Democrats lose me again

[emilynghiem]

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

You must hate mandatory auto insurance laws also..

Dear Moonglow
Those are optional because nobody is saying you have to buy a car.
Those laws are also under States that have authority to police roads for safety .

That is wholly different from federal govt making laws from Congress that is trying to represent 50 states with their own diverse populations, as large and as different as CA is from TX. On a policy issue as sensitive as people's health care choices and beliefs that are as private as the individual choice of birth control or abortion that, last I checked, govt had no authority to regulate without overstepping bounds into individual free choice and liberty.

Moonglow are you really going to compare CA passing laws for CA and TX passing laws for TX, RI for their citizens separate from Hawaii and Alaska etc.
TO
One body of Congress passing a law that affects every citizen in all 50 states at once with no direct say in how this impacted our taxes and where half the nation, and activists from BOTH parties were protesting the corporate payoffs benefits they received at taxpayers expense?

Where in the car insurance laws did corporate interests get billions if not trillions in payoffs to cover drivers forced to buy cars so they'd be forced into a system against their will and beliefs?

 

[Rustic]

Every other first world country on earth has more then the ACA...As in Single payer. It is just common sense! So you believe someone should just die on the side of a street? That isn't moral or right.

Everyone should treat gays, transexuals and other people with respect....SO you want to be a evil hearted person to people for being different?

Millions of people want nothing to do with single payer why force them into it enless you're a fucking cowardly control freak?

 

[jc456]

Every other first world country on earth has more then the ACA...As in Single payer. It is just common sense! So you believe someone should just die on the side of a street? That isn't moral or right.

Everyone should treat gays, transexuals and other people with respect....SO you want to be a evil hearted person to people for being different?

Millions of people want nothing to do with single payer why force them into it enless you're a fucking cowardly control freak?

he'd jump off the bridge if every other country jumped off a bridge. It's simple to find the followers who are parrots.

 

[Edgetho]

Every other first world country on earth has more then the ACA...As in Single payer. <snip>

That's a lie. An abject, outright lie.

Maybe if you didn't lie every time you opened your stinking mouth, we could get something useful done in this Country once in a while.

 

[Moonglow]

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

You must hate mandatory auto insurance laws also..

Dear Moonglow
Those are optional because nobody is saying you have to buy a car.
Those laws are also under States that have authority to police roads for safety .

That is wholly different from federal govt making laws from Congress that is trying to represent 50 states with their own diverse populations, as large and as different as CA is from TX.

Moonglow are you really going to compare CA passing laws for CA and TX passing laws for TX, RI for their citizens separate from Hawaii and Alaska etc.
TO
One body of Congress passing a law that affects every citizen in all 50 states at once with no direct say in how this impacted our taxes and where half the nation, and activists from BOTH parties were protesting the corporate payoffs benefits they received at taxpayers expense?

Where in the car insurance laws did corporate interests get billions if not trillions in payoffs to cover drivers forced to buy cars so they'd be forced into a system against their will and beliefs?

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

 

[emilynghiem]

Two more losing points:
A. Liberals pushing for govt to regulate or ban fatty fast foods and "sugary drinks" because these contribute to obesity, disease and health costs; but wanting to legalize and stop regulations on pot and drug use where "there isn't enough evidence" of any side effects or long lasting damage to brains or health. Really.
So smoking tobacco cigarettes requires warnings and all kinds of licensing and bans, but smoking pot is natural to inject that smoke into the lungs and should be a completely free choice without govt regulations .
All under govt health care that all taxpayers would be forced to fund, regardless of beliefs against abortion and drugs. Really?

B. Back to ACA
Liberals argue its not okay to require labor of inmates, even if they committed crimes to incur proven costs to taxpayers including their own health care costs which can be established by documented records they are freeloading off the public.
But it IS okay for govt to seize income off the tax return s and labor of LAW ABIDING taxpaying workers who committed NO crimes that merit loss of liberty and have NO violations or proof on record that they plan to freeload or incur costs they dont intend to pay for. How's that again?

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

It's already been explained a lot of times. You're just too dumb to understand.

Great BULLDOG please explain away!
I'm all ears. Please use this thread, point to links,whatever you can direct me to which will explain these points. Thanks so much! I applaud and appreciate your help to understand!!

 

[LaDexter]

First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

Thanks to "coinswervvitive" W's Supreme Court Chief Justice pick JDAAC John Roberts, who agreed that government forcing people to buy health insurance was "constitutional" ....

 

[LaDexter]

Liberals pushing for govt to regulate or ban fatty fast foods and "sugary drinks" because

More laws mean more money to lawyers and more kickbacks to the Dems, and fuck "freedom" for Americans....

 

[jc456]

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

You must hate mandatory auto insurance laws also..

Dear Moonglow
Those are optional because nobody is saying you have to buy a car.
Those laws are also under States that have authority to police roads for safety .

That is wholly different from federal govt making laws from Congress that is trying to represent 50 states with their own diverse populations, as large and as different as CA is from TX.

Moonglow are you really going to compare CA passing laws for CA and TX passing laws for TX, RI for their citizens separate from Hawaii and Alaska etc.
TO
One body of Congress passing a law that affects every citizen in all 50 states at once with no direct say in how this impacted our taxes and where half the nation, and activists from BOTH parties were protesting the corporate payoffs benefits they received at taxpayers expense?

Where in the car insurance laws did corporate interests get billions if not trillions in payoffs to cover drivers forced to buy cars so they'd be forced into a system against their will and beliefs?

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

I don't believe that is accurate. If you don't drive, you don't need auto insurance. If you own a car that nobody drives and you don't drive, you don't have to have auto insurance. many outs to not needing auto insurance. Own a home in a flood plane and owe a mortgage, you must carry flood insurance though.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

There were liberals DENYING that any free choice or liberty was lost "because everyone HAS to buy
health insurance anyway" (that's like prolife advocates explaining abortion is murder
and NOT a legal choice, so regulations banning or restricting it AREN'T taking away anyone's free choice)

2. Next came the insanity and cruelty of punishing people for their beliefs, and abusing govt to force
people to change their beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage when these are faith based choices.

If liberals and atheists can SUE to remove references to Crosses, Christmas or nativity decorations, prayer, God/Jesus, Bibles or creation from schools and other public buildings, institutions, policies or practices (because "they don't agree with those beliefs") then why can't people who don't agree with "homosexuality as natural"
or in "gay marriage as a ritual" demand that THOSE beliefs be removed from public institutions and endorsement!

3. Now more of this:
This Bill Would Make Conversion Therapy Illegal Nationwide

The same liberals who REFUSE to ban abortion, as harmful or risky or abused that is, where abortion can be forced on people socially emotionally and financially where the damage is irreversible after the fact,

DEMAND to ban "conversion therapy" as a choice. They want it declared FRAUD.

Again, isn't that like declaring abortion to be MURDER in order to ban it.

Or barring "sexual reassignment" procedures from children as CHILD ABUSE.

It blows my mind that the same liberals who want MINORS
to have a choice of access to abortion and sexual reassignment surgery
would want legislation protecting minors (and now all people) from conversion therapy by banning it.

I can understand banning ABUSES of therapy and fraud.

But so many prolife advocates have argued that the liberals
won't police the abuses of abortion the same way, but allow BUTCHERING to go on
because they don't want to shed negative light that makes abortion look bad.

4. Lastly, this does tie back in with the first issue in #1.

It blows my mind how liberals want to FINE the free choice of paying and providing
health care "other ways besides insurance mandated by govt"
but REFUSE to FINE or regulate the "choice of abortion"
claiming to defend free choice.

So crazy. How can wanting to pay for health care another way
be MORE HARMFUL or against govt and public interest
(SO MUCH THAT IT MUST BE PENALIZED WITH FINES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO COMPLY)
than wanting to have an abortion which liberals DEFEND to the end on the basis of "free choice"?

Some day, maybe someone can explain this to me! Please!

You must hate mandatory auto insurance laws also..

Dear Moonglow
Those are optional because nobody is saying you have to buy a car.
Those laws are also under States that have authority to police roads for safety .

That is wholly different from federal govt making laws from Congress that is trying to represent 50 states with their own diverse populations, as large and as different as CA is from TX.

Moonglow are you really going to compare CA passing laws for CA and TX passing laws for TX, RI for their citizens separate from Hawaii and Alaska etc.
TO
One body of Congress passing a law that affects every citizen in all 50 states at once with no direct say in how this impacted our taxes and where half the nation, and activists from BOTH parties were protesting the corporate payoffs benefits they received at taxpayers expense?

Where in the car insurance laws did corporate interests get billions if not trillions in payoffs to cover drivers forced to buy cars so they'd be forced into a system against their will and beliefs?

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

Hi Moonglow
You still have a choice not to buy a car.
And some STATES allow alternatives to insurance such as showing ability to pay without using insurance. The equivalent is if states can do similarly and vote to give their citizens equal freedom to pay for health care other ways besides insurance. So states can vote on this. That is different from federal mandates that penalize free choice to pay or provide for health care other ways besides insurance

Note: you are NOT required to buy insurance for covering your own costs losses or damage.
State laws only require to cover losses you cause to OTHERS!!! NOT your own costs which is optional.
Moonglow the equivalent of this with health care is insurance if you cause an accident or injury and thus costs ***TO OTHER PEOPLE****

That's not what the ACA mandates say, but maybe we SHOULD require insurance for crime and corruption to protect taxpayers from paying for the abuses and damages caused by other people!

We are already paying billions per state for incarceration including medical care for people who committed crimes.
What if states had insurance laws, so such people have to pay the costs of their own consequences through their insurance companies instead of making taxpayers pay for those damages? Wouldn't that save us billions per state per year we could use to develop medical education and service programs to provide public health care while training doctors nurses and administrators to run clinics in every district? Using the same facilities and resources currently used for the overcrowded prison populations? Couldn't we service the greater public with the same resources wasted on a failed prison and mental health system if we cleaned up both and worked smarter?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's already been explained a lot of times. You're just too dumb to understand.

It's a very simple explanation. You're authoritarians who want to control everyone else's lives.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

First of all, your claim is completely false. Nobody is required to buy auto insurance if they do not drive.

Second, auto insurance is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the authority to make anyone buy a product.

 

[emilynghiem]

Every other first world country on earth has more then the ACA...As in Single payer. <snip>

That's a lie. An abject, outright lie.

Maybe if you didn't lie every time you opened your stinking mouth, we could get something useful done in this Country once in a while.

Hi Edgetho Matthew is able to respond to reason and supports science based development.
How can we convince more people to invest in medical sciences to reduce health care costs instead of politicizing the trillion dollar corporate insurance payoffs as a distraction from real sustainable affordable health care?

How can we turn to focus to investing in medical education programs that provide services to communities ?

As for comparing the US to other countries, a single country like France barely compares to one state like CA or TX. So multiple that by 50 and its more like the UN. If the EU couldn't even represent all its member nations under one umbrella, that shows how each nation or state needs to protect its own citizens and interests first, or things fall apart. Its not so easy is it! we have a better chance of coverage for diverse populations by going by state. Only where all states agree, such as for emergency catastrophic issues, could this be focused enough to put on a federal level. The majority of decisions about health care that are relative and reserved to individuals are better addtessed state by state.

Matthew if enough Greens and Democrats think alike and are willing to support a national singlepayer system, I suggest we use the party structures and networks to organize cooperatives and fund these ourselves . not force this on others through govt. But build such an effective system that people choose to participate and support it voluntarily. So its stays accountable to the people as long as we preserve free choice in the matter. Govt can pay to maintain the physical facilities similar to state prisons hospitals or housing. But the programs run within those walls should be owned and managed by local taxpayers and residents democratically so there is more direct accountability .

 

[emilynghiem]

It's already been explained a lot of times. You're just too dumb to understand.

It's a very simple explanation. You're authoritarians who want to control everyone else's lives.

dear Dont Taz Me Bro
That's one explanation
BULLDOG do you have a better one?
If you can please explain these points,
You have the floor. Please fill this thread with whatever you feel I'm too stupid or stubborn to understand.
Start with what you have.
I will ask Moonglow and Matthew to help from there.
BULLDOG what I explanations do you refer to that should have already answered this question? Can you please list them here so we can establish this in one place. Once and for all and settle these questions. Thank you, whatever you are thinking please post, link or summarize here! Thanks for your help, along with others.

 

[Pete7469]

The democrooks lost me after I started working and saw %25 of my check gone before it was written.

Then Clinton started killing Americans for having guns.

That's when I figured out the real fascists were democrooks, and they have consistently proven that to be the case ever since.

 

[Doc1]

The fact is that everyone needs to opt out of the Right/Left paradigm. It is simply a construct to do what it has done, divide us. We've never, not once ever had a "real" choice. The biggest sham in history was the 2016 election, one more false choice between two of the most hated candidates in history. 2016 was a clear and open admission that we do not have a choice and we are not in control. Trump is going to plunge the world into WWIII and all we can do is watch.

 

[emilynghiem]

First it was over ACA mandates, and flipping to the extreme OPPOSITE of "free choice"
by mandating that everyone support "right to health care through govt" under penalty of law.

Thanks to "coinswervvitive" W's Supreme Court Chief Justice pick JDAAC John Roberts, who agreed that government forcing people to buy health insurance was "constitutional" ....

Thanks LaDexter but No Thanks to Justice Roberts . unless there is thanks due for finally mobilizing a Convention of States to stop abuses of federal govt that dumb crap like this has led to...

If it took the messes made under the Obama admin to get Trump in the game to shout down the media and push both left and right to represent their constituents against abuses, then maybe we'll finally demand to restore our own freedoms and quit letting govt run amok at our expense .

Is that why these contradictions are happening? Just to force the issues in the public arena so they can finally be addressed?

Blackrook its not that the problems weren't already brewing. But did they have to get implemented into laws and govt to this level? Before action is finally taken to lay down laws and stop such abuses of federal govt authority?

Matthew if people didn't see Obama as abusing govt office and power to enforce biases in beliefs and policies. Is that why Trump is in office, to wake people up?

Now that we're all alerted and alarmed why can't we fix all violations across the board? Instead of competing to push one thing and dismiss another, why not address each and every complaint? And collect debts and credits owed to taxpayers , as long as a violation is proven against one sides beliefs or another's, we dont have to agree on the contents of these complaints. But wouldn't we all be rich and out of debt if ALL COMPLAINTS against corporate and govt abuse of taxpayer resources got paid back or credited to taxpayers as money we already spent. Can't that be used to fund the jobs and finance the reforms we all want to stop waste and abuse of our public resources and authority !

 

[emilynghiem]

BULLDOG okay here's my attempt to explain why the left is allowed to be so biased
and contradict its own principles:

The conservatives who believe in following the spirit of the laws, and take equal responsibility, have their churches and other means of enforcing their own free exercise. They are expected to promote their beliefs and practices VOLUNTARILY and in PRIVATE through their churches and religious activities and outreach. They do not need govt to establish their beliefs and rights in order to exercise their ability to practice and enforce these directly themselves.

The left that is secular does not have these advantages.
They depend on govt to act as their central authority to endorse and establish collective identity policy and practice. (And in order to get these through govt, they rely on PARTY and MEDIA the way the right uses their church networks to organize and represent themselves collectively.)

This isn't just another choice to the left "to go through govt".
it is a REQUIREMENT for their equal exercise and equal rights and protections.
many do not feel they have equality WITHOUT laws being established through govt
which is their way of expressing and representing their beliefs and identity collectively.

For the right, if they want to establish their beliefs, it has to be done by education and free choice. They are not allowed to force it through govt. They have their churches to use.

For the left, their beliefs do not count as religious. Since these are secular, they are not barred from establishing through govt (unless a law is passed that specifies this). Currently the First Amendment only cites RELIGIOUS beliefs, but there is no legal precedent for applying "religious freedom" more universally to include POLITICAL beliefs.

Until and unless that happens, the left uses this law as written and interpreted by precedent
to bar RELIGIOUS beliefs from being pushed through govt
while allowing their POLITICAL SECULAR BELIEFS to be mandated as "not religious."

The liberals and secularist may always have this bias in their favor.

It could be that the church laws are meant to be dominated by the rightwing conservative/religious
and the civil govt is meant to be dominated by the leftwing secular bias in beliefs and practice.

As long as the right excludes the left and teaches the church policies to be EXCLUSIVE
the left will seek to balance this power by using the GOVT to be equally biased the other way.

So to change this
the right would have to open up the churches to teach more UNIVERSALLY INCLUSIVE of all faiths,
before the left would no longer depend on govt to protect them equally
and could open up the govt policies to be truly INCLUSIVE instead of biased against the religious right.

 

[FA_Q2]

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

First of all, your claim is completely false. Nobody is required to buy auto insurance if they do not drive.

Second, auto insurance is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the authority to make anyone buy a product.

Further, you only need insurance to drive on public roads. You can buy a car and only operate it on private property and never require insurance or a licence.

Such is fairly common in more rural areas.

 

[Moonglow]

people have to pay for auto insurance even if they don't have a license or drive...I don't have a choice, I must have an auto, so I am forced to buy insurance..But it's not the option of being able to buy insurance or not which is the topic..It's being forced to buy a product, which not only does the govt. do it, but corporations also make you buy insurance..I don't like any of it since it does curtail freedom, but so does other govt. and non-govt. rules and operations...

First of all, your claim is completely false. Nobody is required to buy auto insurance if they do not drive.

Second, auto insurance is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. The federal government does not have the authority to make anyone buy a product.

If you have a DWI and don't drive, you must still get insurance and file an SR-22 for two years..