Divided, We Stand?

[sparky]

How do we word this to put out a call to people of all parties to denounce and refuse to go along with any further unconstitutional suppression and abuse of taxpayers with equal rights to defend our beliefs and representation, and participation in democratic process?

You don't Emily

America has only ONE party, the $$$ party

with an illusion of choice betwixt bought/paid/owened Dem's & Reps

the only hope of redemption is to allow the partisans the civil war they wish, and hopefully kill each other off

~S~

 

[emilynghiem]

America is divided, and it's not going to change until all the baby boomers are gone.

Ummm ... well, there's my kid. He's Gen Y, even more opinionated than I am, and he's not alone.

You think I hate republicans and Trump ? My children make me look soft

I'm sorry to learn that your children are even bigger dumb assholes than you. Life w So fuk you you republican AHill be hard for them.

Yes one has a Masters and the other at 31 is making 175 k with a raise soon

Dear edward37 Thank you for raising well educated successful children. That in itself is a priceless investment in the future of our nation and society.

I hope the Masters degree is in something useful, such as professional therapy in political counseling, conflict resolution, and teaching people nonviolent communication with "assholes" online. Obviously we could use more education and training in this field.

Take care, and if any of your children is working in a field related to health care, medical services or public administration or education, please refer them to the cooperative health care model that has potential to change medical economics, politics and how we manage finances.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com

bripat9643 If you are more interested in blocking liberals, progressives, or Democrats from pushing any more Socialist beliefs or agenda through govt, then I also STRONGLY suggest promoting and implementing the COOPERATIVE health care model into every district and state where you OR YOUR PARTY has influence. (we might need to challenge, petition, or SUE the past party leaders or administration over Obamacare/ACA costs to force such propagandists into REIMBURSING taxpayers for damages and debts of implementing UNCONSITUTIONAL regulations and investing these tax dollars and credits into SETTING UP working cooperative programs that achieve the results of universal care without abusing govt or violating anyone's rights or beliefs to free market choices in these matters)

I will msg to you personally by PM to formulate what is the best strategy to stop liberal agenda and political beliefs from being railroaded through govt in violation of Constitutional limits and beliefs. Voting people out by party may or may not work but make the problem worse of "reinforcing" this belief or practice in "establishing Political Beliefs through Govt by Majority rule" <-- Part of my argument is that in itself is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it discriminates by CREED against people with beliefs in the minority who should have equal protections REGARDLESS of our beliefs and creeds. So Govt should remain NEUTRAL, not suffer from imposition of Creeds such as Socialism or Right to Health Care if other people either don't believe in this Creed or they believe it is Unconstitutional; either way it is a Violation of Amendment 1 and 14.

 

[emilynghiem]

How do we word this to put out a call to people of all parties to denounce and refuse to go along with any further unconstitutional suppression and abuse of taxpayers with equal rights to defend our beliefs and representation, and participation in democratic process?

You don't Emily

America has only ONE party, the $$$ party

with an illusion of choice betwixt bought/paid/owened Dem's & Reps

the only hope of redemption is to allow the partisans the civil war they wish, and hopefully kill each other off

~S~

Dear sparky
Then why don't we "pull the rug out" from under the FEET of these parties, by declaring parties to be Political Religions treated equally as any OTHER Religious Organizations and kept separate from govt?

We don't let Catholics vote in their policies through govt and force all other citizens and taxpayers to pay for their agenda.

We don't subject Hindus and Muslims to require a majority vote in Congress before they can manage their own programs for their own members and pay for whatever terms or policies they believe in funding.

Why do we give parties the power to do this against our Constitutional rights beliefs and principles where we have freedom of religion and right not to be discriminated against by CREED.

What does it TAKE to SPELL THIS OUT that parties DO NOT have authority to dictate govt policy for EVERYONE based on "majority rule."

Hindus and Muslims, Catholics and Buddhist do not have any such authority to force us to pay for their policies and beliefs.

Why don't we make this clear? And start enforcing EXISTING Constitutional laws to stop parties from abusing govt to establish their beliefs at our expense?

???

 

[emilynghiem]

Secession is the answer.

It's simpler and more direct/automatic than that LordBrownTrout

It's already legal to form your own LLC, invest in your own business programs or start your own school or campus, and DEDUCT all business expenses (or church donations) from your taxes. For nonprofits deductions are only partial not full 100%, so I suggest business/LLC type operations under a DBA or hook up with an existing church group or nonprofit.

Here's a viable model I would replicate for managing health care cooperatives www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com

When I brought up this "cooperative" model of using direct associations
to manage health care benefits in smaller groups, I got mixed reactions -- for suggesting
that PARTIES could use this system to manage their OWN terms of benefits
for their OWN members.

Democratic Self-Government: Are we heading there or not even close?

What I don't understand - if people ALREADY object to the problems going on now with parties fighting for dominance to impose "bad policies" on others who don't agree to fund or follow those agenda, why is it WORSE to separate these agenda from each other and just form agreements for parties to fund their OWN agenda and terms THEIR members agree to?

Why wouldn't this either SOLVE the problems, where everyone gets to pay for the solutions they support, or expose which programs are so unsustainable that NOBODY agrees to fund them.

Wouldn't this help - to HOLD parties responsible for funding the programs they promote?

 

[sparky]

Why don't we make this clear? And start enforcing EXISTING Constitutional laws to stop parties from abusing govt to establish their beliefs at our expense?

While i agree, i'll simply say it's not happening because we've freedom OF religion, not FROM it .

So you see, all these theocratic movements cloaked in the guise of political stripe will forever and a day plauge us like the biblical locusts.

The debate goes even deeper, our constitution and it's writers hailed from natural law, while the religmo's insist God wrote it & no human morality can exist incarnate w/out His celestial guidance (which of course, they'll provide)

Control, it's what it's all about. How, if you had the pot 'o gold, would you take the focus off yourself? How do you get to bake your cake & eat it too?

If you sense a certian micro minority riding off into the sunset un noted , while the rest of us fight among ourselves for the crumbs off their table, you're close

~S~

 

[emilynghiem]

Why don't we make this clear? And start enforcing EXISTING Constitutional laws to stop parties from abusing govt to establish their beliefs at our expense?

While i agree, i'll simply say it's not happening because we've freedom OF religion, not FROM it .

So you see, all these theocratic movements cloaked in the guise of political stripe will forever and a day plauge us like the biblical locusts.

The debate goes even deeper, our constitution and it's writers hailed from natural law, while the religmo's insist God wrote it & no human morality can exist incarnate w/out His celestial guidance (which of course, they'll provide)

Control, it's what it's all about. How, if you had the pot 'o gold, would you take the focus off yourself? How do you get to bake your cake & eat it too?

If you sense a certian micro minority riding off into the sunset un noted , while the rest of us fight among ourselves for the crumbs off their table, you're close

~S~

Dear sparky
RE: The debate goes even deeper, our constitution and it's writers hailed from natural law, while the religmo's insist God wrote it & no human morality can exist incarnate w/out His celestial guidance (which of course, they'll provide)

A. These are both compatible: that the Constitution is based on NATURAL LAWS
and that these come from God or the same universal source that LIFE comes from.
God is interchangeable with Nature or Life.
This doesn't have to be in conflict, just because the LANGUAGE or TERMS
are either Secular/Nontheist (Life, Universe, Forces or Law of Nature)
or Symbolized using "personified" terms (such as "Jesus" for "Justice" or "Lord" for "Authority of Law")

The TERMS can be translated from religious symbolism to SECULAR concepts and principles they represent.

As for the concepts behind them, the major differences can also be spelled out
1. Whether people believe more in Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice
2. Whether people put church or scriptural authority and laws FIRST, and secular/govt laws second to those
where these laws are supposed to be in harmony and compatible.
Or people put secular or govt authority and laws FIRST, and put church or religious authority as an optional choice.
3. Whether people believe in equal rights of people to invoke authority of law directly to govern themselves,
or they believe in authorizing others to govern for them, or a combination of both.

As long as we make decisions by consent of the people affected, it doesn't matter what order they prioritize
these various levels of authority, or how they EXPRESS their beliefs (using either religious, political or secular terms).

When we don't agree on laws and terms of policies, if we don't work out these conflicts, then it causes
additional conflicts over whose authority is going to dominate the opposing viewpoints. That's where
the religious right or liberal left will argue over church and state authority, but with policies we AGREE
on, this doesn't matter. So that's where I find that on matters involving political beliefs, it is legally
NECESSARY to agree on terms of the policies by CONSENSUS so it won't matter if people put
church or state authority first above the other, the people agree on the policies ANYWAY. (such as the case with laws making MURDER illegal, since everyone agrees on this by principle then it doesn't matter if we cite the authority behind this using church or state policies. ALL laws should be that compatible in accommodating people of diverse beliefs, where any conflicts are resolved.)

B. as for the "morality that has to come from God"
The way I would explain this is
in order for people to arrive at consensus on laws,
there has to be
1. Universal Truth ie it has to be all encompassing and consistent that ALL people agree.
Only the absolute undeniable truth is so perfectly reasonable and fair to all people equally
that EVERYONE would agree to unite and comply with it because it satisfies their standards and beliefs.

So if GOD'S TRUTH represents what is ABSOLUTELY and UNIVERSALLY good for the public interest,
all people, all humanity, the greater good of society,
NOBODY would be against this because it is equally good for ALL PEOPLE.

2. the people RECEIVING and COMPLYING with this universal truth behind laws
would need to be FORGIVING of past injustices and wrongs by other groups
in order to COLLABORATE with each other to WORK OUT and ARRIVE at these agreements on law and "justice for all."

That level of forgiveness in order to unite all people to agree on laws
would take the DIVINE forgiveness and grace that "Christ Jesus represents in the Bible".

In secular terms, this is called Restorative Justice.

The impact this approach has on people and relations is equal to
the effect and teachings of faith in Christ Jesus in Christianity.

sparky whatever it is that the religious right is talking about using Christian and religious language,
if those concepts are truly of GOD or UNIVERSAL
then these can be TRANSLATED into secular terms that ALL PEOPLE can understand.