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

[mudwhistle]

"emilynghiem, post: 10479465, member: 22295"]Dear Fellow Democrats and Constitutionalists:
After fighting with three Democrat friends who kept blaming me for blowing up from stress,
but wouldn't acknowledge the damage caused by Democrat leaders exerting the pressure on me that was causing the stress, I got tired of being blamed when these same Democrats won't hold leaders accountable for abuses. This is like letting the rapists go free and blaming the victim for PTSD and emotional blowups while recovering from the abuses we didn't ask to be put on us.

I thought the people blaming me were also victims of the same abuses.
But they can forgive and accept their own reactions to this abuse, while blaming me for mine, so that is not equal. I don't know if it is "male behavior" or political bullying or what, but it is sick, and I am sick of it.

I refuse to be blamed when I am under tremendous strain and burden
from trying to solve problems and take responsibility, unlike those who keep waiting on others.
And when I do try to take that on, I get blamed for being emotionally overwhelmed?

I am lucky to be sane at all.

With the last bit of sanity I have, before I become a complete "sociopath"
to cut off all emotions all together in order to function,
I would like to write a letter to Democrat members and leaders
BEGGING FOR HELP to support and fulfill the sustainable
campus plans developed in my historic black church district
that is a Democrat precinct. These plans would end the dependence
on govt welfare and charity handouts by teaching independence through a
sustainable system of public service internships and job training in
property, finance and business management, legal and govt reforms and restitution for abuses,
and health and human services.

There is no reason not to support these plans
except that people like my friends are too busy blaming other people as victims
to invest money into solutions, but keep funding hate campaigns that don't solve anything.

I cannot understand or accept this anymore.
I worry I will completely lose my mind, or cease to be human
so I don't have to feel the anger at all this abuse. I just have to
distract myself and go into denial in order to stay focused on the solutions,
and that is not mentally healthy. I should have the right to GRIEVE
and yet if I express this emotionally, I blow up and get BLAMED for that.

This is crazymaking, and I want to share these sound ideas for
govt reform before I am no longer able to construct a cohesive sentence.

Can you please help me take these ideas
and write out a formal ultimatum to the Democrat Party
to either solve the problems by funding a solution
or quit complaining and blaming others for it?

I am a Democrat and had every intention of staying with the party
to reform it as a team, to overcome these divisive barriers and bullying.

But if I am not welcome in my own Party, but am going to
be blamed the same way as you would blame others who complain about
Democrats without investing in solutions as I have worked two jobs to do,
that is unacceptable.

I would like a formal apology from three Democrat friends
I feel have unfairly blamed or abused me while failing to go after
the Democrat leaders who CAUSED the problems that PUT the pressure
on me that has caused me undue strain and stress, imposing on
my physical financial and mental health, and making me feel like a slave and a victim.

But instead of just doing nothing and complaining,
I kept working to invest money into solutions, so I believe I was different
from other people crying victim victim or others who BLAME opponents for criticizing Democrats.

I think it is wrong to blame me when I was trying to fix things.

So I want public acknowledgement of this difference.
And hope people will take a look at these campus plans
and see why I was working two jobs to try to stabilize and support
the community in getting these public attention and funding as they deserve.

See Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing and http www.houstonprogressive.org
Adaptation of these campus model plans for reforms to help Veterans,
immigration and slave labor issues are posted here:
Earned Amnesty and music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

I honestly give up trying to help people in my own party
who turn around and either blame or abuse me without holding
responsible the Democrats who put me in such a compromised situation.

Thanks if you can please help!
I wish I could stay with the Democrats, and call forth the leadership
who CAN work with Republicans and set up a system of all parties
working together, and even running together on the same ticket
and having a cabinet or coalition of party leaders collaborating.

So if there are any Democrats out there who believe that
inclusion of diversity means respecting political beliefs equally,
and any others who believe in conflict resolution and consensus
on policies to include all people and parties, please let me know if you can help.

I can't do this alone, and put up with the blame being projected on me
when I am trying to solve these problems.

If I wasn't already crazy going into this, I think I will lose whatever sanity I had.

================================================
RE: Thank you. Decided to leave the Democrat Party because of you. And plan to go PUBLIC with my grievances against abuses within the Party.
==================
Dear D1 and D2:

Thank you for everything.

Because of abusive behavior
by several males of the Democrat Party
I still consider good friends, including you,
I have decided to leave the Democrat Party
unless I receive a formal apology for
blaming and abusing me when I was
under STRAIN for trying to solve the problems
CREATED by leaders of the Democrat Party
who have abused members like me.

I understand that my "blowing up" not only
at you two (and another friend I will also list
in my final request for an apology if I am going
to stay and keep working with the embattled
Democrat Party to solve our problems as a team)

and also "blowing up" at Garnet Coleman,
Jolanda Jones, and others is considered
emotionally out of control

But it is INSULTING to "blame this on me
as you would blame Conservatives who
are NOT solving the problems I took on"

Taking on TWO JOBS and working like
a SLAVE to the point I was a danger on the road
and had to quit driving
is NOT the same as people yelling at Democrats
for not doing anything to solve the problems caused
by our own leadership when those people AREN'T
helping either.

But I WAS helping and was working more jobs
than both of you combined to fix problems
caused by OUR PARTY.

I believe when I blew up at you for
not taking responsibility for your vote,
this is DIFFERENT than if someone
cuts you off or rejects or judges you
for being Democrat who ISN'T under
so much pressure to save an entire
historic district working two jobs to do it.

This is completely insulting and abusive [to imply we are the same,
both "arrogant". What is "arrogant" about taking on the burdens of
the entire party to take responsibility for those who aren't?]

I will not name you three in my formal
letter to the Democrat Party
but will describe you as
Democrat 1
Democrat 2
and Democrat 3.

But this abusive behavior of
males competing with other males
to bully instead of solving problems
being blamed on each other's parties
is TOO MUCH

and is putting an UNDUE
burden on people like Gladys House
and me, who are both working two jobs
each, while Democrats like you
wait on someone else to fix the problems
caused by abuses by Democrat leaders.

Sorry but I will NOT be part of
this kind of political bullying
and cult abuse.

This should NOT be allowed to influence govt
much less dictate policies.

This is TRULY sick.

So THANK YOU for opening my eyes
that this VICTIM behavior is truly
sick and is rewarded and encouraged
by either the Democrats or by the Party
System that rewards this kind of behavior.

Sorry but that is NOT what I gave up
so much to work for;

I sought to EMANCIPATE and LIBERATE
people from this VICTIM mentality
and yet I've found myself
ABUSED and BLAMED for trying to
SOLVE the problem by setting up
a sustainable CAMPUS system for
training people to own their own
cities and manage their own govt
to be FREED from this oppression.

If you do not see that the work I did
is different, and not the same as the
other things you blame on others,
I do not want to be part of this Party.

There is something WRONG with it
if you cannot correct the problems
as I was seeking to do.

Thanks, sorry but I cannot be abused
like this anymore and have NO IDEA
if it is coming from male behavior
or partisanship or whatever,
but this is abusive and not acceptable.

The difference with me is I was TRYING
to invest in a solution, so the strain
I am under is DIFFERENT from people
who AREN'T working on a longterm SOLUTION.

If you and other Democrats cannot SEE that,
you do not DESERVE to have me work to achieve
the goals of inclusion, diversity and uplifting minorities
and oppressed people to full equality as the sustainable
campus plans would provide mentorship to do.

These plans have been in our Democrat District
since at least 1994 and not been funded or followed up on.

So if the Democrats won't support solutions from
their own membership, maybe other parties will
recognize the opportunity and jump on board.

I will ask Congresswoman Lee's office one more time
to support these campus plans, and if there is no commitment
to follow through and recognize these plans of Gladys House,
Lenwood Johnson, and the ones written up by [Democrat 1 or D1]
and me trying to represent them all, then I am not going to
work with a Party that censors and abuses its own members!

Why would I do that?

Why would I yell if I weren't under so much pressure
from trying to SOLVE problems created by Democrats?

And be so INSULTED that instead of going after the
Democrats who caused and cost these problems,
I GET BLAMED when I blow up trying to fix them?

If you want to say I am "emotionally unstable"
I argue that the plans I have endorsed and promoted
are perfectly sane. And that's all I was trying to fund.

If you haven't tried working two full time jobs to
pay for the cost to 5 or 6 nonprofits damaged by the
abuses of Democrats destroying poor districts,

I do not think it is fair to criticize or insult me
by comparing me to people who haven't lifted a finger.

Sorry.
============================

Fuck! !

 

[Siete]

If I wasn't already crazy going into this, I think I will lose whatever sanity I had.

you said it darling, not me.

you've been given excellent advice .. live well and prosper.


maybe you'll run into Spock.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Thank you Little-Acorn.
I have met other more conservative Democrats at conventions, even some ProLife who are completely unheard from.
I owe it to my constituents who have stayed true to God, to finish our calling if we are positioned here to serve this way
and get the Democrats in line with the Constitution. I am prochoice and Democrats will only hear from someone else who is prochoice.

I believe I still have a shot at making a difference, even if it is my parting gift!

CCJones brought out a point that I do need to address with my friend D2.

This idea that just because a law passed through Congress and Courts it is Constitutional?
Slavery passed through laws and courts and has never been constitutionally equal.
It was an institution in place at the time laws were drawn up and hadn't be fully addressed or resolved yet.

I plan to write out terms of why the ACA mandates are unconstitutional
and ask CCJones, D2 and even President Obama to recognize these points.

So they have to be concisely written if I am going to agree to go on hunger strike
if these terms are not recognized by the Democrats as a Party.

If they open up the democratic process to include and not penalize opposing
political beliefs, I will in turn agree to address them as the Democratic Party.

But if they continue to impose political beliefs through the platform into national law,
this is nationalizing a belief and is not democratic but imposing abusing power like a dictatorship.
It is violating the very separation of church and state, and prochoice principles of Democrats.

So either act democratic and live up to the idea of inclusion,
or admit this is contradictory and I will continue to call them Democrats if that's all they care about, their own agenda.

If that is true, that is fine, but we need to agree to treat such parties just like any other religious group
if all you care about is pushing your beliefs on other people and abusing govt positions and laws to do so.

LA may I ask your consulting help as I write out the terms by which I would agree to schedule dates
to meet to AVOID going on hunger strike. My friend who has coordinated rotating strikes before, so nobody got hurt,
was very clear there needs to be an agreement with all parties in advance on the terms and what is going to take place.

I am hoping that by even agreeing what the points are, the arguments on why the ACA mandates
are unconstitutional, if these are written clear enough then that should end the process right then and there!
Just agreeing what to spell out and how to say it so everyone agrees it is fair.

We'll see.

I have deadlines at work, but thanks to EVERYONE here
for input that is part of the spirit of the DEMOCRATIC process.

 

[emilynghiem]

If I wasn't already crazy going into this, I think I will lose whatever sanity I had.

you said it darling, not me.

you've been given excellent advice .. live well and prosper.


maybe you'll run into Spock.

Yes, Dante already chimed in who is as objective logically as I can ask.

I will ask him to be on the team of consultants to make sure what I ask
in my terms is clear enough that even Dante can get it, ha ha! {hugs}

 

[emilynghiem]

Fuck! !

Hi mudwhistle that was my anger and grief phase.

I went through sadness last night at the thought of losing my friend, in addition to whatever else.

Today after sleeping on what CCJones added,
I came up with the bargaining/resolution phase.

So that's where I am now. How to use all this grief to bargain with
the political 'slavemasters' and either win freedom or jump the ship....

I am at peace now, but when I start asking for these terms, I think
it's going to stir the pot and get something brewing, hopefully in a positive spirit
if the worst is behind us, if all the garbage already blew over and it's smooth sailing from here....

 

[peach174]

Emily
Did you ever get in touch with your FVW and American Legions in your area to try and help you with this?

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily
Did you ever get in touch with your FVW and American Legions in your area to try and help you with this?

I only got so far as to contact the Veterans affairs with the City of Houston
and one Veteran developer from LA who worked on a similar project but it took him 16 years.

If it isn't too late to save the houses left, I can try again.

But most will not go against the City and especially a developer as untouchable as
the Gerald Hines family. I had offered the idea of having an urban design contest for
students, since Hines has a contest and architecture school named after him.

I can ask Gladys House and the new minister who joined us, if they've contacted FVW with her proposal.
Thanks for that!

Frankly at this point I think we will lose the last houses if we didn't already,
but we can argue restitution is owed for irreparable damages by corporate abuse of govt,
and the whole district should flip to a historic trust and not be under the City of Houston that has abused resources to destroy it.

 

[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.

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.

1) Political Parties cannot "do whatever they want." You are wrong.
2) The mandates are actually taxes. You don't actually "have" to buy the insurance. However, if you don't have the insurance and you don't have another exemption (there are already dozens of ways to avoid this) you have to pay the "tax." Thus this is actually constitutional because taxes are constitutional.

 

[RKMBrown]

the op is FOS ..

no.. not FOS... just miss-informed, miss-guided, and eager to make a difference.

 

[Michelle420]

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.

It shouldn't be imposed on everyone, we agree that we support freedom of religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

1) Political Parties cannot "do whatever they want." You are wrong.
2) The mandates are actually taxes. You don't actually "have" to buy the insurance. However, if you don't have the insurance and you don't have another exemption (there are already dozens of ways to avoid this) you have to pay the "tax." Thus this is actually constitutional because taxes are constitutional.

and THAT good sir is discrimination by CREED.
For if people who BELIEVE in paying ALL the costs by other means besides what is dictated
by govt to avoid fines are PUNISHED for having different BELIEFS that is religious discrimination.

It is masked by assuming religious beliefs are only about NAMED religions like Christianity or Buddhist or Muslim.
But that is discrimination also (and if we need a law to specify how political beliefs are to be treated, fine, but it is unequal to only protect religious beliefs recognized by govt as a form of regulating religion, which are approved for exemption and which are going to be fined)

So you are saying if you are NOT a member of a RECOGNIZED religious group
as REGULATED by federal govt, you are going to have a fine but this is exempt for recognized beliefs.

Since when does Federal Govt have the right to regulate religion?
Only for the sake of national security as in military has this issue of religious objection come up.

And we all AGREE that national security and military service is of govt authority.

But WE did not all agree that "health care" was such a threat.

What is double disturbing is the people like Obama who pushed this law
REJECT spiritual healing based on forgiveness. So that is a bias that causes
this attachment to material means of security when things go wrong because that element is missing.

You can't force spiritual healing on people
for the same reasons you can't force insurance on people.

This mandate is a mix of private and public institutions,
So to add something like that requires a constitutional amendment.

The Federal Reserve is also a mix of private with public, but at least it is optional.

You are not fined if you refuse to use Federal Reserve money.
You are only required to use it when paying the federal govt that requires taxes to be paid using this currency.

Don't worry.

If this is just "my belief" then it is not for other people and cannot be forced on them.

But you SURE AS H
cannot impose a federal mandate AGAINST my beliefs.

If I have to prove that Constitutionalism is a political religion
and I have the right to practice it, so be it.

Not everyone has my beliefs, just like not everyone is prolife.
But the prolife people who believe that life is sacred, chosen by God
and cannot be legally terminated by abortion or choice
have EVERY RIGHT not to be forced to fund such practices.

And I have the right not to fund or support any mandate like
this that violates the equal freedom of chioce and beliefs
of people who believe in free market, and do not believe
federal govt has this authority without writing an amendment first.

I believe and agree with that,
And if it is "political belief" so be it.
We cannot impose our different interpretation of the Constitution on others against their beliefs,
and they cannot impose their interpretation on ours.

This isn't just nitpicky letter of the law issues, such as should terms be 4 years versus 6 years.

This is a religiously held God-given BELIEF
that federal govt is limited to the Constitution unless specifically authorized,
or someone committed a crime and loses liberties after due process.

But "believing" that federal govt is the most expedient means of meeting health care
demands to "save lives" is a BELIEF. There is also spiritual healing that would
save MORE lives and reduce MORE costs than "insurance" but
spiritual healing cannot be mandated either! So certainly a substitute measure
such as insurance cannot be mandated, unless spiritual healing and other
religious chosen means are equally EXEMPTED and not penalized as a FREE CHOICE.

Sorry to yell, you are actualy helping me spell out
some of the points I wanted to list in my 3 arguments
on how ACA mandates are unconstitutional.

It doesn't have to be an established belief that everyone shares
in order to be violated. It only takes one person like me whose beliefs
are violated and that bill is unconstitutional to impose on me.

Other people can argue for themselves, but if they don't respect
the same standards of Constitutional inclusion of political beliefs,
if they believe in imposing on others, in ways I do not,
they may not be able to make the same claims I do.

Similarly one person may claim religious objection to war and win their case,
but another may be abusing that excuse and not really object religiously and not qualify for exemption. You can't just use the beliefs of someone else to get an exemption.

I believe I can prove my case because I really believe in consensus on law, and inclusion
of even opposing political beliefs in forming unbiased laws that don't exclude one for the other; not all people believe in consensus so not all people can make the same argument.

It is my belief, so of course the mandates violate it.
And I have shown I am willing to pay costs and build solutions
that allow free choice, including free choice to buy insurance to lower costs.
It just can't be mandated by federal govt without violating rights of people
like me who believe that is unconstitutional.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

1) Political Parties cannot "do whatever they want." You are wrong.
2) The mandates are actually taxes. You don't actually "have" to buy the insurance. However, if you don't have the insurance and you don't have another exemption (there are already dozens of ways to avoid this) you have to pay the "tax." Thus this is actually constitutional because taxes are constitutional.

and THAT good sir is discrimination by CREED.
For if people who BELIEVE in paying ALL the costs by other means besides what is dictated
by govt to avoid fines are PUNISHED for having different BELIEFS that is religious discrimination.

It is masked by assuming religious beliefs are only about NAMED religions like Christianity or Buddhist or Muslim.
But that is discrimination also (and if we need a law to specify how political beliefs are to be treated, fine, but it is unequal to only protect religious beliefs recognized by govt as a form of regulating religion, which are approved for exemption and which are going to be fined)

So you are saying if you are NOT a member of a RECOGNIZED religious group
as REGULATED by federal govt, you are going to have a fine but this is exempt for recognized beliefs.

Since when does Federal Govt have the right to regulate religion?
Only for the sake of national security as in military has this issue of religious objection come up.

And we all AGREE that national security and military service is of govt authority.

But WE did not all agree that "health care" was such a threat.

What is double disturbing is the people like Obama who pushed this law
REJECT spiritual healing based on forgiveness. So that is a bias that causes
this attachment to material means of security when things go wrong because that element is missing.

You can't force spiritual healing on people
for the same reasons you can't force insurance on people.

This mandate is a mix of private and public institutions,
So to add something like that requires a constitutional amendment.

The Federal Reserve is also a mix of private with public, but at least it is optional.

You are not fined if you refuse to use Federal Reserve money.
You are only required to use it when paying the federal govt that requires taxes to be paid using this currency.

Don't worry.

If this is just "my belief" then it is not for other people and cannot be forced on them.

But you SURE AS H
cannot impose a federal mandate AGAINST my beliefs.

If I have to prove that Constitutionalism is a political religion
and I have the right to practice it, so be it.

Not everyone has my beliefs, just like not everyone is prolife.
But the prolife people who believe that life is sacred, chosen by God
and cannot be legally terminated by abortion or choice
have EVERY RIGHT not to be forced to fund such practices.

And I have the right not to fund or support any mandate like
this that violates the equal freedom of chioce and beliefs
of people who believe in free market, and do not believe
federal govt has this authority without writing an amendment first.

I believe and agree with that,
And if it is "political belief" so be it.
We cannot impose our different interpretation of the Constitution on others against their beliefs,
and they cannot impose their interpretation on ours.

This isn't just nitpicky letter of the law issues, such as should terms be 4 years versus 6 years.

This is a religiously held God-given BELIEF
that federal govt is limited to the Constitution unless specifically authorized,
or someone committed a crime and loses liberties after due process.

But "believing" that federal govt is the most expedient means of meeting health care
demands to "save lives" is a BELIEF. There is also spiritual healing that would
save MORE lives and reduce MORE costs than "insurance" but
spiritual healing cannot be mandated either! So certainly a substitute measure
such as insurance cannot be mandated, unless spiritual healing and other
religious chosen means are equally EXEMPTED and not penalized as a FREE CHOICE.

Sorry to yell, you are actualy helping me spell out
some of the points I wanted to list in my 3 arguments
on how ACA mandates are unconstitutional.

It doesn't have to be an established belief that everyone shares
in order to be violated. It only takes one person like me whose beliefs
are violated and that bill is unconstitutional to impose on me.

Other people can argue for themselves, but if they don't respect
the same standards of Constitutional inclusion of political beliefs,
if they believe in imposing on others, in ways I do not,
they may not be able to make the same claims I do.

Similarly one person may claim religious objection to war and win their case,
but another may be abusing that excuse and not really object religiously and not qualify for exemption. You can't just use the beliefs of someone else to get an exemption.

I believe I can prove my case because I really believe in consensus on law, and inclusion
of even opposing political beliefs in forming unbiased laws that don't exclude one for the other; not all people believe in consensus so not all people can make the same argument.

It is my belief, so of course the mandates violate it.
And I have shown I am willing to pay costs and build solutions
that allow free choice, including free choice to buy insurance to lower costs.
It just can't be mandated by federal govt without violating rights of people
like me who believe that is unconstitutional.

Slow down OP you are raving and blathering about way too many topics for a cogent discussion.
In response to my statement:

1) Political Parties cannot "do whatever they want." You are wrong.
2) The mandates are actually taxes. You don't actually "have" to buy the insurance. However, if you don't have the insurance and you don't have another exemption (there are already dozens of ways to avoid this) you have to pay the "tax." Thus this is actually constitutional because taxes are constitutional.​

You said, "and THAT good sir is discrimination by CREED." You followed with, "For if people who BELIEVE in paying ALL the costs by other means besides what is dictated
by govt to avoid fines are PUNISHED for having different BELIEFS that is religious discrimination."

My response is... huh?

A political party is a tax exempt organization for electing members of the party. Why do you think tax exempt organizations for electing members of the party should be able to also be taxable organizations for providing the party members with benefits. Why do you think a political party is a "CREED?" Are you not aware of the difference between creed and political party affiliation? WTH does religion have to do with this? Are you talking about the particular religions that self-fund health care for their members thus have already complied with the mandate to have health insurance?

Or are you actually trying to say that the democratic party is a religious organization of a of particular creed of humans? HUH?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Agreed. Far as I know -- and it's way way too much verbage to keep up with -- Emily has been referring to "Democrats", i.e. members of a specific political party, presumably for access to facilitating action. I don't know that she's referred to "Liberals" at all, let alone that such a level of philosophy wouldn't be operative on this local a level anyway. Posters that can't tell the difference should go educate themselves instead of mucking up what's already a rhetorical morass.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now liberal and conservatives are "labels?" And here comes the next step with everyone realizing the new labels, progressive and liberal, are the same as the old labels for socialism, fascism, and communism. Each time the democrats are forced to actually outline what their party plank is really about.. they have to re-invent it again with new terms.. that essentially mean the exact same things but sound really cool.

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.