Have Liberals lost their "ever loving" minds?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Your question suggests that they had a mind at some previous point. Not buyin it

 

[The T]

Uh no. More lo-lo rhetoric.
The Right does not give a shit if people have gay sex. What they do is their own business. The Left wants everyone to have gay sex, however.
When it comes to birth control the right doesn't give a shit if people want to use birth control. The left wants everyone to use it, and everyone else to pay for it.

Get it?

well this isnt true

Because you say so, right?
Ready to get pwned yet again? How many times is this today?

I'm beginning to think that PLAZ loves to be beat...

 

[Iceweasel]

Who needs a mind anyway?

 

[OKTexas]

When it comes to gay sex, the Left doesn't want government involved in our sex lives, and the Right does.

When it comes to birth control, the Left wants government involved in our sex lives, and the Right doesn't.

Positively schizophrenic.

You seem to have forgotten the fact that gays can't engage in sex, sodomy or mutual masturbation is the best they can do. Strike one.

 

[OKTexas]

We want to legislate gay sex? Got a draft of that?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's no fun. The wife and I already enjoy sodomy.

Maybe, but it ain't sex.

 

[HenryBHough]

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's no fun. The wife and I already enjoy sodomy.

Maybe, but it ain't sex.

Slick based his whole weasel on just that! Hey, it worked for him....

 

[OKTexas]

Singlepayer health care through government

We currently have a single payer system, it’s called Medicare.

And all that’s being proposed is the existing single payer system be expanded, a position that in no way ‘conflicts’ with advocacy of privacy rights.

Yep, medicare is going broke, so I guess it only make sense to the party that thinks we can borrow our way to prosperity to put every one on it. Just think how much faster the whole freaking country could go broke.

 

[HenryBHough]

How does a country "go broke" when it can just print phony money at will? The country doesn't go broke; only the working people who had been foolish enough to save anything do.

 

[OKTexas]

That's no fun. The wife and I already enjoy sodomy.

Maybe, but it ain't sex.

Slick based his whole weasel on just that! Hey, it worked for him....

I've always wondered if he kissed Monica after she did the deed, just so he could be just a tad more full of himself.

 

[OKTexas]

How does a country "go broke" when it can just print phony money at will? The country doesn't go broke; only the working people who had been foolish enough to save anything do.

You'll see when credit drys up, people will be longing for the good ole days of the Carter years.

 

[HenryBHough]

How does a country "go broke" when it can just print phony money at will? The country doesn't go broke; only the working people who had been foolish enough to save anything do.

You'll see when credit drys up, people will be longing for the good ole days of the Carter years.

Some already are!

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[emilynghiem]

When it comes to gay sex, the Left doesn't want government involved in our sex lives, and the Right does.

When it comes to birth control, the Left wants government involved in our sex lives, and the Right doesn't.

Positively schizophrenic.

We want to legislate gay sex? Got a draft of that? I'm sure it's very interesting reading as long as they put the college girls in a separate section.

What about States recognizing gay marriage?
(not just removing bans so they can be practiced privately
but endorsing and enforcing these through the state regardless of
religious views the government is not supposed to decide for people)

Aren't ALL marriage laws contradicting "separating church and state"
on some level? Or only cases where liberals disagree with the laws?

 

[emilynghiem]

When it comes to birth control, the Left wants government involved in our sex lives, and the Right doesn't.

Positively schizophrenic.

I think you've got that wrong. The Left doesn't want anyone involved with what a woman does with her body.

That's her decision and her decision only.

Dear Howey:

If the Liberals really want decisions to be free, they should not push policies (especially not ACA and health care) through Federal Government that involves Congress, and all other people represented, to VOTE on making or changing any part of those policies.

If I want to defend my "free choice how to decorate my house," I would not pass a law through federal government, and require or gamble on ALL that political bureaucracy "to go my way" in order to ensure my right to do what I want.

I would keep it OUT of federal government, as part of my rights reserved to the people.

If the Liberals keep assuming "Government does or should represent their views as the default" when they *depend on Government* to endorse their policies, programs and funding for abortion, birth control, etc. they open the door to politics and opponents blocking and changing these laws, because any public funds, laws or authority also represents other views they are leaving out and assuming need to be overrruled.

The proper way to ensure direct control is to set up programs and fund them directly.

But if they keep depending on GOVERNMENT laws and authority to "defend their rights from opponents" that is where they set up an endless battle that continues to put these rights at risk of being restricted, regulated or taken away.

The "Government" does not just represent their views.
They think they are being neutral as the default position for all people, but they are pushing an agenda that other taxpayers made clear they don't support as public policy to fund.

Since the groups disagree, the best way I see is to SEPARATE the funding by program and party, so they don't risk anything to opposing interests. Set up your own programs, fund them yourself, and nobody can complain. But keep using GOVERNMENT authority, funds, and law to do it, and THAT'S why the politics and opposition comes in because this is not just your money and authority but other people who don't believe in funding your agenda.

Why can't people get this straight?

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's the explanation I got when I asked
why do prochoice advocates CAMPAIGN AGAINST the slightest regulation by government
on the choice of abortion,

Same reason the NRA killed universal background checks even though 80% of Americans favor it.

The "Slippery Slope" argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

When it comes to gay sex, the Left doesn't want government involved in our sex lives, and the Right does.

When it comes to birth control, the Left wants government involved in our sex lives, and the Right doesn't.

Positively schizophrenic.

Uh no. More lo-lo rhetoric.
The Right does not give a shit if people have gay sex. What they do is their own business. The Left wants everyone to have gay sex, however.
When it comes to birth control the right doesn't give a shit if people want to use birth control. The left wants everyone to use it, and everyone else to pay for it.

Get it?

1. yes the Left wants everyone to pay for birth control as part of health care.
those who believe "health care is a right" do not recognize other beliefs as legally valid.

2. no, the Left does not want everyone to have gay sex, but to stop demonizing gays.
the gay pride movement has swung to the other extreme from being hidden in private,
but it is not to impose homosexuality or gay sex itself, but to *force public acceptance*
(which is not the right way to do this, but it is still different from pushing gay sex itself)

3. no, some of the Right DON'T want ANYONE having, tolerating, or promoting gay sex.
Some of them DO believe this is such an abomination, it should be stopped.

This is like the difference between Prolifers who want to stop all abortions from happening, so much they want to BAN it by law, and those who want to prevent abortion but don't believe in government criminalizing the choice of abortion. There are many who want to get rid of homosexuality, but since civil/Constitutional laws aren't for private issues,
they use Biblical laws to express and enforce that stance. Most of these are far Right.

Where I agree with you:
A. the Left are contradictory in pushing ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality on the public when they are at the same time against pushing REJECTION of homosexuality on the public.
However they are not pushing gay sex itself, just the acceptance of gays and gay marriage.
This is like the difference between being "prochoice" but NOT "proabortion."

B. the Right are BETTER at checking their own members from pushing to extremes. the Right tend to stay grounded in the Constitution, so there is respect for other peoples views within that framework even where they disagree.

The Left that does not use the Constitution to defend theirs and other views equally, instead depend on political party and control of Government to push their agenda. So that is why they come across that way. If they invoked authority and "free choice" as liberties directly under the Constitution, they would not need to depend on political control to enforce that.

This seems to skew all the politics coming from the Left, from health care to gay marriage.
Gay marriage BANS can be struck down using the Constitution, but gay marriage itself cannot be imposed without violating the Constitution. So they don't invoke it equally.

(The Right can also be inconsistent with the Constitution, such as when it comes to defending Muslim religious rights equally as Christians; but on the whole, when confronted using the Constitution,
the Right tend to correct themselves because of personal commitment to the Law that most liberals/Democrats are not taught to follow, but just the agenda of their party line, members and leaders.)

I have had limited success explaining to Liberals using the Constitution; like when I explained how gun laws violated due process for lawabiding citizens deprived of rights without committing any crime. No one had every explained to them why conservatives were so opposed to gun regulations, but once I explained it they understood. Generally the liberals and Democrats don't teach their members this.
But the activists on the Right, Conservative Republicans and Constitutionalists from Libertarians to Tea Party, traditionally push for education and enforcement among members of their groups and public.

What I cannot get past with Liberals is when they absolutely hate or fear the opposition so much they rely on party to use government to defend them from other political views they fear are stronger.
If we could address and remove that bullying factor, maybe we could use our government as intended, to represent all the public, instead of hijacking it with political agenda and backlash back and forth.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's the explanation I got when I asked
why do prochoice advocates CAMPAIGN AGAINST the slightest regulation by government
on the choice of abortion,

Same reason the NRA killed universal background checks even though 80% of Americans favor it.

The "Slippery Slope" argument.

I thought they wanted background checks local,
not federal where the feds would get a hold of all people's personal information.

for example, in the case of victims of rape or other crimes who may be undergoing professional treatment for PTSD,
and who may want to carry a gun if they are still being stalked or the attacker has threatened to kill them as a witness,
the federal govt is not designed to decide such individualized cases where a "mental illness" precludes gun ownership;
but this is better determined on a local level where there can be more direct accountability.

Is there a way to set up background checks locally per District or by Party where people trust their own systems? If gun training would require local or state verification and screening people anyway, why not develop that system to catch any criminal illness?

If we are heading toward a reformed system of registering health care and immigrant applicants, why not ask Parties to set up their own systems for screening and managing their members who will share legal and financial responsibility through their Party, if THAT is their elected form of government structure and policy.

So if one Party is stricter on gun screening, while the other is stricter about birth control or abortion, they can have their own membership standards, without competing in conflict.
They would also accept legal and financial responsibility if the screening fails, so it is in their best interest to make it work, whichever way they agree to as a Party.

Why can't people manage their own sectors of the population
in ways they believe will ensure legal accountability and responsibility for costs,
WITHOUT always going through the federal government to control everything?

Can't we delegate and share responsibility locally, organizing by city, state, schools, or other affiliations to make sure members
are legally accountable and don't have criminal issues that need to be addressed?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I thought they wanted background checks local,
not federal where the feds would get a hold of all people's personal information.

Is there a way to set up background checks by Party where people trust their own system?

Is there a way to set up abortion by party so we can trust that the correct kid is getting killed?

 

[emilynghiem]

I thought they wanted background checks local,
not federal where the feds would get a hold of all people's personal information.

Is there a way to set up background checks by Party where people trust their own system?

Is there a way to set up abortion by party so we can trust that the correct kid is getting killed?

Close.

What about the *choice of funding abortion* by party
so prolife people don't have to sue or campaign
to defend natural rights not to fund any of that.

They should already have those rights, without having to fight for them.

And likewise people who believe in "right to health"
can fund mandates through their party and not fear
paying for people who chose not to buy insurance
(who can be paid for by the "free market" folks
who would rather pay more than sacrifice their freedoms to govt mandates).

Why not separate medical research funding for
* stem cell research
* spiritual healing research
so people can fund the procedures they believe in?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Imho - There is no such thing as I right that has not been fought for and won.