Discussion in 'Media' started by Bush92, Mar 2, 2018.
Because the merchants have arrived their profits are ordained from heaven..
not around our house.when I ask for money, my wife tells me to go to hell.
Only a tard could believe such nonsense.
Because you get what you give.
If you are willing to give of your labor resources and services for free, then others will share so with you.
If you charge for your time and labor, so do others charge you for theirs.
The market is as free as you make it
Yes there are people who believe in a gift economy, or believe in bartering without money, or exchanging by social credit.
These work when all members agree to contribute the same.
Any system fails when people don't agree to enforce the same rules, and drain the system by taking out more than they put in and/or shifting resources elsewhere that doesn't flow back to recirculate to the source of labor invested.
If you want things free, be prepared to work for free. If you want to be paid, expect to pay others .
As long as people agree to the same terms, what comes around goes around and any system can be made to sustain. You want it to work, then make it work!
However impuretrash would be correct in objecting to liberal indoctrination in general LGBT **BELIEFS** ( not necessarily transgender lifestyle itself),
which are unconstitutional for govt to endorse as faith based and personal choice of individuals without penalty.
Christian's have just as much right to prayer in schools, public and govt as an expression of their beliefs and or lifestyle as LGBT advocates to theirs. So if liberals ban or remove Christian expression practice or teaching from public institutions as faith based, then the same applies to LGBT beliefs expression practice and policy equally faith based.
Do you agree deanrd that people's beliefs about Christianity or LGBT should be treated equally for govt to remain neutral? If the govt endorses one set of beliefs or biases while penalizing others, isn't that a form of "discrimination by Creed" instead of giving people free choice of what to believe in either case?
If it's forced on people to believe LGBT claims "on faith" and without free choice, how is that NOT coercion or indoctrination through govt?
Did you actually hear anyone on the left say they want to pollute every aspect of our society, or did you hear that on fox?
Did you whine about Trump's military parade?
Clinton destroyed US manufacturing and Obama bailed out big banks with taxpayers $$$$. “Great Recession” was a media creation. It was just another recession like others before it.
I guess it's like the people who fear the conservatives
are more "against" Women, Blacks or Latinos as a group
than the liberals. You can magnify the perception of Bill Clinton
as a Democrat or Trump as representing White conservatives/Republicans
and argue who is more "against" women or Latinos or Blacks or whoever.
It's people's perception.
But in the case of which party has written in their platform
We BELIEVE health care is a right and pushed that BELIEF
through Congress and Courts, and which party "created"
the right to marriage through judicial ruling instead of going
through legislation, that wasn't the rightwing that pushed that BELIEF either.
The mandates on buying health care insurance that unconstitutionally
violated the beliefs and free choice of half the nation were removed
because of rightwing defenders of Constitutional principles of govt first,
before party beliefs of the LEFT that health care is a right.
Now add to that the govt endorsement of beliefs in LGBT --
where beliefs on both sides, for or against, remain FAITH based, equal personal
choice to believe, and neither proven by science, so govt should not be abused to take sides --
* penalizing people for not wanting to attend or endorse same sex marriage
as against their beliefs, and also
* the bathroom policies imposing beliefs about gender
(instead of respecting equal choice to
believe in orientation/identity as either biological, spiritual or behavioral
and equal beliefs whether this can or should be changed or not)
So between that belief on the LEFT*, yes, the other half of the nation
who believes in Constitutional limits on govt and SET PROCESS of
Constitutional Amendments BEFORE establishing new rights or laws on that level,
DOES have a point that these abuses of party to bypass the democratic system
of checks and balances IS corrupting or polluting the system.
NOTE: if the point of LGBT defense was to protect rights and stop bullying
discrimination and abuses, then this SAME protection should also be enforced
for the people of the opposite beliefs instead of violating those rights with abuse harassment and discrimination.
the laws against raping women do not call for raping men, but raping no person.
so these laws were not written or enforced properly, and neither were the marriage laws
that should have been written neutrally so they didn't endorse any beliefs about marriage at all!
If people want to establish a new duty of govt or a new right,
the process involves Constitutional Amendments through the STATES.
so BULLDOG for the Democrats and liberals on the left to push for the party BELIEFS
BEFORE ABOVE and in VIOLATION of Constitutional rules, principles, laws and process
is what is "polluting" or "corrupting" the system that has kept our nation represented
under checks and balances.
Obama and Pelosi in particular violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution
which protected the rights and beliefs of PEOPLE OF ALL CREEDS AND BELIEFS,
by putting their OWN PARTY beliefs and agenda FIRST before Constitutional oath and duty to ALL CITIZENS
of ALL CREEDS.
they committed Discrimination by CREED, and this violates the
First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Civil Rights principles,
as well as their own Party principles of free choice, protecting minority interests
democratically by INCLUSION, and "separation of church and state" by implementing
political religion or beliefs through Govt which they renounce the right for doing with prolife beliefs and policies.
So this is not only unconstitutional, violation of Code of Ethics for Govt Service,
and discrimination by Creed, but it is FRAUD against the party principles they stand for.
They took one clause out of the party platform and railroaded through
against Constitutional limits, protective laws, and process and in violation
of other party principles that were sacrificed in order to push political agenda.
Fraud, abuse, discrimination, violations of Constitutional principles, process, beliefs and ethics.
And any other person whether Justice Roberts
or Democrat voters, leaders, members, supporters or donors
who ENABLE this discrimination to go on, uncorrected and unchecked,
are co-conspiring to Violate Equal Civil Rights and Beliefs of other citizens comprising half the nation.
So that is felonious to conspire using party organizations, resources, lobbying and media
to ABUSE GOVT to violate equal rights of citizens, violating our beliefs and due process
which is supposed to be equally protected under law from religious infringement.
I have called for a petition if not a lawsuit to stop this abuse of party and govt
to violate equal civil rights. The problem is people do not see parties as political
religions policed by the First Amendment. I believe in Isonomy and see all beliefs
whether secular political religious or personal as protected equally under the First Amendment.
So nobody, no official or group has more right to establish their BELIEFS
through govt at the expense of people of other BELIEFS or it's "discrimination by creed."
I am the only Democrat or Constitutionalist I know
making this argument about political beliefs.
If I can defend my beliefs from abuse and infringement
that shows the law is right, and no belief or creed can be discriminated against by
abuse of govt. So that would establish a precedent protecting ALL beliefs,
including political, even if it's just one person whose beliefs are violated.
WHATEVER their choice of words, whatever they THINK they are doing, this is always the end result of everything they touch. But if any Lib could ever SEE that, then they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Separate names with a comma.