we have problems and conflicts within our own ranks, I am going to hold myself
and my colleagues to fix our own problems first, as having the main influence and abìlity to bring about change.

I am also "hearing" in your posts a bias that all the religious right are the cause of oppression
and the left can do no wrong. Forgive me if that's not what you believe or defend.

I have seen fellow Democrats censor and destroy the plans, communities, finances
and efforts of our own constituents by projecting all blame on the right
and taking no responsibility for where we invest in corrections ourselves.

So that's why I am so intent on fixing what problems I have run across among my own party.
That's where I'm coming from.

As for the right, I find the Christians and Conservatives are MORE amenable to
ACCEPTING CORRECTIONS shared by peers BASED on enforcing Constitutional or Biblical principles. I find them better at checking their own. Because they have taken a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution, and/or the Bible, so they can be held to answer to those. If the left doesn't do the same, but tows the party line first as their religion, then we're not using common laws and principles to stay on the same page. We need to enforce a common frame of reference as the rules. But if both sides only follow what their party says, then we're all lost, pulling in opposing directions with no chance of getting back on common track.

With the left, the rise of Sanders supporters is the first major media coverage taken seriously
of the long oppressed progressive voices silenced and hijacked by the liberal elitists running the Party, as well as the Media.

We have an opportunity to show we are trying to correct the problems from within and among our own ranks. It's not just following the same old same old "just to stay in power." But it's a chance to show (1) the real ideals these masses support and (2) that these AREN'T against what the right wants. The goals actually point to the same solutions that are going to satisfy both!

But for too long, the liberal left has been painted as the helpless victims.
With no choice but to "tow the party line" right or wrong, just to organize our numbers and get figureheads elected to office. The focus has not been on investing our own resources and leadership DIRECTLY into solving our own problems ourselves without depending on govt or party to dictate solutions for us.

Only the right has been credited for arguing against govt controls and investing directly in private individuals, businesses, and ownership
to manage policies locally by self-governance and independence from govt.

So whatever "political belief" this is which the party line has been towing,
that we "need to depend on govt" for health care, on govt for establishing rights and protections
against abuses by the religious right and their corporate forces,
I stand with the REAL progressives and even the socialist reform groups
pushing for WORKER owned co-ops and health care, taking BACK control
of resources and districts to manage education and services locally and democratically.

But all I hear in the media is left bashing right and right bashing left.

In reality I found that the Libertarians advocating lìmited govt and maximum liberty of the people,
the Conservatives and Capitalists seeking more local controls and ownership,
ALIGN with the progressive Greens and even Socialists who want workers to own and manage
resources and business WITHOUT the class conflicts and monopoly/abuse of corporate interests interfering.

So we actually have common principles if we can get past the left/right bashing and mutual rejection going on.

BULLDOG I apologize if I misread you as a reactionary against the right.
So many of my fellow liberals and progressives have to fight this battle every day in Texas,
I am used to the defensiveness and attacks on both sides.

I am trying to promote solutions that include the principles on both sides.
The reason I criticize the left is that there is not the same respect for corrections
that I have seen the right use to go after and police their own. I think they've gone too far,
where the far far right was refusing to even work out transitional steps to get to a better place.
but the left has always fallen short in this area, and forgiven too much for the sake of keeping
a unified front, to the point where the damage and losses from corruption are crippling if these are never corrected.

I am pushing for as much correction on the left and the right, to stop abuses,
and go after COLLECTIONS and credit OWED to taxpayers for abuses of govt that have cost us huge debts and damages.

But from my experience, the right has plenty of support to correct themselves, with the Tea Party and Trump
and Cruz and all the conservatives fighting and calling out wherever they find govt BS going on.

The left with the media backing both Clintons and Obama have excused if not covered up for wrongs,
and have yet to hold such leaders to correct the damages done to constituents much less the rest of the nation.

So that's where my focus has been.
The right has gone after their own, and yes there was censorship to silence first Cruz and the Tea Party and then shut down Trump.
They've had to deal with all that, and they are still coming out better than the left.

Sanders and the Green supporters tried to hold Clinton responsible for stopping the BS
and creating real change reform and solutions. So that story and where we are heading
is still in our hands. I hope we speak out as loudly and boldly as Trump, and get the
real voices and solutions out that the grassroots has been fighting for. It seems the left
has been too busy silencing its own members, and doesn't need help from the right to destroy itself.

Others are saying the same about the right, which is suffering similar infighting and obstructing the bigger principles
in the name of politics.

BULLDOG if we can do better to hear each other here, maybe there's hope for both parties to do the same.
Thank you and please keep posting and sharing.
Every bit helps. We have to hear and understand each other
if we are going to get anywhere, past all this right/left paradigm . . .

 

[BULLDOG]

BULLDOG okay here's my attempt to explain why the left is allowed to be so biased
and contradict its own principles:

The conservatives who believe in following the spirit of the laws, and take equal responsibility, have their churches and other means of enforcing their own free exercise. They are expected to promote their beliefs and practices VOLUNTARILY and in PRIVATE through their churches and religious activities and outreach. They do not need govt to establish their beliefs and rights in order to exercise their ability to practice and enforce these directly themselves.

The left that is secular does not have these advantages.
They depend on govt to act as their central authority to endorse and establish collective identity policy and practice. (And in order to get these through govt, they rely on PARTY and MEDIA the way the right uses their church networks to organize and represent themselves collectively.)

This isn't just another choice to the left "to go through govt".
it is a REQUIREMENT for their equal exercise and equal rights and protections.
many do not feel they have equality WITHOUT laws being established through govt
which is their way of expressing and representing their beliefs and identity collectively.

For the right, if they want to establish their beliefs, it has to be done by education and free choice. They are not allowed to force it through govt. They have their churches to use.

For the left, their beliefs do not count as religious. Since these are secular, they are not barred from establishing through govt (unless a law is passed that specifies this). Currently the First Amendment only cites RELIGIOUS beliefs, but there is no legal precedent for applying "religious freedom" more universally to include POLITICAL beliefs.

Until and unless that happens, the left uses this law as written and interpreted by precedent
to bar RELIGIOUS beliefs from being pushed through govt
while allowing their POLITICAL SECULAR BELIEFS to be mandated as "not religious."

The liberals and secularist may always have this bias in their favor.

It could be that the church laws are meant to be dominated by the rightwing conservative/religious
and the civil govt is meant to be dominated by the leftwing secular bias in beliefs and practice.

As long as the right excludes the left and teaches the church policies to be EXCLUSIVE
the left will seek to balance this power by using the GOVT to be equally biased the other way.

So to change this
the right would have to open up the churches to teach more UNIVERSALLY INCLUSIVE of all faiths,
before the left would no longer depend on govt to protect them equally
and could open up the govt policies to be truly INCLUSIVE instead of biased against the religious right.

I got as far as the right are all god fearing people, and the left are all heathens before I stopped. If you continue to believe all the crap that right wing radio claims about liberals, you will remain just as ignorant as you are today.

Dear BULLDOG I consider myself equally a secular gentile brought up under natural laws and nontheistic terms.
So that's why I am harder on liberals and Democrats because I am one, and I take responsibility for my peers
and what we do as a group. If we have problems and conflicts within our own ranks, I am going to hold myself
and my colleagues to fix our own problems first, as having the main influence and abìlity to bring about change.

I am also "hearing" in your posts a bias that all the religious right are the cause of oppression
and the left can do no wrong. Forgive me if that's not what you believe or defend.

I have seen fellow Democrats censor and destroy the plans, communities, finances
and efforts of our own constituents by projecting all blame on the right
and taking no responsibility for where we invest in corrections ourselves.

So that's why I am so intent on fixing what problems I have run across among my own party.
That's where I'm coming from.

As for the right, I find the Christians and Conservatives are MORE amenable to
ACCEPTING CORRECTIONS shared by peers BASED on enforcing Constitutional or Biblical principles. I find them better at checking their own. Because they have taken a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution, and/or the Bible, so they can be held to answer to those. If the left doesn't do the same, but tows the party line first as their religion, then we're not using common laws and principles to stay on the same page. We need to enforce a common frame of reference as the rules. But if both sides only follow what their party says, then we're all lost, pulling in opposing directions with no chance of getting back on common track.

With the left, the rise of Sanders supporters is the first major media coverage taken seriously
of the long oppressed progressive voices silenced and hijacked by the liberal elitists running the Party, as well as the Media.

We have an opportunity to show we are trying to correct the problems from within and among our own ranks. It's not just following the same old same old "just to stay in power." But it's a chance to show (1) the real ideals these masses support and (2) that these AREN'T against what the right wants. The goals actually point to the same solutions that are going to satisfy both!

But for too long, the liberal left has been painted as the helpless victims.
With no choice but to "tow the party line" right or wrong, just to organize our numbers and get figureheads elected to office. The focus has not been on investing our own resources and leadership DIRECTLY into solving our own problems ourselves without depending on govt or party to dictate solutions for us.

Only the right has been credited for arguing against govt controls and investing directly in private individuals, businesses, and ownership
to manage policies locally by self-governance and independence from govt.

So whatever "political belief" this is which the party line has been towing,
that we "need to depend on govt" for health care, on govt for establishing rights and protections
against abuses by the religious right and their corporate forces,
I stand with the REAL progressives and even the socialist reform groups
pushing for WORKER owned co-ops and health care, taking BACK control
of resources and districts to manage education and services locally and democratically.

But all I hear in the media is left bashing right and right bashing left.

In reality I found that the Libertarians advocating lìmited govt and maximum liberty of the people,
the Conservatives and Capitalists seeking more local controls and ownership,
ALIGN with the progressive Greens and even Socialists who want workers to own and manage
resources and business WITHOUT the class conflicts and monopoly/abuse of corporate interests interfering.

So we actually have common principles if we can get past the left/right bashing and mutual rejection going on.

BULLDOG I apologize if I misread you as a reactionary against the right.
So many of my fellow liberals and progressives have to fight this battle every day in Texas,
I am used to the defensiveness and attacks on both sides.

I am trying to promote solutions that include the principles on both sides.
The reason I criticize the left is that there is not the same respect for corrections
that I have seen the right use to go after and police their own. I think they've gone too far,
where the far far right was refusing to even work out transitional steps to get to a better place.
but the left has always fallen short in this area, and forgiven too much for the sake of keeping
a unified front, to the point where the damage and losses from corruption are crippling if these are never corrected.

I am pushing for as much correction on the left and the right, to stop abuses,
and go after COLLECTIONS and credit OWED to taxpayers for abuses of govt that have cost us huge debts and damages.

But from my experience, the right has plenty of support to correct themselves, with the Tea Party and Trump
and Cruz and all the conservatives fighting and calling out wherever they find govt BS going on.

The left with the media backing both Clintons and Obama have excused if not covered up for wrongs,
and have yet to hold such leaders to correct the damages done to constituents much less the rest of the nation.

So that's where my focus has been.
The right has gone after their own, and yes there was censorship to silence first Cruz and the Tea Party and then shut down Trump.
They've had to deal with all that, and they are still coming out better than the left.

Sanders and the Green supporters tried to hold Clinton responsible for stopping the BS
and creating real change reform and solutions. So that story and where we are heading
is still in our hands. I hope we speak out as loudly and boldly as Trump, and get the
real voices and solutions out that the grassroots has been fighting for. It seems the left
has been too busy silencing its own members, and doesn't need help from the right to destroy itself.

Others are saying the same about the right, which is suffering similar infighting and obstructing the bigger principles
in the name of politics.

BULLDOG if we can do better to hear each other here, maybe there's hope for both parties to do the same.
Thank you and please keep posting and sharing.
Every bit helps. We have to hear and understand each other
if we are going to get anywhere, past all this right/left paradigm . . .

Got it. You're a liberal, so you think liberals are wrong, and right wingers are right. I recognize the kind of double talk you are spouting, and don't care to play along.

 

[emilynghiem]

BULLDOG okay here's my attempt to explain why the left is allowed to be so biased
and contradict its own principles:

The conservatives who believe in following the spirit of the laws, and take equal responsibility, have their churches and other means of enforcing their own free exercise. They are expected to promote their beliefs and practices VOLUNTARILY and in PRIVATE through their churches and religious activities and outreach. They do not need govt to establish their beliefs and rights in order to exercise their ability to practice and enforce these directly themselves.

The left that is secular does not have these advantages.
They depend on govt to act as their central authority to endorse and establish collective identity policy and practice. (And in order to get these through govt, they rely on PARTY and MEDIA the way the right uses their church networks to organize and represent themselves collectively.)

This isn't just another choice to the left "to go through govt".
it is a REQUIREMENT for their equal exercise and equal rights and protections.
many do not feel they have equality WITHOUT laws being established through govt
which is their way of expressing and representing their beliefs and identity collectively.

For the right, if they want to establish their beliefs, it has to be done by education and free choice. They are not allowed to force it through govt. They have their churches to use.

For the left, their beliefs do not count as religious. Since these are secular, they are not barred from establishing through govt (unless a law is passed that specifies this). Currently the First Amendment only cites RELIGIOUS beliefs, but there is no legal precedent for applying "religious freedom" more universally to include POLITICAL beliefs.

Until and unless that happens, the left uses this law as written and interpreted by precedent
to bar RELIGIOUS beliefs from being pushed through govt
while allowing their POLITICAL SECULAR BELIEFS to be mandated as "not religious."

The liberals and secularist may always have this bias in their favor.

It could be that the church laws are meant to be dominated by the rightwing conservative/religious
and the civil govt is meant to be dominated by the leftwing secular bias in beliefs and practice.

As long as the right excludes the left and teaches the church policies to be EXCLUSIVE
the left will seek to balance this power by using the GOVT to be equally biased the other way.

So to change this
the right would have to open up the churches to teach more UNIVERSALLY INCLUSIVE of all faiths,
before the left would no longer depend on govt to protect them equally
and could open up the govt policies to be truly INCLUSIVE instead of biased against the religious right.

I got as far as the right are all god fearing people, and the left are all heathens before I stopped. If you continue to believe all the crap that right wing radio claims about liberals, you will remain just as ignorant as you are today.

Dear BULLDOG I consider myself equally a secular gentile brought up under natural laws and nontheistic terms.
So that's why I am harder on liberals and Democrats because I am one, and I take responsibility for my peers
and what we do as a group. If we have problems and conflicts within our own ranks, I am going to hold myself
and my colleagues to fix our own problems first, as having the main influence and abìlity to bring about change.

I am also "hearing" in your posts a bias that all the religious right are the cause of oppression
and the left can do no wrong. Forgive me if that's not what you believe or defend.

I have seen fellow Democrats censor and destroy the plans, communities, finances
and efforts of our own constituents by projecting all blame on the right
and taking no responsibility for where we invest in corrections ourselves.

So that's why I am so intent on fixing what problems I have run across among my own party.
That's where I'm coming from.

As for the right, I find the Christians and Conservatives are MORE amenable to
ACCEPTING CORRECTIONS shared by peers BASED on enforcing Constitutional or Biblical principles. I find them better at checking their own. Because they have taken a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution, and/or the Bible, so they can be held to answer to those. If the left doesn't do the same, but tows the party line first as their religion, then we're not using common laws and principles to stay on the same page. We need to enforce a common frame of reference as the rules. But if both sides only follow what their party says, then we're all lost, pulling in opposing directions with no chance of getting back on common track.

With the left, the rise of Sanders supporters is the first major media coverage taken seriously
of the long oppressed progressive voices silenced and hijacked by the liberal elitists running the Party, as well as the Media.

We have an opportunity to show we are trying to correct the problems from within and among our own ranks. It's not just following the same old same old "just to stay in power." But it's a chance to show (1) the real ideals these masses support and (2) that these AREN'T against what the right wants. The goals actually point to the same solutions that are going to satisfy both!

But for too long, the liberal left has been painted as the helpless victims.
With no choice but to "tow the party line" right or wrong, just to organize our numbers and get figureheads elected to office. The focus has not been on investing our own resources and leadership DIRECTLY into solving our own problems ourselves without depending on govt or party to dictate solutions for us.

Only the right has been credited for arguing against govt controls and investing directly in private individuals, businesses, and ownership
to manage policies locally by self-governance and independence from govt.

So whatever "political belief" this is which the party line has been towing,
that we "need to depend on govt" for health care, on govt for establishing rights and protections
against abuses by the religious right and their corporate forces,
I stand with the REAL progressives and even the socialist reform groups
pushing for WORKER owned co-ops and health care, taking BACK control
of resources and districts to manage education and services locally and democratically.

But all I hear in the media is left bashing right and right bashing left.

In reality I found that the Libertarians advocating lìmited govt and maximum liberty of the people,
the Conservatives and Capitalists seeking more local controls and ownership,
ALIGN with the progressive Greens and even Socialists who want workers to own and manage
resources and business WITHOUT the class conflicts and monopoly/abuse of corporate interests interfering.

So we actually have common principles if we can get past the left/right bashing and mutual rejection going on.

BULLDOG I apologize if I misread you as a reactionary against the right.
So many of my fellow liberals and progressives have to fight this battle every day in Texas,
I am used to the defensiveness and attacks on both sides.

I am trying to promote solutions that include the principles on both sides.
The reason I criticize the left is that there is not the same respect for corrections
that I have seen the right use to go after and police their own. I think they've gone too far,
where the far far right was refusing to even work out transitional steps to get to a better place.
but the left has always fallen short in this area, and forgiven too much for the sake of keeping
a unified front, to the point where the damage and losses from corruption are crippling if these are never corrected.

I am pushing for as much correction on the left and the right, to stop abuses,
and go after COLLECTIONS and credit OWED to taxpayers for abuses of govt that have cost us huge debts and damages.

But from my experience, the right has plenty of support to correct themselves, with the Tea Party and Trump
and Cruz and all the conservatives fighting and calling out wherever they find govt BS going on.

The left with the media backing both Clintons and Obama have excused if not covered up for wrongs,
and have yet to hold such leaders to correct the damages done to constituents much less the rest of the nation.

So that's where my focus has been.
The right has gone after their own, and yes there was censorship to silence first Cruz and the Tea Party and then shut down Trump.
They've had to deal with all that, and they are still coming out better than the left.

Sanders and the Green supporters tried to hold Clinton responsible for stopping the BS
and creating real change reform and solutions. So that story and where we are heading
is still in our hands. I hope we speak out as loudly and boldly as Trump, and get the
real voices and solutions out that the grassroots has been fighting for. It seems the left
has been too busy silencing its own members, and doesn't need help from the right to destroy itself.

Others are saying the same about the right, which is suffering similar infighting and obstructing the bigger principles
in the name of politics.

BULLDOG if we can do better to hear each other here, maybe there's hope for both parties to do the same.
Thank you and please keep posting and sharing.
Every bit helps. We have to hear and understand each other
if we are going to get anywhere, past all this right/left paradigm . . .

Got it. You're a liberal, so you think liberals are wrong, and right wingers are right. I recognize the kind of double talk you are spouting, and don't care to play along.

We lost each other again BULLDOG. Sorry/Sigh.

I'm a Democrat and a Constitutionalist first. I find more violations of Constitutional ethics on the left that gets silenced when protested from within the ranks, while on the right if violations occur, the Constitutionalists protesting are heard. Not so on the left. I finally met other liberal Constiutionalists during Occupy , but most of them got silenced if they went with the Greens and had to team up with Libertarians to get anywhere ie with people who put the Constitution before party politics instead of Democrats putting party agenda before these laws.

Sorry we keep losing each other.

As a Democrat I believe in equal inclusion and protection of beliefs under the Constitution. So anyone on right or left who refuses to include the equal representation of the other party interests is going to lose me . run off and start rejecting ideas, people and whole groups I'm trying to include in solutions.

I can't keep horses reined in if they all want to tear off in opposite directions.

We need to either organize separate teams to manage our own programs, or find points and policies where we intersect in agreement and limit govt/public policy to just those areas we all agree to fund and follow in common.

BULLDOG if liberals and Democrats can't agree on how to implement progressive solutions, how can we expect the nation to unite on common ground. we may have to split the two major parties into 4, and work with Greens and Libertarians to manage diverse representation by party, including where we disagree within the party ranks.

Maybe there are 6 branches of political parties or religions : the extreme fundamental right and left
The extreme liberal right and left
That pisses them off
and the moderate right and left
Willing to work with both the
fundamental legalistic literal types who won't compromise but will obstruct any decision they reject
and the liberal types that risk compromising for the opposing side

I think the Greens fall under the more liberal side of progressive left, which emphasizes inclusion, consensus , and noncoercion.

And the Libertarians are the key to meeting in the middle on principle .

Maybe we're really looking at 6 major branches, not 2.

I'm between the liberal Greens trying to include everyone in organizing represejtation by party and separation or consensus on policy to stop coercion and imposition between groups of different beliefs
AND
The Libertarian type of Constitutionalist who supports self-correction by major parties by empowering people to redress their own grievances and set up their own solutions to govt, economic, and environmental problems.

Sorry if that isn't clear to you
How I can be a liberal demanding
Corrections and restitition for wrongs done by liberal politics.
But that's the niche I fill and the job I was given. If no one else is cleaning up the messes made by Democrats, it has to land in someone. The history of damages done to my own home district of Freedmen's Town is enough to create full time work correcting the problems and paying back taxpayers for millions of dollars spent destroying a historic landmark district instead of restoring it. So that's what landed on my plate. Www.freedmenstown.com

 

[Little-Acorn]

So you believe someone should just die on the side of a street?

SO you want to be a evil hearted person to people for being different?

When liberals lose an argument... or lose a vote, same thing... they start ranting hysterically like this.

 

[emilynghiem]

U.S. top court rejects 'gay conversion' therapy ban challenge

so...
Minors can have abortions because otherwise that's violating their right to choose.
But they are BANNED from seeking therapy in cases they ARE ABLE to CHOOSE to change their orientation.

I understand, nobody wants to see conversion FORCED onto minors, or anyone else.

But if abortion is STILL legal and a Constitutionally protected choice, although we don't want that ABUSED or FORCED on anyone,
why defend one from getting banned for causing harm and not the other???

Isn't there as much pressure to coerce MINORS into having abortions
as there is pressure to coerce people regarding homosexuality?