Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party

[RKMBrown]

"Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party"

You need to stop being angry.

If you don't like the ACA then come up with your own plan to ensure Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

And access to affordable healthcare is not going to the emergency room when the medical condition becomes so serious that one has no other choice.

Access to affordable healthcare means access to health maintenance before a medical condition become serious and more expensive to treat and cure.

Last, and as an aside, the ACA is Constitutional, no one's civil rights are being 'violated.'

Yes I have, that's why I'm so angry, Clayton.
it's so SIMPLE> Just ask members and leaders of
each party to take on and develop their OWN health programs for their members, and pay and elect systems and reps for their own structures!

I HAVE proposed that.

Over and over.

And it's so simple and all inclusive.

Because each party can work out its OWN ramifications and costs. And decide its OWN timeframe for serving its OWN MEMBERS!

Big FAT FU DUHHHH!!!!

Huh? You want political party owned health care centers? Are you daft?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party"

You need to stop being angry.

If you don't like the ACA then come up with your own plan to ensure Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

And access to affordable healthcare is not going to the emergency room when the medical condition becomes so serious that one has no other choice.

Access to affordable healthcare means access to health maintenance before a medical condition become serious and more expensive to treat and cure.

Last, and as an aside, the ACA is Constitutional, no one's civil rights are being 'violated.'

Yes I have, that's why I'm so angry, Clayton.
it's so SIMPLE> Just ask members and leaders of
each party to take on and develop their OWN health programs for their members, and pay and elect systems and reps for their own structures!

I HAVE proposed that.

Over and over.

And it's so simple and all inclusive.

Because each party can work out its OWN ramifications and costs. And decide its OWN timeframe for serving its OWN MEMBERS!

Big FAT FU DUHHHH!!!!

Huh? You want political party owned health care centers? Are you daft?

Why can't political networks set up their own "singlepayer system" for their members.
If churches can set up centers for their members why not whole networks if they
want everyone covered so badly?

Like creating a chain of medical schools and clinics, a center in each community.

If the people want it managed by free market, they set it up that way.

If they want it set up through schools run by their own reps, set it up that way.

And leave other people to their own ways. Give each person and community
a choice on how to organize. It can be through church, business, nonprofit, govt, etc.

If the Democrats want a certain system so badly, then set it up and pay for the members
who want it that way, just like a chain of fitness clubs.

And Republicans can set up free market networks
and Greens can set up health care coops, etc.

Whatever ways work best, people can opt to sign up for membership,
give patronage or donations just like choosing what university to give to.

Especially if people don't agree on prochoice or prolife these facilities and funding should be separated.

And with prisons and converting them to correctional or medical facilities,
people can separate funding for either capital punishment or alternatives, depending on tehir beliefs.

 

[Michelle420]

"Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party"

You need to stop being angry.

If you don't like the ACA then come up with your own plan to ensure Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

And access to affordable healthcare is not going to the emergency room when the medical condition becomes so serious that one has no other choice.

Access to affordable healthcare means access to health maintenance before a medical condition become serious and more expensive to treat and cure.

Last, and as an aside, the ACA is Constitutional, no one's civil rights are being 'violated.'

Yes I have, that's why I'm so angry, Clayton.
it's so SIMPLE> Just ask members and leaders of
each party to take on and develop their OWN health programs for their members, and pay and elect systems and reps for their own structures!

I HAVE proposed that.

Over and over.

And it's so simple and all inclusive.

Because each party can work out its OWN ramifications and costs. And decide its OWN timeframe for serving its OWN MEMBERS!

Big FAT FU DUHHHH!!!!

Huh? You want political party owned health care centers? Are you daft?

Why can't political networks set up their own "singlepayer system" for their members.
If churches can set up centers for their members why not whole networks if they
want everyone covered so badly?

Like creating a chain of medical schools and clinics, a center in each community.

If the people want it managed by free market, they set it up that way.

If they want it set up through schools run by their own reps, set it up that way.

And leave other people to their own ways. Give each person and community
a choice on how to organize. It can be through church, business, nonprofit, govt, etc.

If the Democrats want a certain system so badly, then set it up and pay for the members
who want it that way, just like a chain of fitness clubs.

And Republicans can set up free market networks
and Greens can set up health care coops, etc.

Whatever ways work best, people can opt to sign up for membership,
give patronage or donations just like choosing what university to give to.

Especially if people don't agree on prochoice or prolife these facilities and funding should be separated.

And with prisons and converting them to correctional or medical facilities,
people can separate funding for either capital punishment or alternatives, depending on tehir beliefs.

Not everyone is into politics.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party"

You need to stop being angry.

If you don't like the ACA then come up with your own plan to ensure Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

And access to affordable healthcare is not going to the emergency room when the medical condition becomes so serious that one has no other choice.

Access to affordable healthcare means access to health maintenance before a medical condition become serious and more expensive to treat and cure.

Last, and as an aside, the ACA is Constitutional, no one's civil rights are being 'violated.'

Yes I have, that's why I'm so angry, Clayton.
it's so SIMPLE> Just ask members and leaders of
each party to take on and develop their OWN health programs for their members, and pay and elect systems and reps for their own structures!

I HAVE proposed that.

Over and over.

And it's so simple and all inclusive.

Because each party can work out its OWN ramifications and costs. And decide its OWN timeframe for serving its OWN MEMBERS!

Big FAT FU DUHHHH!!!!

Huh? You want political party owned health care centers? Are you daft?

Why can't political networks set up their own "singlepayer system" for their members.
If churches can set up centers for their members why not whole networks if they
want everyone covered so badly?

Like creating a chain of medical schools and clinics, a center in each community.

If the people want it managed by free market, they set it up that way.

If they want it set up through schools run by their own reps, set it up that way.

And leave other people to their own ways. Give each person and community
a choice on how to organize. It can be through church, business, nonprofit, govt, etc.

If the Democrats want a certain system so badly, then set it up and pay for the members
who want it that way, just like a chain of fitness clubs.

And Republicans can set up free market networks
and Greens can set up health care coops, etc.

Whatever ways work best, people can opt to sign up for membership,
give patronage or donations just like choosing what university to give to.

Especially if people don't agree on prochoice or prolife these facilities and funding should be separated.

And with prisons and converting them to correctional or medical facilities,
people can separate funding for either capital punishment or alternatives, depending on tehir beliefs.

First off I think you are extremely confused about the definitions of "single payer" and "political party." You appear to believe single payer means health care cooperative. You appear to believe political party means holding company.

Political parties are not holding companies. Groups of people create health care cooperatives all the time, this is what the democrats want to stop. The democrats do not want people to get the health care they want, they want people to get their health care from a single source, the federal government.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party"

You need to stop being angry.

If you don't like the ACA then come up with your own plan to ensure Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

And access to affordable healthcare is not going to the emergency room when the medical condition becomes so serious that one has no other choice.

Access to affordable healthcare means access to health maintenance before a medical condition become serious and more expensive to treat and cure.

Last, and as an aside, the ACA is Constitutional, no one's civil rights are being 'violated.'

Yes I have, that's why I'm so angry, Clayton.
it's so SIMPLE> Just ask members and leaders of
each party to take on and develop their OWN health programs for their members, and pay and elect systems and reps for their own structures!

I HAVE proposed that.

Over and over.

And it's so simple and all inclusive.

Because each party can work out its OWN ramifications and costs. And decide its OWN timeframe for serving its OWN MEMBERS!

Big FAT FU DUHHHH!!!!

Huh? You want political party owned health care centers? Are you daft?

Why can't political networks set up their own "singlepayer system" for their members.
If churches can set up centers for their members why not whole networks if they
want everyone covered so badly?

Like creating a chain of medical schools and clinics, a center in each community.

If the people want it managed by free market, they set it up that way.

If they want it set up through schools run by their own reps, set it up that way.

And leave other people to their own ways. Give each person and community
a choice on how to organize. It can be through church, business, nonprofit, govt, etc.

If the Democrats want a certain system so badly, then set it up and pay for the members
who want it that way, just like a chain of fitness clubs.

And Republicans can set up free market networks
and Greens can set up health care coops, etc.

Whatever ways work best, people can opt to sign up for membership,
give patronage or donations just like choosing what university to give to.

Especially if people don't agree on prochoice or prolife these facilities and funding should be separated.

And with prisons and converting them to correctional or medical facilities,
people can separate funding for either capital punishment or alternatives, depending on tehir beliefs.

First off I think you are extremely confused about the definitions of "single payer" and "political party." You appear to believe single payer means health care cooperative. You appear to believe political party means holding company.

Political parties are not holding companies. Groups of people create health care cooperatives all the time, this is what the democrats want to stop. The democrats do not want people to get the health care they want, they want people to get their health care from a single source, the federal government.

I think you took that too literally, RK.
The parties can do whatever they want.

If they want to set up it up this way or that way, I am NOT going to dictate for them.

What I am suggesting is that if you really want something that other people don't agree with making
mandatory or nationalized, then set it up yourself.

And then I am suggesting that it be organized by party to get enough people who believe in funding it.

I compare it to the Greens who h ave independent currency and yes the same
founder has set up health care coops. It's basically organized by members with the same commitment to
make the coop work. So that's where political membership helps because people have that commitment
to uphold and fund their own policies.

BTW I decided I'm going to challenge CClaytonJones, Obama and my friend D2
that the ACA MANDATES are unconstitutional. I will give about a month and then
set up terms to go on hunger strike to make my point.

The Federal Reserve is not fully constitutional to many, but at least it is optional to use.
You have equal freedom to use independent currency, without facing fines.
Govt and other institutions can choose to only recognize Fed money, but any business or person is free to accept independent currency without penalty, as long as you pay taxes on the exchange as you would fed currency (also the bills have to be larger in denomination than a 1 and smaller in size, and the geographic region is restricted to be legal).

And the ACA should be the same way where you have the choice to "opt into" the public option.
But forcing it by punitive restrictions is unconstitutional. I can probably name about 3 points
to argue how it is violating constitutional freedoms in my terms I will spell out for why I offer to go on hunger strike if the President, Democrat Party and my friend D2 do not concede the bill overstepped federal authority and passed a law that is unconstitutional because of the mandates and the restrictions on qualifying for exemptions that discriminate on the basis of creed. Sorry will not budge on that,but may refine how I argue my points to be more clear if needed.

And I'm willing to lay my life on the line because I know that the spirit of that bill is off.

You can pass anything into law and it has to be corrected by law.
But that does not make it constitutional.

I am not going to budge on that.

And Obama sets a dangerous precedent by trying to make this "Constitutional"
for people like my friend D2 who doesn't get the spirit of the law.

There are ways to make it Constitutional, such as making an equal option
and/or passing a law giving fed govt authority to create hybrid exchanges,
same with what it would take to make the Fed Reserve fully constitutional.
The IRS is not fully constitutional either. There are other places that have exceeded
Constitutional authority. So we need to agree on this, or it is dangerous to the nation to have this division
going on in the spirit of the laws which our govt and national leaders are supposed to be enforcing.

If people from both parties want to argue the Bush overstepped, that's fine, too.
I think grievances and restitution are owed for war contracts that weren't approved by the public
and make sure any conflicts of interest are paid back to reduce the debts not all people agreed to get into.

So the parties should be used for that, to help organize to redress grievances
and keep things fully Constitutional by the consent of the people especially taxpayers.

Anyway I would have to write out the terms very specifically by agreement with th eparties
I am petitioning so I do not have to go on strike to get this recognized. I know those mandates
and regulations on health care choices are unconstitutional because there is nothing in
the Constitution that gave federal govt the authority to deprive people of liberty without due process
when it comes to health care. For defense, for criminal issues, yes, you can be detained by authorities,
but inability to manage the costs of health care is not a crime the people have committed. it is the fault
of unmanaged govt resources and giving corporations unchecked collective power greater than an individual; so the
problem is from that, not from the people who are being penalized by losing our liberty to choose how to pay for
individual and collective health care.

I will not budge on that, because I know that bill in its spirit is unconstitutional.

 

[emilynghiem]

If not everyone is into politics, then why impose the ACA on everyone.
Not everyone believes govt has authority to force us to buy insurance to pay for health care.

So we all got forced into politics because a bill was passed that
is based on a political belief that health care is a right that can be regulated by govt.

Also, many prolife people feel they were forced into politics when Roe V Wade
opened the door to abortion without putting in enough protections to prevent THAT from being abused.

If you do not want people forced into politics, don't pass laws
that violate religious freedom where people are forced to go on the defensive
to restore their rights and freedoms that were taken away by law.

drifter I guess your version of this is the war on drugs forced
many people into politics and also prisons. as long as we don't
pass laws by consensus, this is forcing politics on people by imposing
beliefs of whole groups in lobbies, forcing others to defend their beliefs that got slighted.

 

[Freemason9]

Shit, that's one hell of an obsessive diatribe. My advice to you is to stop watching cable "news" and stop listening to "talk radio." Life is too important to let professional politicians do fuckery to your mind.

Hell, just go live a life and accept responsibility for your outcomes. Nobody is stopping you.

hmm... I wonder if Emily will confess to doing any of those things?

emilynghiem ?????? Do you confess?

I work two jobs. When do I have time to listen to talk radio?

All the information I got about what was wrong I got from living
in the Democrat hell hole of Freedmen's Town.

You will NOT find it reported on ANY NEWS station
that Keith Wade, appointed by Mayor Annise Parker,
stood up in front of a public assembly when asked about plans for restoring this national historic district,
and claimed it was because of "separation of church and state" that the City of Houston
had no plans for restoring the churches that are national landmarks.

I got that in person.

You won't find that on the news.
====================================================
As for the "talking heads" who align with conservative news,
when I run across these types, I end up arguing against repeating the same old problems.

I argue with my boyfriend who blames Democrats saying they are more corrupt
than the corrupt Republicans who at least get checked. The Republicans have
gone after their own "career politicians" and this has divided the party.

I tried to point out the solutions coming from the Democrat party.

He says they will never support that. That I am the exception.

So as long as my fellow liberals keep turning against me,
then you are making the Right right, saying you want to stay victims
and keep abusing the problems for political power but won't
support the solutions I propose and that's what's wrong with the party.

A bunch of whiny victims who ostracize anyone who tries to change things.

Are you happy with fulfilling the negative image from opponents?
By jumping on me because I threaten the status quo? Is that it?

If you're working two jobs, you're robbing somebody; you certainly have plenty of time to whine.

Are you claiming to be a "liberal" or a "conservative?" Are you a Yankee fan or a Sox fan? Who gives a shit . . .

BTW Freemason9
No I don't have time, that's why this has dragged out for 15 20 years.
Plans I wrote to City Council about 2-3 years ago have not been followed up on.

That's why my mgs here are long and unedited, because I DON'T have time to edit.
It's all hit and run when I can squeeze it in here and there.

What would speed up this process of bringing it to Democrat Party and national attention?

I even thought of planning a hunger strike
and listing the problems to be addressed before I began on a given date.

If Democrats could agree on a fair date to set a "deadline"
I don't mind using that if it would work to get fellow Democrats
off their backs and start working on real solutions!

But the point has to be clear I don't really want to go on a hunger strike.
The point is to avoid it by agreeing how to solve the problems.

I don't mind doing that if it is about agreeing on solutions.

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

 

[emilynghiem]

Shit, that's one hell of an obsessive diatribe. My advice to you is to stop watching cable "news" and stop listening to "talk radio." Life is too important to let professional politicians do fuckery to your mind.

Hell, just go live a life and accept responsibility for your outcomes. Nobody is stopping you.

hmm... I wonder if Emily will confess to doing any of those things?

emilynghiem ?????? Do you confess?

I work two jobs. When do I have time to listen to talk radio?

All the information I got about what was wrong I got from living
in the Democrat hell hole of Freedmen's Town.

You will NOT find it reported on ANY NEWS station
that Keith Wade, appointed by Mayor Annise Parker,
stood up in front of a public assembly when asked about plans for restoring this national historic district,
and claimed it was because of "separation of church and state" that the City of Houston
had no plans for restoring the churches that are national landmarks.

I got that in person.

You won't find that on the news.
====================================================
As for the "talking heads" who align with conservative news,
when I run across these types, I end up arguing against repeating the same old problems.

I argue with my boyfriend who blames Democrats saying they are more corrupt
than the corrupt Republicans who at least get checked. The Republicans have
gone after their own "career politicians" and this has divided the party.

I tried to point out the solutions coming from the Democrat party.

He says they will never support that. That I am the exception.

So as long as my fellow liberals keep turning against me,
then you are making the Right right, saying you want to stay victims
and keep abusing the problems for political power but won't
support the solutions I propose and that's what's wrong with the party.

A bunch of whiny victims who ostracize anyone who tries to change things.

Are you happy with fulfilling the negative image from opponents?
By jumping on me because I threaten the status quo? Is that it?

If you're working two jobs, you're robbing somebody; you certainly have plenty of time to whine.

Are you claiming to be a "liberal" or a "conservative?" Are you a Yankee fan or a Sox fan? Who gives a shit . . .

BTW Freemason9
No I don't have time, that's why this has dragged out for 15 20 years.
Plans I wrote to City Council about 2-3 years ago have not been followed up on.

That's why my mgs here are long and unedited, because I DON'T have time to edit.
It's all hit and run when I can squeeze it in here and there.

What would speed up this process of bringing it to Democrat Party and national attention?

I even thought of planning a hunger strike
and listing the problems to be addressed before I began on a given date.

If Democrats could agree on a fair date to set a "deadline"
I don't mind using that if it would work to get fellow Democrats
off their backs and start working on real solutions!

But the point has to be clear I don't really want to go on a hunger strike.
The point is to avoid it by agreeing how to solve the problems.

I don't mind doing that if it is about agreeing on solutions.

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

Sorry Freemason, there is something called Consent of the Governed that is still the
basis of all laws as social contracts, and civil government.

Nobody has to listen to the Supreme Court if they are wrong. If they are within the spirit of the law, sure.
But if a ruling were to violate religious freedom, no. That is still not Constitutional, if the govt is abused to impose some kind of bias based on belief or creed, and the dissenting people of different beliefs are willing to take responsibility for their differences. If both sides are wrong, and both are imposing on each other, one side is going to lose and that is still unconstitutional; with political or religious beliefs, consensus would ensure both are protected equally; otherwise, one side's beliefs is going to have their equal liberty and protections infringed upon by the other. This has been going on with gay marriage, abortion and now health care laws.

If they could rule and make laws absolutely without question, that would be a dictatorship, like a Pope telling us what God's word means by mandating what the Bible means. This would violate separation of church and state if abused. If we agree to the outcome it's one thing, but the SCOTUS cannot establish a national religion nor the POTUS by declaring something the law of the land without the consent of the people agreeing to follow it as part of the law. We agree to use the Constitutional system a certain way, but that has been breached and contorted by partisan politics and conflicts of interest, to the point of overriding religious beliefs and consent of the governed.

The people are the final check on govt because we have free will.
We can use the media, public influence, etc. to change public perception and then public policy will follow.

Slavery was not abolished by suing through courts.

It took abolitionists like Dolly Madison, married to a slave owner, to stand up and push for abolition.
In that case it took a war, which we are facing today through the media and more civilized means
of attacks and assassinations on character.

 

[Siete]

the op is FOS ..

 

[Freemason9]

hmm... I wonder if Emily will confess to doing any of those things?

emilynghiem ?????? Do you confess?

I work two jobs. When do I have time to listen to talk radio?

All the information I got about what was wrong I got from living
in the Democrat hell hole of Freedmen's Town.

You will NOT find it reported on ANY NEWS station
that Keith Wade, appointed by Mayor Annise Parker,
stood up in front of a public assembly when asked about plans for restoring this national historic district,
and claimed it was because of "separation of church and state" that the City of Houston
had no plans for restoring the churches that are national landmarks.

I got that in person.

You won't find that on the news.
====================================================
As for the "talking heads" who align with conservative news,
when I run across these types, I end up arguing against repeating the same old problems.

I argue with my boyfriend who blames Democrats saying they are more corrupt
than the corrupt Republicans who at least get checked. The Republicans have
gone after their own "career politicians" and this has divided the party.

I tried to point out the solutions coming from the Democrat party.

He says they will never support that. That I am the exception.

So as long as my fellow liberals keep turning against me,
then you are making the Right right, saying you want to stay victims
and keep abusing the problems for political power but won't
support the solutions I propose and that's what's wrong with the party.

A bunch of whiny victims who ostracize anyone who tries to change things.

Are you happy with fulfilling the negative image from opponents?
By jumping on me because I threaten the status quo? Is that it?

If you're working two jobs, you're robbing somebody; you certainly have plenty of time to whine.

Are you claiming to be a "liberal" or a "conservative?" Are you a Yankee fan or a Sox fan? Who gives a shit . . .

BTW Freemason9
No I don't have time, that's why this has dragged out for 15 20 years.
Plans I wrote to City Council about 2-3 years ago have not been followed up on.

That's why my mgs here are long and unedited, because I DON'T have time to edit.
It's all hit and run when I can squeeze it in here and there.

What would speed up this process of bringing it to Democrat Party and national attention?

I even thought of planning a hunger strike
and listing the problems to be addressed before I began on a given date.

If Democrats could agree on a fair date to set a "deadline"
I don't mind using that if it would work to get fellow Democrats
off their backs and start working on real solutions!

But the point has to be clear I don't really want to go on a hunger strike.
The point is to avoid it by agreeing how to solve the problems.

I don't mind doing that if it is about agreeing on solutions.

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

Sorry Freemason, there is something called Consent of the Governed that is still the
basis of all laws as social contracts, and civil government.

Nobody has to listen to the Supreme Court if they are wrong. If they are within the spirit of the law, sure.
But if a ruling were to violate religious freedom, no. That is still not Constitutional.

If they could rule and make laws without question, that would be a dictatorship, like a Pope telling us what
God's word means by mandating what the Bible means. This would violate separation of church and state if abused.
If we agree it's one thing, but the SCOTUS cannot establish a national religion nor the POTUS by declaring something
the law of the land without the consent of the people agreeing to follow it as part of the law.

The people are the final check on govt because we have free will.
We can use the media, public influence, etc. to change public perception and then public policy will follow.

Slavery was not abolished by suing through courts.

It took abolitionists like Dolly Madison, married to a slave owner, to stand up and push for abolition.
In that case it took a war, which we are facing today through the media and more civilized means
of attacks and assassinations on character.

In reality, the U.S. Supreme Court can define the Constitution any way that they please. And they usually don't decide on behalf of working people, since they work for the aristocracy.

This is true of every professional politician, "liberal" or "conservative."

They are NOT on our sides.

 

[emilynghiem]

the op is FOS ..

In what way?
What point would you like to debate.

With CCJones I plan to challege Obama as well on the point that
the ACA Mandates are unconstitutional.

I would even go on hunger strike to force a resolution on that issue, because I know with all my heart that part of the bill overstepped bounds and is not constitutional unless people consent to it which they don't.

go ahead, Siete pick a point.
I need some practice before I write out terms by which I'd be willing to go on hunger strike to establish publicly.
I only make bets and play games I can win,
so let's pick our points carefully for scrimmage practice before I go for higher stakes.

 

[emilynghiem]

I work two jobs. When do I have time to listen to talk radio?

All the information I got about what was wrong I got from living
in the Democrat hell hole of Freedmen's Town.

You will NOT find it reported on ANY NEWS station
that Keith Wade, appointed by Mayor Annise Parker,
stood up in front of a public assembly when asked about plans for restoring this national historic district,
and claimed it was because of "separation of church and state" that the City of Houston
had no plans for restoring the churches that are national landmarks.

I got that in person.

You won't find that on the news.
====================================================
As for the "talking heads" who align with conservative news,
when I run across these types, I end up arguing against repeating the same old problems.

I argue with my boyfriend who blames Democrats saying they are more corrupt
than the corrupt Republicans who at least get checked. The Republicans have
gone after their own "career politicians" and this has divided the party.

I tried to point out the solutions coming from the Democrat party.

He says they will never support that. That I am the exception.

So as long as my fellow liberals keep turning against me,
then you are making the Right right, saying you want to stay victims
and keep abusing the problems for political power but won't
support the solutions I propose and that's what's wrong with the party.

A bunch of whiny victims who ostracize anyone who tries to change things.

Are you happy with fulfilling the negative image from opponents?
By jumping on me because I threaten the status quo? Is that it?

If you're working two jobs, you're robbing somebody; you certainly have plenty of time to whine.

Are you claiming to be a "liberal" or a "conservative?" Are you a Yankee fan or a Sox fan? Who gives a shit . . .

BTW Freemason9
No I don't have time, that's why this has dragged out for 15 20 years.
Plans I wrote to City Council about 2-3 years ago have not been followed up on.

That's why my mgs here are long and unedited, because I DON'T have time to edit.
It's all hit and run when I can squeeze it in here and there.

What would speed up this process of bringing it to Democrat Party and national attention?

I even thought of planning a hunger strike
and listing the problems to be addressed before I began on a given date.

If Democrats could agree on a fair date to set a "deadline"
I don't mind using that if it would work to get fellow Democrats
off their backs and start working on real solutions!

But the point has to be clear I don't really want to go on a hunger strike.
The point is to avoid it by agreeing how to solve the problems.

I don't mind doing that if it is about agreeing on solutions.

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

Sorry Freemason, there is something called Consent of the Governed that is still the
basis of all laws as social contracts, and civil government.

Nobody has to listen to the Supreme Court if they are wrong. If they are within the spirit of the law, sure.
But if a ruling were to violate religious freedom, no. That is still not Constitutional.

If they could rule and make laws without question, that would be a dictatorship, like a Pope telling us what
God's word means by mandating what the Bible means. This would violate separation of church and state if abused.
If we agree it's one thing, but the SCOTUS cannot establish a national religion nor the POTUS by declaring something
the law of the land without the consent of the people agreeing to follow it as part of the law.

The people are the final check on govt because we have free will.
We can use the media, public influence, etc. to change public perception and then public policy will follow.

Slavery was not abolished by suing through courts.

It took abolitionists like Dolly Madison, married to a slave owner, to stand up and push for abolition.
In that case it took a war, which we are facing today through the media and more civilized means
of attacks and assassinations on character.

In reality, the U.S. Supreme Court can define the Constitution any way that they please. And they usually don't decide on behalf of working people, since they work for the aristocracy.

This is true of every professional politician, "liberal" or "conservative."

They are NOT on our sides.

Hi Freemason
I think you are assuming that all this is random.
Hypothetically SURE anyone can pass anything. Great!

But in reality we are all joined and checked by conscience.
There are natural laws that limit what people will or will not agree to.

So we are all checked within those bounds and the people on the SC are part of that.
We are all limited by our humanity.

So if a Hitler arises and starts declaring this or that,
the human conscience will also arise to check that Hitler.

We check and balance each other, it's human nature.

So the SC does have limits by conscience, and we just have to make
sure we use that correctly. it's a natural system, just like you and me
and others here "check and balance" each other to stay on point.
And our Constitutional laws happen to spell out this democratic process
in writing so we can document it and get on the same page and develop from there.

We are all under natural checks and balance.
Look at the First Amendment. You can have free exercise or free will,
free speech and press, right to petition, but if you cause a breach
of the peace, if you push too far as to disrupt the right of others
to "assemble peaceably" then people rise in protest against you
and petition you or put you on the defensive to defend your actions
they claim violated their equal rights to peace, freedom and equal justice/protections of the law.

This is a natural law. Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
You can require peace but not impose it so much you take away people's freedom beyond what they agree to give up
for security and peace. You can defend and exercise freedom, but not abuse it to the point you violate the peace
and security of others. the point is to remain in balance, so people agree on levels of peace and freedom
and form social contracts and laws/govt reflecting that AGREEMENT.

This isn't just arbitrary. It is formed by human nature and you can say that comes from God.

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats, not the Democrat Party. Again.

I am used to referring to Democrats.
Because that's who I work with.

I looked up the history to find where "Democrat Party" was specifically used to clarify that the Party is for the "principles of Democrats" and not to imply the party was "democratic" as if that is exclusive. Since When Did It Become the Democrat Party NPR Ombudsman NPR

But other people also shorten it to Democrat as a shortcut, even though this isn't the proper name of the official party:
==============================================
It may be much ado about not much, but NPR should stick to its policy and call parties by their proper names. It's not just Seabrook who made that mistake.

Do a search for "Democrat Party" on npr.org and you'll find other NPR staff using Democrat as an adjective.

While NPR can't control when guests use the term Democrat Party, it can insist correspondents be consistent.
==============================================

I am trying to address fellow Democrats.
So that is why I use that term.
Not to "hide behind the collective party" but take responsibility as members with equal roles.

And if you aren't willing to take responsibility as an equal Democrat
you shouldn't vote for Democrat leaders or the abuse of collective influence just continues without accountability.

I treat Greens and Libertarians and Republicans the same way.
But for those who are truly independent or truly Constitutionalists,
they tend to carry this responsibility anyway.

It's the people like my friend D2 who 'depend on party to represent them'
who shirk responsibility and let others pay the cost of whichever candidates they vote for and the damages
done by such people in office.

If we started holding parties accountable for who they elect, maybe we'd get more direct accountability.

As Steve Stockman said when I asked him about holding each party to pay for their own programs,
he said the liberals would become conservative overnight!

But as my coworker equally pointed out, if all these conservatives had to fight these wars
with themselves, their kids and families, how fast would we end each war?

DEMOCRATIC leaders. Do you know the difference between an adjective and a noun Ay caramba, you're irritating lol.

Hi Franco
I will just refer to Democrats.
Because that's whom I am addressing.

 

[Freemason9]

If you're working two jobs, you're robbing somebody; you certainly have plenty of time to whine.

Are you claiming to be a "liberal" or a "conservative?" Are you a Yankee fan or a Sox fan? Who gives a shit . . .

BTW Freemason9
No I don't have time, that's why this has dragged out for 15 20 years.
Plans I wrote to City Council about 2-3 years ago have not been followed up on.

That's why my mgs here are long and unedited, because I DON'T have time to edit.
It's all hit and run when I can squeeze it in here and there.

What would speed up this process of bringing it to Democrat Party and national attention?

I even thought of planning a hunger strike
and listing the problems to be addressed before I began on a given date.

If Democrats could agree on a fair date to set a "deadline"
I don't mind using that if it would work to get fellow Democrats
off their backs and start working on real solutions!

But the point has to be clear I don't really want to go on a hunger strike.
The point is to avoid it by agreeing how to solve the problems.

I don't mind doing that if it is about agreeing on solutions.

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

Sorry Freemason, there is something called Consent of the Governed that is still the
basis of all laws as social contracts, and civil government.

Nobody has to listen to the Supreme Court if they are wrong. If they are within the spirit of the law, sure.
But if a ruling were to violate religious freedom, no. That is still not Constitutional.

If they could rule and make laws without question, that would be a dictatorship, like a Pope telling us what
God's word means by mandating what the Bible means. This would violate separation of church and state if abused.
If we agree it's one thing, but the SCOTUS cannot establish a national religion nor the POTUS by declaring something
the law of the land without the consent of the people agreeing to follow it as part of the law.

The people are the final check on govt because we have free will.
We can use the media, public influence, etc. to change public perception and then public policy will follow.

Slavery was not abolished by suing through courts.

It took abolitionists like Dolly Madison, married to a slave owner, to stand up and push for abolition.
In that case it took a war, which we are facing today through the media and more civilized means
of attacks and assassinations on character.

In reality, the U.S. Supreme Court can define the Constitution any way that they please. And they usually don't decide on behalf of working people, since they work for the aristocracy.

This is true of every professional politician, "liberal" or "conservative."

They are NOT on our sides.

Hi Freemason
I think you are assuming that all this is random.
Hypothetically SURE anyone can pass anything. Great!

But in reality we are all joined and checked by conscience.
There are natural laws that limit what people will or will not agree to.

So we are all checked within those bounds and the people on the SC are part of that.
We are all limited by our humanity.

So if a Hitler arises and starts declaring this or that,
the human conscience will also arise to check that Hitler.

We check and balance each other, it's human nature.

So the SC does have limits by conscience, and we just have to make
sure we use that correctly. it's a natural system, just like you and me
and others here "check and balance" each other to stay on point.
And our Constitutional laws happen to spell out this democratic process
in writing so we can document it and get on the same page and develop from there.

We are all under natural checks and balance.
Look at the First Amendment. You can have free exercise or free will,
free speech and press, right to petition, but if you cause a breach
of the peace, if you push too far as to disrupt the right of others
to "assemble peaceably" then people rise in protest against you
and petition you or put you on the defensive to defend your actions
they claim violated their equal rights to peace, freedom and equal justice/protections of the law.

This is a natural law. Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
You can require peace but not impose it so much you take away people's freedom beyond what they agree to give up
for security and peace. You can defend and exercise freedom, but not abuse it to the point you violate the peace
and security of others. the point is to remain in balance, so people agree on levels of peace and freedom
and form social contracts and laws/govt reflecting that AGREEMENT.

This isn't just arbitrary. It is formed by human nature and you can say that comes from God.

You are clearly intelligent, so my recommendation for you is to abandon any ideas of martyrdom. In general, people aren't worth it--they do not have high standards, and they are intrinsicly self-centered. Americans are damaged and controlled people. Simply resolve to live well, and live fully. Be healthy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats, not the Democrat Party. Again.

Yes I agree with you and Pogo to refer to DEMOCRATS from now on.
I can make that the term of the strike:
that if the terms are met and Constitutional grievances are resolved
to truly be Democratic then I will agree to refer to the party as Democratic, too.

Until then I will refer to fellow Democrats as Democrats.

This issue of recognizing "right to health care" as a belief
and spiritual healing as a choice not to be penalized
would have to be resolved first to prove to me this is democratic.

 

[emilynghiem]

Em, if you don't know that Dems support education, training, infrastructure/jobs programs and Pubs block them sigh....relax as much as possible and vote Dem. Won't help TEXAS much lol...

Hi Franco are you a Vet?
Can you help me and my Democrat Vet Friends get this campus plan funded?
We've gotten no help.

Where is this help the Democrats are supposed to support?
Can we form a Vet team and it get it going?
I have a couple of friends, but they're all waiting on me.

Can we ask the mods here like Westwall can a section
be set up for "ORGANIZING and IMPLEMENTING Veteran reforms and solutions/support"?
Would that help us to organize and really help and get away from divisive blame and politics?

Thanks!

No, I'm not.
Blocked and underfunded by Pubs. Things will never get anywhere in general until PUBS are thrown out. Sorry, one party IS the problem and should get the blame. Lying greedy POSs and their propagandized chumps. see sig. Good luck.

Hmmm how is this any different from GOP members
who say the liberals are the scourge and need to be removed from office.

Don't both campaigns cancel each other out.

How much is SPENT to push both messages, millions if not billions?
why can't that same money be used to buy land, buy out whole school districts,
to start teaching communities to manage themselves independently by local govt under Constitutional processes?

The difference is the GOP is FOS and needs a gigantic propaganda machine, Fox Rush, Beck, Heritage, Murdoch and Moonie papers, etc etc etc to keep the hater dupes in line.

And I guess the Democrats use Obama, Pelosi et al to say ACA is the law of the land
as propaganda to drown out the voices of the people like me saying: No, the Constitution is the law of the land.
And those mandates are not Constitutional. To be Constitutional the regulations must be optional to choose,
but cannot be forced on people by penalty of law who committed no crimes that justify depriving us of liberty.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW Freemason9
No I don't have time, that's why this has dragged out for 15 20 years.
Plans I wrote to City Council about 2-3 years ago have not been followed up on.

That's why my mgs here are long and unedited, because I DON'T have time to edit.
It's all hit and run when I can squeeze it in here and there.

What would speed up this process of bringing it to Democrat Party and national attention?

I even thought of planning a hunger strike
and listing the problems to be addressed before I began on a given date.

If Democrats could agree on a fair date to set a "deadline"
I don't mind using that if it would work to get fellow Democrats
off their backs and start working on real solutions!

But the point has to be clear I don't really want to go on a hunger strike.
The point is to avoid it by agreeing how to solve the problems.

I don't mind doing that if it is about agreeing on solutions.

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

Sorry Freemason, there is something called Consent of the Governed that is still the
basis of all laws as social contracts, and civil government.

Nobody has to listen to the Supreme Court if they are wrong. If they are within the spirit of the law, sure.
But if a ruling were to violate religious freedom, no. That is still not Constitutional.

If they could rule and make laws without question, that would be a dictatorship, like a Pope telling us what
God's word means by mandating what the Bible means. This would violate separation of church and state if abused.
If we agree it's one thing, but the SCOTUS cannot establish a national religion nor the POTUS by declaring something
the law of the land without the consent of the people agreeing to follow it as part of the law.

The people are the final check on govt because we have free will.
We can use the media, public influence, etc. to change public perception and then public policy will follow.

Slavery was not abolished by suing through courts.

It took abolitionists like Dolly Madison, married to a slave owner, to stand up and push for abolition.
In that case it took a war, which we are facing today through the media and more civilized means
of attacks and assassinations on character.

In reality, the U.S. Supreme Court can define the Constitution any way that they please. And they usually don't decide on behalf of working people, since they work for the aristocracy.

This is true of every professional politician, "liberal" or "conservative."

They are NOT on our sides.

Hi Freemason
I think you are assuming that all this is random.
Hypothetically SURE anyone can pass anything. Great!

But in reality we are all joined and checked by conscience.
There are natural laws that limit what people will or will not agree to.

So we are all checked within those bounds and the people on the SC are part of that.
We are all limited by our humanity.

So if a Hitler arises and starts declaring this or that,
the human conscience will also arise to check that Hitler.

We check and balance each other, it's human nature.

So the SC does have limits by conscience, and we just have to make
sure we use that correctly. it's a natural system, just like you and me
and others here "check and balance" each other to stay on point.
And our Constitutional laws happen to spell out this democratic process
in writing so we can document it and get on the same page and develop from there.

We are all under natural checks and balance.
Look at the First Amendment. You can have free exercise or free will,
free speech and press, right to petition, but if you cause a breach
of the peace, if you push too far as to disrupt the right of others
to "assemble peaceably" then people rise in protest against you
and petition you or put you on the defensive to defend your actions
they claim violated their equal rights to peace, freedom and equal justice/protections of the law.

This is a natural law. Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
You can require peace but not impose it so much you take away people's freedom beyond what they agree to give up
for security and peace. You can defend and exercise freedom, but not abuse it to the point you violate the peace
and security of others. the point is to remain in balance, so people agree on levels of peace and freedom
and form social contracts and laws/govt reflecting that AGREEMENT.

This isn't just arbitrary. It is formed by human nature and you can say that comes from God.

You are clearly intelligent, so my recommendation for you is to abandon any ideas of martyrdom. In general, people aren't worth it--they do not have high standards, and they are intrinsicly self-centered. Americans are damaged and controlled people. Simply resolve to live well, and live fully. Be healthy.

Thank you, Freemason.
You are very kind and compassionate to care about well being of me and others.

I have friends who can help me write out these terms where it will not get to the point of risking my health.
Wha thas risked my health is these conflicts going unresolved for so long, the burdens have grown
while the conflicts drag on. National history has been lost while money was wasted and never reimbursed that
could have paid to preserve landmarks and legacies for our future.

So the damage has been done, I am trying to find the most effective expedient means of calling an end to the division
and destruction, to pinpoint the clearest winning arguments that explain in one shot with least debate to save time.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Emily, are you beginning to see the nature of the so-called "liberals" you have been supporting?

When you begin to oppose their actual actions instead of taking their word that their intentions are good, you are getting nothing but evasions, changes of subjects, insults, and smears. They cannot support what they have been doing with actual facts and arguments.

You now seem to be going through Stage Two of the "post-liberal awakening". I see you earnestly explaining the truth to them, apparently in hopes that they will see you are right and will adopt your point of view. I predict you will go through many, many voluble posts refuting their continuous denials and ginned-up "facts", taking as long a time as I did before finally realizing that they have no interest in what is true and what actually works in a society of imperfect humans. They will continue to ignore what you say, repeat their same fallacies over and over, and NEVER consider the possibility that what you are pointing out is right and they are wrong. The phrase "tossing pearls to swine" has strong applicability here.

It took me a long time to realize that they have no interest in doing what's right. Only in forwarding their agenda in the blind hope that someday it will actually work, despite its long and unbroken record of failure. And you will never get them out of that rut.

Welcome to conservatism and its corresponding personal responsibility. The other side has no interest in it, and will blindly oppose it regardless of the arguments you continue to muster.

Happy New Year.

 

[Freemason9]

If you are trying to work within the "two party system" to affect change, give it up. Our system does not allow for substantial change, and the Constitution shackles progressive ideas by empowering the Supreme Court with all decision making.

Sorry Freemason, there is something called Consent of the Governed that is still the
basis of all laws as social contracts, and civil government.

Nobody has to listen to the Supreme Court if they are wrong. If they are within the spirit of the law, sure.
But if a ruling were to violate religious freedom, no. That is still not Constitutional.

If they could rule and make laws without question, that would be a dictatorship, like a Pope telling us what
God's word means by mandating what the Bible means. This would violate separation of church and state if abused.
If we agree it's one thing, but the SCOTUS cannot establish a national religion nor the POTUS by declaring something
the law of the land without the consent of the people agreeing to follow it as part of the law.

The people are the final check on govt because we have free will.
We can use the media, public influence, etc. to change public perception and then public policy will follow.

Slavery was not abolished by suing through courts.

It took abolitionists like Dolly Madison, married to a slave owner, to stand up and push for abolition.
In that case it took a war, which we are facing today through the media and more civilized means
of attacks and assassinations on character.

In reality, the U.S. Supreme Court can define the Constitution any way that they please. And they usually don't decide on behalf of working people, since they work for the aristocracy.

This is true of every professional politician, "liberal" or "conservative."

They are NOT on our sides.

Hi Freemason
I think you are assuming that all this is random.
Hypothetically SURE anyone can pass anything. Great!

But in reality we are all joined and checked by conscience.
There are natural laws that limit what people will or will not agree to.

So we are all checked within those bounds and the people on the SC are part of that.
We are all limited by our humanity.

So if a Hitler arises and starts declaring this or that,
the human conscience will also arise to check that Hitler.

We check and balance each other, it's human nature.

So the SC does have limits by conscience, and we just have to make
sure we use that correctly. it's a natural system, just like you and me
and others here "check and balance" each other to stay on point.
And our Constitutional laws happen to spell out this democratic process
in writing so we can document it and get on the same page and develop from there.

We are all under natural checks and balance.
Look at the First Amendment. You can have free exercise or free will,
free speech and press, right to petition, but if you cause a breach
of the peace, if you push too far as to disrupt the right of others
to "assemble peaceably" then people rise in protest against you
and petition you or put you on the defensive to defend your actions
they claim violated their equal rights to peace, freedom and equal justice/protections of the law.

This is a natural law. Justice is a balance between peace and freedom.
You can require peace but not impose it so much you take away people's freedom beyond what they agree to give up
for security and peace. You can defend and exercise freedom, but not abuse it to the point you violate the peace
and security of others. the point is to remain in balance, so people agree on levels of peace and freedom
and form social contracts and laws/govt reflecting that AGREEMENT.

This isn't just arbitrary. It is formed by human nature and you can say that comes from God.

You are clearly intelligent, so my recommendation for you is to abandon any ideas of martyrdom. In general, people aren't worth it--they do not have high standards, and they are intrinsicly self-centered. Americans are damaged and controlled people. Simply resolve to live well, and live fully. Be healthy.

Thank you, Freemason.
You are very kind and compassionate to care about well being of me and others.

I have friends who can help me write out these terms where it will not get to the point of risking my health.
Wha thas risked my health is these conflicts going unresolved for so long, the burdens have grown
while the conflicts drag on. National history has been lost while money was wasted and never reimbursed that
could have paid to preserve landmarks and legacies for our future.

So the damage has been done, I am trying to find the most effective expedient means of calling an end to the division
and destruction, to pinpoint the clearest winning arguments that explain in one shot with least debate to save time.

Just let it go. In time, everything is lost.

 

[Freemason9]

Emily, are you beginning to see the nature of the so-called "liberals" you have been supporting?

When you begin to oppose their actual actions instead of taking their word that their intentions are good, you are getting nothing but evasions, changes of subjects, insults, and smears. They cannot support what they have been doing with actual facts and arguments.

You now seem to be going through Stage Two of the "liberal awakening" - I see you earnestly explaining the truth to them, apparently in hopes that they will see you are right and will adopt your point of view. I predict you will go through many, many voluble posts refuting their continuous denials and ginned-up "facts", taking as long a time as I did before finally realizing that they have no interest in what is true and what actually works in a society of imperfect humans. They will continue to ignore what you say, repeat their same fallacies over and over, and NEVER consider the possibility that you are right and they are wrong. The phrase "tossing pearls to swine" has strong applicability here.

It took me a long time to realize that they have no interest in doing what's right. Only in forwarding their agenda in the blind hope that someday it will actually work, despite its long and unbroken record of failure. And you will never get them out of that rut.

Welcome to conservatism and its corresponding personal responsibility. The other side has no interest in it, and will blindly oppose it regardless of the arguments you continue to muster.

Happy New Year.

This is childlike and devisive. Do you understand how shallow you are when you label people as "liberal" or "conservative?" Does that really reflect the extent of your intellect?