Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

[emilynghiem]

It's not that they want to "ban" gay marriage, it's that they believe it's an oxymoron and marriage is the union of a man and woman.

True Boss the intent is to clarify marriage as between man and woman.
but the RESULT in written laws is to exclude same sex marriage.
so it has the effect of a BAN.

Former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand what you are saying.

It is similar to saying that courts, in striking down abortion laws as unconstitutional by conflicts over substantive due process,
the EFFECT ends up "legalizing abortion"
The intent is not to promote abortion or to "legalize murder"
but by removing the restrictions AND NOT REPLACING THEM WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
then the EFFECT is "legalizing it" without implementing replacement protections that would satisfy pro-life beliefs
that otherwise see the ruling as biased toward "legalizing murder."

Maybe Boss we can use this to explain to JakeStarkey the same concept with ACA mandates.
Even though the INTENT of sincere supporters is not to violate free choice, but think this is truly helping to provide affordable health care,
the EFFECT of the ACA mandates ends up PENALIZING Free Choice and Discriminating against people whose beliefs are violated.

Clearly that is not the intent of people like JakeStarkey and C_Clayton_Jones
who can't even understand or imagine how any choices are being violated and any freedom is being lost here.

So there is a divorce between the intent and the effect in practice.
Same with the explanation of what is meant by the marriage laws amendments
but which in effect constitute a ban.

 

[emilynghiem]

The following is nothing but a convoluted lie: "It's not that they want to "ban" abortions, it's that they don't believe it should be a woman's right to deny constitutional right to life for their unborn child. It's not that they want to "ban" gay marriage, it's that they believe it's an oxymoron and marriage is the union of a man and woman."

If you wish to deny a woman's reproductive right or LGBT marriage by law, then you are a Big Government far right reactionary.

Dear JakeStarkey please see my reply to Boss above.

RE: If you wish to deny a woman's reproductive right or LGBT marriage by law, then you are a Big Government far right reactionary

^ I think this is the equivalent in your system ^
of arguments I was making that ACA mandates effectively BAN any other choices of paying for health care
except what is approved under ACA, because anything else gets FINED by tax penalties.
So that is the EQUIVALENT of making only certain choices legal while the others count as
"not complying with regulations and thus incurring penalty under federal law"

The same way laws on abortion "deny a woman's reproductive right" as a RESULT
so do the ACA regulations "deny and deprive citizen's rights collectively without due process to first prove crime or criminal intent"
AS A RESULT
even if this is not the INTENT

 

[JakeStarkey]

Happy New Year to you, Emily. It's nice to be in Texas again for a few weeks. I will be in Houston part of the time.

Boss wishes to use Big Government to ban LGBT marriage and abortion rights. That means a contradiction for him as a Conservative yet wanting to use Big Government. So he is a conservative statist wanting to use Big Government to push conservative agendas.

I disagree with you that the two issues above are going to be banned.

 

[Boss]

Boss wishes to use Big Government to ban LGBT marriage and abortion rights. That means a contradiction for him as a Conservative yet wanting to use Big Government. So he is a conservative statist wanting to use Big Government to push conservative agendas.

You've never shown a post from me calling for any such thing. You won't find such a post because this is not my position on the issues. I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives. I have my own opinion and I will defend my opinion and make an argument for it... but that doesn't mean I am like you and want Big Government to cram it down everyone's throat.

So again Jakey, you're a liar. You can't be honest. There's no need for you to attack me and slander me this way. You do it because you're a dishonest political hack. People can't trust what you say because you constantly lie and mislead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss wishes to use Big Government to ban LGBT marriage and abortion rights. That means a contradiction for him as a Conservative yet wanting to use Big Government. So he is a conservative statist wanting to use Big Government to push conservative agendas.

You've never shown a post from me calling for any such thing. You won't find such a post because this is not my position on the issues. I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives. I have my own opinion and I will defend my opinion and make an argument for it... but that doesn't mean I am like you and want Big Government to cram it down everyone's throat. So again Jakey, you're a liar. You can't be honest. There's no need for you to attack me and slander me this way. You do it because you're a dishonest political hack. People can't trust what you say because you constantly lie and mislead.

I never lie, because I don't have to. You are a Big Government regressive statist, as you just pointed out, because you want to use state power to push your agenda. I am not attacking or slandering you, just pointing out that you are either ignorant or mentally feeble or mentally malignant, or a combination of all three. You are not entitled to your own definitions and your own facts. You live in the same world as the rest of us, and you will be held to accepted, traditional facts and definitions.

 

[Boss]

Boss wishes to use Big Government to ban LGBT marriage and abortion rights. That means a contradiction for him as a Conservative yet wanting to use Big Government. So he is a conservative statist wanting to use Big Government to push conservative agendas.

You've never shown a post from me calling for any such thing. You won't find such a post because this is not my position on the issues. I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives. I have my own opinion and I will defend my opinion and make an argument for it... but that doesn't mean I am like you and want Big Government to cram it down everyone's throat. So again Jakey, you're a liar. You can't be honest. There's no need for you to attack me and slander me this way. You do it because you're a dishonest political hack. People can't trust what you say because you constantly lie and mislead.

I never lie, because I don't have to. You are a Big Government regressive statist, as you just pointed out, because you want to use state power to push your agenda. I am not attacking or slandering you, just pointing out that you are either ignorant or mentally feeble or mentally malignant, or a combination of all three. You are not entitled to your own definitions and your own facts. You live in the same world as the rest of us, and you will be held to accepted, traditional facts and definitions.

Sorry Jakey but you're not entitled to your own facts either. You've not shown where I've advocated government pushing my agenda. I challenged you to do that and now you're melting down because you can't meet the challenge. I will continue to point out that you are a dishonest lying hack who can't back up your slanderous allegations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss wishes to use Big Government to ban LGBT marriage and abortion rights. That means a contradiction for him as a Conservative yet wanting to use Big Government. So he is a conservative statist wanting to use Big Government to push conservative agendas.

You've never shown a post from me calling for any such thing. You won't find such a post because this is not my position on the issues. I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives. I have my own opinion and I will defend my opinion and make an argument for it... but that doesn't mean I am like you and want Big Government to cram it down everyone's throat. So again Jakey, you're a liar. You can't be honest. There's no need for you to attack me and slander me this way. You do it because you're a dishonest political hack. People can't trust what you say because you constantly lie and mislead.

I never lie, because I don't have to. You are a Big Government regressive statist, as you just pointed out, because you want to use state power to push your agenda. I am not attacking or slandering you, just pointing out that you are either ignorant or mentally feeble or mentally malignant, or a combination of all three. You are not entitled to your own definitions and your own facts. You live in the same world as the rest of us, and you will be held to accepted, traditional facts and definitions.

Sorry Jakey but you're not entitled to your own facts either. You've not shown where I've advocated government pushing my agenda. I challenged you to do that and now you're melting down because you can't meet the challenge. I will continue to point out that you are a dishonest lying hack who can't back up your slanderous allegations.

You said it above, bud. "I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives." You are not playing with a full deck or you are a regressive fascist, wanting state government to carry out your agenda. Every time you lie, you will be called out. Every single time. Tis what it is.

 

[Boss]

Boss wishes to use Big Government to ban LGBT marriage and abortion rights. That means a contradiction for him as a Conservative yet wanting to use Big Government. So he is a conservative statist wanting to use Big Government to push conservative agendas.

You've never shown a post from me calling for any such thing. You won't find such a post because this is not my position on the issues. I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives. I have my own opinion and I will defend my opinion and make an argument for it... but that doesn't mean I am like you and want Big Government to cram it down everyone's throat. So again Jakey, you're a liar. You can't be honest. There's no need for you to attack me and slander me this way. You do it because you're a dishonest political hack. People can't trust what you say because you constantly lie and mislead.

I never lie, because I don't have to. You are a Big Government regressive statist, as you just pointed out, because you want to use state power to push your agenda. I am not attacking or slandering you, just pointing out that you are either ignorant or mentally feeble or mentally malignant, or a combination of all three. You are not entitled to your own definitions and your own facts. You live in the same world as the rest of us, and you will be held to accepted, traditional facts and definitions.

Sorry Jakey but you're not entitled to your own facts either. You've not shown where I've advocated government pushing my agenda. I challenged you to do that and now you're melting down because you can't meet the challenge. I will continue to point out that you are a dishonest lying hack who can't back up your slanderous allegations.

You said it above, bud. "I believe all social issues should be settled at the state level through ballot initiatives." You are not playing with a full deck or you are a regressive fascist, wanting state government to carry out your agenda. Every time you lie, you will be called out. Every single time. Tis what it is.

Maybe you're just an idiot who doesn't understand what the hell we're talking about, Jakey? A ballot initiative is when the people of a state go vote on something at the ballot box, it's NOT the state authority or a court imposing it's will. It is the ANTITHESIS of that! It is the PEOPLE expressing their will at the ballot box in a democratic process. How the hell is that ME pushing MY agenda through Big Government?

You're the one not playing with a full deck because you don't have a full deck to play with. Not only are you a lying hack, you're an imbecile as well. A total and complete moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A ballot initiative is a Progressive invention after the turn of 1900.

You are a conservative progressive who wants big government to adopt your beliefs by initiative. Hint: liberals can be progressive also.

Did you not take government in high school?

 

[Boss]

A ballot initiative is a Progressive invention after the turn of 1900.

You are a conservative progressive who wants big government to adopt your beliefs by initiative. Hint: liberals can be progressive also.

Did you not take government in high school?

You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. A part of me is curious to know how exactly you think we should decide as a society on the issues of the day, if not through the ballot box and democratic process... then a part of me is saying... don't bother listening to a moron.

Again-- Get this through your stubborn and dishonest partisan hack head-- I do not want government and courts imposing their will on the people. I favor the people controlling their own destiny through democracy. I have my opinion on the issues and will argue passionately for my view but at the end of the day, I will respect the will of my fellow neighbors in a democratic process.

On the issues facing our society, we can have government dictate our laws, we can have judges rule by judicial fiat, or we can have the people decide for themselves through the ballot box. There is no other option other than complete and total anarchy.... are you an Anarchist? Because, that would make sense, you're unhinged mentally enough.

 

[Boss]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

...

Censor, ban, restrict? Why are right wingers always so alarmist and Flame Zoney, Rubber Roomy in their responses? The Collapse of Iraq and the Rise of ISIS: Made in America?

Why are right wingers always proposing we censor, ban or restrict free speech? I can remember back when I was young, and I met my first stupid adult... before I realized that stupid right winger and conservative were two totally different beings. ... but back then, conservatives fought back against stupid right wingers who called for censorship of books, lyrics, speech, protests. Strongly against it in no uncertain terms. Even if it offended people, right wingers believed only they had the free right to speech and it shouldn't be abridged for any reason other than .....well you get it.

I know of NO conservative today who is calling for bans on anything involving books, lyrics, protests, speech or anything else. Conservatives are mostly against this stupid PC bullshit that seems to be permeating society these days... where everyone is offended by the least little thing and believe they have some kind of goddamn constitutional right to NOT be offended.

Dear Boss
RE: bans on anything else

1. One recent example are conservative candidates in Tennessee calling for BANS on Mosques.
Bans on Shariah Law fall apart legally, because Shariah refers to ALL areas of Islam practice: the prayers, the charity, etc.
So banning "Shariah" means banning Islamic practice all together, clearly against the Constitution.

Now Boss can you guess the political affiliation of people pushing to ban this?

We won't get into BANNING Muslims from immigration, if you think that's a outlier fluke and not within the mainstream rightwing.


2. How about BANS on gay marriage, where laws and amendments were written and passed on that.

And guess which group still boasts support for enforcing state legislated BANS?


3. Do you want more? like BANS on stem cell research?

Does that count under BANS on information?

Sorry Emily, we're not having a debate over what constitutes a ban and what doesn't. I am not responsible for everything done by every Republican in the country. I have no control over what other people do. I made the statement that Liberals want to ban free speech in a thread which seems to be a liberal call to ban free speech. If you or anyone else wants to distort my comments into something else, that's up to you.

In the past, I have commended you on your efforts to be fair and bipartisan. To try and find areas of agreement and compromise between the two major political views. I'm now going to tell you something and hope it doesn't hurt your feelings... You're living in the past. You're attitude is about 10-15 years behind the times. What you're attempting to do would have worked in the 1990s.

What it does today is get you run over. You're red meat to the radical and rabid liberal left. Your willingness to try and be objective and fair is exploited and taken advantage of. These people have become radicalized fanatics and can no longer be reasoned with on anything. Your position of mediation and negotiation is their default position when they fail to cram their radical agenda down our throats against our will.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

...

Censor, ban, restrict? Why are right wingers always so alarmist and Flame Zoney, Rubber Roomy in their responses? The Collapse of Iraq and the Rise of ISIS: Made in America?

Why are right wingers always proposing we censor, ban or restrict free speech? I can remember back when I was young, and I met my first stupid adult... before I realized that stupid right winger and conservative were two totally different beings. ... but back then, conservatives fought back against stupid right wingers who called for censorship of books, lyrics, speech, protests. Strongly against it in no uncertain terms. Even if it offended people, right wingers believed only they had the free right to speech and it shouldn't be abridged for any reason other than .....well you get it.

I know of NO conservative today who is calling for bans on anything involving books, lyrics, protests, speech or anything else. Conservatives are mostly against this stupid PC bullshit that seems to be permeating society these days... where everyone is offended by the least little thing and believe they have some kind of goddamn constitutional right to NOT be offended.

Dear Boss
RE: bans on anything else

1. One recent example are conservative candidates in Tennessee calling for BANS on Mosques.
Bans on Shariah Law fall apart legally, because Shariah refers to ALL areas of Islam practice: the prayers, the charity, etc.
So banning "Shariah" means banning Islamic practice all together, clearly against the Constitution.

Now Boss can you guess the political affiliation of people pushing to ban this?

We won't get into BANNING Muslims from immigration, if you think that's a outlier fluke and not within the mainstream rightwing.


2. How about BANS on gay marriage, where laws and amendments were written and passed on that.

And guess which group still boasts support for enforcing state legislated BANS?


3. Do you want more? like BANS on stem cell research?

Does that count under BANS on information?

Sorry Emily, we're not having a debate over what constitutes a ban and what doesn't. I am not responsible for everything done by every Republican in the country. I have no control over what other people do. I made the statement that Liberals want to ban free speech in a thread which seems to be a liberal call to ban free speech. If you or anyone else wants to distort my comments into something else, that's up to you.

In the past, I have commended you on your efforts to be fair and bipartisan. To try and find areas of agreement and compromise between the two major political views. I'm now going to tell you something and hope it doesn't hurt your feelings... You're living in the past. You're attitude is about 10-15 years behind the times. What you're attempting to do would have worked in the 1990s.

What it does today is get you run over. You're red meat to the radical and rabid liberal left. Your willingness to try and be objective and fair is exploited and taken advantage of. These people have become radicalized fanatics and can no longer be reasoned with on anything. Your position of mediation and negotiation is their default position when they fail to cram their radical agenda down our throats against our will.

Dear Boss:
A. I'm living in the future.
When people don't forgive differences, that's living in the past. That's projecting the old problems onto the new situations, instead of using these opportunities to get past them.

JakeStarkey of all people is one in a position to move forward.
Probably one of the closest equivalents on here, who speaks like the Republicans who integrate with liberal positions, as I am one of those crossover Democrats who aligns with as much conservative interests, ideals and meanings lost in the shuffle. The fact Jake and I don't agree is why we need to work together, to cover those bases. Of course these groups are going to clash when all sides feel threatened and put on the defensive. It's human nature to defend oneself when your freedom and security is under attack or threat.

By addressing these mutual fears and forgiving and accepting our differences Boss we move toward a more progressive inclusive future.
And we restore the UNIVERSAL Constitutional and Christian ideals of INCLUSION that are heading for fulfillment, following this path we are on of Restorative Justice. So we move forward, Boss. And yes, it brings up the past issues, in order to resolve them.

The conflicts that come up are part of the growth toward that greater understanding and inclusion.

Boss what we are seeing is a transition stage like teenagers thinking "their parents lived in the past"
Well, this generation is having to grow up, become adults, and understand WHY those "outdated" parents insisted on making certain decisions and enforcing standards we thought were oldfashioned. When we become parents, then we understand why. So that's where we are with government.

People need to grow up. People go through stages such as Fowler's religious development.
With overcoming past issues from racism to genocides and religious/political wars,
there is a collective GRIEF process going on, that is thrown into the mix.
We are all going through this as humanity, so there is going to be a rough up and down learning curve.

I say we move together toward a stable future. Not judge what we see, which is people
finally facing up to all the issues suppressed from the past -- coming out in FULL FORCE because we now have global internet access to share and discuss these things LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

Of course it's going to be a mess, a mass ClusterFU, Boss.

That is why I value you, JakeStarkey and everyone here for sticking to your positions.
We need to do that to sort things out. Like the 50 states that need to represent their sovereign interests,
BEFORE we all negotiate how to put things together as a union. We need to stand our ground,
our beliefs, and include that in the mix. Conflicts are supposed to be included, not judged as obstructions.

B. Boss as for "wanting to cram ideologies down other people throats"
There are 4-5 types of leadership styles or approaches to conflict management.
This is only 1 of those 5.
1. Accommodating - YOUR way is put first
2. Competitive - MY way is put first
3. Collaborative - OUR way is put first
4. Avoidance - NO way is put first
6. Inclusive - ALL ways are put first

I am 6 and try to work toward 3.
If you react negatively to 2 you may be 2. But the point is still to try to move toward 3 - where do we agree equally and try to focus there, while we work around the other differences and conflicts, especially if these will not change. We need to manage that especially, if we are going to fulfill standards of "equal protection"
and representation under law of ALL interests ALL beliefs.

it is common for people like you and me, Jake and others of strong convictions, to get into defensive turf wars between people or groups who "set off" or threaten each other by pushing their way equally as the other group pushes back in defense. I set some people off, others set me off. You and Jake may set each other off, but I see us as fair and able to manage conflicting ideas when communicating. Jake is open to say where there is a limit that we are not going to resolve, very honest, and that's all we can do. Is admit where those lines are.

If our conflicting ways of pushing is how we come across when expressing and defending our beliefs from infringement, then that is part of the puzzle Boss. Of course we are going to have this come out openly.

So how do we align not only our ideals, but our communication styles to work things out and not clash?
We have an advantage here, we can work as a team, so if we have clashes, someone else can help.

There are also different roles in the facilitation process.
Some ppl are geared for being the arbitrator that just says yes or no, that does or does not work,
and is not responsible for sorting out why and fixing any obstructions preventing a better solution.
Some ppl are suited for facilitation and mediation, remain neutral, and just help the others make
their points instead of getting stuck in conflicts over 1-5 above, taking insult or threat over setbacks.
Some ppl are suited for sorting out and interpreting the pieces and offering ways to focus or fix things.
I try to figure out which ideas or which people can be used for which, and encourage putting this together.

It's up to all of us to find out what we are suited for, and where our ideas fit or clash and try to manage that.

Boss this is about sorting out the past so we can build and organize resources for a sustainable future.

Thanks again for being here to play the role you play. We need people to say yes means yes and no means no. I am one of the open ended people who does try to include all people and views in the mix.
But I have limits also and will not put up with imposing by coercion by exclusion or bullying to force things,
but will seek to find where we might agree, point by point, and form a consensus or agree to separate.

I believe JakeStarkey is an ally in this, and does NOT want imposition any more than YOU DO.
The very reason you might both clash is also why we will not stop until we reach agreement.
NEITHER you nor I nor Jake wants some other group imposing by force against free will!

So we have that in common. We will not compromise for mere bullying and abusing govt to force agenda.
That's a good thing, Boss, to stand our ground. We need to do that to get anywhere, to know where our limits are and enforce that. Why is that a bad thing? You do the same thing, you and I come across to JakeStarkey as "wanting to force our way onto others" and it scares people off as much!

Jake tells me I come across this way all the time, pushing this consensus thing
the way people have seen Obama abuse consensus to mean FORCING it on people.

NO, that is not what I mean at all. But if that is how I come across, people get scared.
Just like you get scared when you think people are trying to do this.

But Boss remember there are different styles of leading and managing conflict.
No everyone is trying to push "my way over your way"
Most people I know sound like you, scared that others are doing that.
So most people feel they are trying to DEFEND their way against oppression by bigger bullies.

Most people feel like you, just trying to defend what is right from some agenda abusing govt and media.
Get rid of the fear, and then we can deal with our real differences and what is going to work or not work.

Happy New Year Boss
Take care and keep on keeping on!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, I think the world of you, but I believe the process of reconciliation as you describe it violates how our Constitution frameworks our government's operation.

Boss, you can't tell the truth. Yes, you are a conservative progress wanting to use a a progressive invention (the ballot initiative) to force the will of the majority on the minority. I find it funny that you are in the minority on the issue of abortion rights and LGBT marriage. You will always be in that position.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I think the world of you, but I believe the process of reconciliation as you describe it violates how our Constitution frameworks our government's operation.

Boss, you can't tell the truth. Yes, you are a conservative progress wanting to use a a progressive invention (the ballot initiative) to force the will of the majority on the minority. I find it funny that you are in the minority on the issue of abortion rights and LGBT marriage. You will always be in that position.

Dear JakeStarkey
We are conducting this as individuals in person, Jake.
mediation happens in private and does not violate anything, it is an exercise in free speech and press, to redress and resolve grievances directly between us first.

Jake it is like someone observing and practicing the steps of the scientific method, personally on their own, BEFORE going into the formal lab and doing the experiments and studies under grant requirements to document all the steps and follow protocol to a professional level.

That is to save time and money; if we are going to screw up with trial and error, go off on false tangents and get back on track, we do so on our own time. We make errors in private and fix them between us BEFORE we take the best PROPOSED solutions to test out and bring into the FORMAL process of research where the official team is in charge of meeting procedural requirements.

It is like people working out our differences in person BEFORE going into formal legal mediation where the agreements are formally written up as settlements and cost money per hour for the professionals to finalize. We are doing as much of the groundwork as we can in advance to save time effort and money.

I am not talking about the formal democratic process that takes place with govt under the Constitutional steps that govt follows.

I am talking about first doing all our homework our "dirty work" if you will,
here and now. Between us as representing the SAME problems and conflicts that politicians have.

We get past our differences here, and work out what solution satisfies us despite our different reasons and goals, and then we can PROPOSE these agreed solutions to political and religious leaders to try on that level.

So we are not replacing displacing defying supplanting or violating the institutionalised process in any way.

You and others keep reiterating that the Constitution literally applies to govt not to people.

So people can work out our differences directly and then present to our party and political leaders
what we ARE and ARE NOT willing to compromise. And ask them to work out legislation that respects that.

If any proposals end up changing the structure or process of parties or govt,
then those changes are made using the given legislative, executive and judicial processes.
They are not made outside, but only the IDEAS and proposals are worked out by consensus.

It is still up to the people in charge of the govt processes, to go through all the same steps
that legislators or judges etc. go through to make decisions or change laws.

How can I explain this where it is clear JakeStarkey?

How about this: Proposing IDEAS to put through the govt processes for passing laws, or going through legislatures, Congress or Courts, etc is like the people proposing a book we want to publish to the professional writers and editors in charge of publishing books.

So the Constitutional process is like the editing process of these Official writers editors etc. voting on and amending the idea until they produce a finished book that is declared published.

We are like the team of people working through the materials IN ADVANCE to offer a checklist of what to present to the FORMAL writing and editing team that is actually going to go through the OFFICIAL process of amending/voting until the final book is published. We don't do that, they do.

We can ASK and RECOMMEND A B C and explain why. But it is up to the officials to go through the FORMAL process to publish the book using the Constitutional system of amending, voting, ruling etc.

We are working personally between us to organize a wishlist or to do list of what we DO want in the book, what we DON'T want. And why if people want to include an explanation so it is clear what the reasons are we want to satisfy, or objections or problems are we want to avoid.

What WORDING offends this group or that group is ALSO critical, so we RECOMMEND it is BETTER to WORD it this way or that way or it's not going to work for group A B or C that reacts to that language.

If X chapter is included, then it has to specify Y and Z or else A group protests.
etc etc. If A group is going to get A, then B group wants to get B. etc. etc.

We are not replacing or throwing off the Constitutional process in any way.
We are practicing free speech, free press and right to petition EACH OTHER to hash out grievances and differences, in order to come up with a proposed checklist of what we want don't want, how to word it or not word it, and the reasons why we do want what, and objections we need to avoid to include all interests.

We can consult with the writers and editors running the official publishing process, but it is still the govt that does the formal procedures and publication.

Does that make sense Jake? Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about structural barriers that prohibit what you wish to accomplish.

Reconciliation as public policy is governed by law.

The law would have to be changed.

It won't be.

 

[Boss]

Boss, you can't tell the truth. Yes, you are a conservative progress wanting to use a a progressive invention (the ballot initiative) to force the will of the majority on the minority. I find it funny that you are in the minority on the issue of abortion rights and LGBT marriage. You will always be in that position.

Now you're just repeating the same idiocy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss, you can't tell the truth. Yes, you are a conservative progress wanting to use a a progressive invention (the ballot initiative) to force the will of the majority on the minority. I find it funny that you are in the minority on the issue of abortion rights and LGBT marriage. You will always be in that position.

Now you're just repeating the same idiocy.

1. The initiative ballot is a progressive invention to force reform.

2. You wish to use that invention.

3. You are a progressive reactionary.

Progressivism is a process more than a philosophy.

 

[Boss]

Jake, I am a constitutional conservative. My philosophy is that the people are the sovereign and maintain the god-given right to self govern. There are several ways in which we can self govern. At the Federal level, there is no such thing as a "ballot initiative" because we elect representatives who go to Congress and vote on legislation. We do the same at the state level but we also have (in many states) referendums and ballot initiatives. I don't care who "invented" them. Henry Ford was a flaming progressive liberal and I bet you use an automobile every day.

The closest thing to a ballot initiative or referendum at the Federal level is a Constitutional Amendment. This predates the progressive movement by a century or more and is outlined in our Constitution. I don't feel inclined to defend the tenets of democracy against the backdrop or your ignorance and stupidity and that does not make me a progressive reactionary in any way. That is simply your way of trying to insult and denigrate me because I don't support your radical fascist viewpoint of forcing abortion and gay marriage down my throat against my will by using judicial fiat and circumventing the Amendment process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet you want to use the progressive invention of the initiative referendum to force your will on the protected minority.

So you are a progressive conservative, one who is willing to forego his beliefs to get his goals.

So you, like many on the right and the left, are a hypocrite.

 

[Boss]

Yet you want to use the progressive invention of the initiative referendum to force your will on the protected minority.

So you are a progressive conservative, one who is willing to forego his beliefs to get his goals.

So you, like many on the right and the left, are a hypocrite.

You can keep parroting the same nonsense over and over, I can't stop you, Jakey.

I suggested social issues be resolved at the state or local level through ballot initiative as opposed to being forced upon the people at the national level through judicial fiat or executive order. This has nothing to do with me getting my goals. I'm not like you, Jakey... I don't think of myself as a king or god who rules supreme over everybody and demands they adhere to my views. I am content living in a society where we collectively decide what our boundaries and limitations on society should be.

The reason we don't have a national ballot initiative is because we have a representative republican system instead. This is designed to protect the "protected minority" and it does, when it's allowed to function as designed. That does not include radical SCOTUS decisions that rewrite our definitions and create new laws. It also doesn't include radicals in Congress who exploit their power to bypass the rules, pass legislation that no one reads in the middle of the night or radical Presidents through executive order, to impose their ideological agenda.

These are measures not conducive with our form of government.