For G.T.: Support for Log Cabin Republicans and Reforms to GOP Platform

[G.T.]

Too stupid for words.

Pro choice is the opposite of pro life.

The scientist/ artist analogy doesnt work dumb dumb

Its more like "you cant be a scientist and a non scientist."


Your walls of very boring and poorly lucid text arent worth the bandwidth theyre using up.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. Dear G.T. Mary Cunningham Agee, founder of the Nurturing Network that offers better choices to women to prevent unwanted abortion by social and financial coercion,
once stated in an interview "Prochoice and Prolife are NOT opposites"

By her philosophy of offering better choices, she set up national networks of resources
across the country to help women in crisis situations. SEE The Nurturing Network

So G.T. if this successful effective network that meets BOTH the standards of prolife and prochoice can help thousands of women prevent abortion since 1986 and is still growing and expanding its resources organized by VOLUNTARY efforts, contributions and participation,

WHICH person has more credibility?
The founder of this national nonprofit that says prolife and prochoice are not opposites?
Or you who insist they are, and anything else is a "dumb stupid idea."

If you would like to take Mary Cunningham-Agee up in the Bullring,
over whether prochoice and prolife can work hand in hand, let's make a bet on that.

And if you lose, you can join me in a campaign to publicize the Nurturing Network as deserving of equal funding and support that Planned Parenthood gets from the govt. and give taxpayers an equal choice which one to fund and to provide health services through to help more women. I'd rather fund TNN than PP. And I'm prochoice. If we are going to have nationalized health care to cover the entire population, I'd rather go with the Abundance mentality of the Nurturing Network philosophy rather than the Scarcity/Victim mentality that the liberals promote.

Too stupid for words.

Pro choice is the opposite of pro life.

The scientist/ artist analogy doesnt work dumb dumb

Its more like "you cant be a scientist and a non scientist."


Your walls of very boring and poorly lucid text arent worth the bandwidth theyre using up.

HI G.T.
A. if you only look at LEGALLY if someone is FOR or AGAINST making abortion legal or illegal,
then that relationship is opposites.

B. What I find is most people are a mix of BOTH prochoice and prolife:
* both wanting to stop or PREVENT ABORTION (different
degrees of being against abortion as something that is better prevented or stopped altogether for extreme opponents.
I don't know any people who are 100% proabortion or who do not prefer to PREVENT abortion by preventing the pregnancy)
* and wanting free choice where NOBODY wants the govt to enforce laws they don't believe are right, fair or property written

So G.T. the same way I can be AGAINST the death penalty but keep it as a choice legally on the books,
I can be prolife or AGAINST abortion but still believe in keeping the CHOICE on the books as a legal option.

Being prolife in that sense can be practiced at the same time as being prochoice LEGALLY.

I believe ALL abortion can be PREVENTED 100% by PROCHOICE approaches.
So I can be prolife and prochoice at the same time.

Don't punish or criminalize the women by laws prohibiting, banning or penalizing abortion as a legal violation or crime.
But still WORK to PREVENT ALL ABORTION 100% which is PROLIFE, 100% against abortion,
WITHOUT making it illegal so that is still 100% prochoice.

Most people I find are some degree of both.
Where more and more people will say they are against abortion and want it prevented,
but they do not support making it illegal as the solution.

 

[G.T.]

Too stupid for words.

Pro choice is the opposite of pro life.

The scientist/ artist analogy doesnt work dumb dumb

Its more like "you cant be a scientist and a non scientist."


Your walls of very boring and poorly lucid text arent worth the bandwidth theyre using up.

HI G.T.
A. if you only look at LEGALLY if someone is FOR or AGAINST making abortion legal or illegal,
then that relationship is opposites.

B. What I find is most people are a mix of BOTH prochoice and prolife:
* both wanting to stop or PREVENT ABORTION (different
degrees of being against abortion as something that is better prevented or stopped altogether for extreme opponents.
I don't know any people who are 100% proabortion or who do not prefer to PREVENT abortion by preventing the pregnancy)
* and wanting free choice where NOBODY wants the govt to enforce laws they don't believe are right, fair or property written

So G.T. the same way I can be AGAINST the death penalty but keep it as a choice legally on the books,
I can be prolife or AGAINST abortion but still believe in keeping the CHOICE on the books as a legal option.

Being prolife in that sense can be practiced at the same time as being prochoice LEGALLY.

I believe ALL abortion can be PREVENTED 100% by PROCHOICE approaches.
So I can be prolife and prochoice at the same time.

Don't punish or criminalize the women by laws prohibiting, banning or penalizing abortion as a legal violation or crime.
But still WORK to PREVENT ALL ABORTION 100% which is PROLIFE, 100% against abortion,
WITHOUT making it illegal so that is still 100% prochoice.

Most people I find are some degree of both.
Where more and more people will say they are against abortion and want it prevented,
but they do not support making it illegal as the solution.

You just made a great post about how you can be against gay marriage, but leave it on the books.

Rested your own case derp derp

 

[emilynghiem]

Too stupid for words.

Pro choice is the opposite of pro life.

The scientist/ artist analogy doesnt work dumb dumb

Its more like "you cant be a scientist and a non scientist."


Your walls of very boring and poorly lucid text arent worth the bandwidth theyre using up.

HI G.T.
A. if you only look at LEGALLY if someone is FOR or AGAINST making abortion legal or illegal,
then that relationship is opposites.

B. What I find is most people are a mix of BOTH prochoice and prolife:
* both wanting to stop or PREVENT ABORTION (different
degrees of being against abortion as something that is better prevented or stopped altogether for extreme opponents.
I don't know any people who are 100% proabortion or who do not prefer to PREVENT abortion by preventing the pregnancy)
* and wanting free choice where NOBODY wants the govt to enforce laws they don't believe are right, fair or property written

So G.T. the same way I can be AGAINST the death penalty but keep it as a choice legally on the books,
I can be prolife or AGAINST abortion but still believe in keeping the CHOICE on the books as a legal option.

Being prolife in that sense can be practiced at the same time as being prochoice LEGALLY.

I believe ALL abortion can be PREVENTED 100% by PROCHOICE approaches.
So I can be prolife and prochoice at the same time.

Don't punish or criminalize the women by laws prohibiting, banning or penalizing abortion as a legal violation or crime.
But still WORK to PREVENT ALL ABORTION 100% which is PROLIFE, 100% against abortion,
WITHOUT making it illegal so that is still 100% prochoice.

Most people I find are some degree of both.
Where more and more people will say they are against abortion and want it prevented,
but they do not support making it illegal as the solution.

You just made a great post about how you can be against gay marriage, but leave it on the books.

Rested your own case derp derp

I never was against gay marriage. I said it was always legal by religious freedom. It can never be legally banned because govt cannot regulate religion or creed.

That's like being FOR Christianity but agreeing to keep Christian practice out of the state.
I am FOR anyone's beliefs about gay marriage or traditional marriage, but if we can't all agree, then keep it out of the state.

I am all FOR spiritual healing, but it has to be by free choice and can't be mandated to integrate/implement through the state unless ALL people AGREE to that choice, since it is FAITH BASED.

Same with marriage rites, and also the issue of termination as in the case of Terri Schiavo which is a spiritual issue.
That choice should be mediated to form a consensus among the family, so all their beliefs are equally protected, and not be adjudicated by the court which took one side's beliefs over another which violates religious freedom of the dissenting side.

 

[G.T.]

Too stupid for words.

Pro choice is the opposite of pro life.

The scientist/ artist analogy doesnt work dumb dumb

Its more like "you cant be a scientist and a non scientist."


Your walls of very boring and poorly lucid text arent worth the bandwidth theyre using up.

HI G.T.
A. if you only look at LEGALLY if someone is FOR or AGAINST making abortion legal or illegal,
then that relationship is opposites.

B. What I find is most people are a mix of BOTH prochoice and prolife:
* both wanting to stop or PREVENT ABORTION (different
degrees of being against abortion as something that is better prevented or stopped altogether for extreme opponents.
I don't know any people who are 100% proabortion or who do not prefer to PREVENT abortion by preventing the pregnancy)
* and wanting free choice where NOBODY wants the govt to enforce laws they don't believe are right, fair or property written

So G.T. the same way I can be AGAINST the death penalty but keep it as a choice legally on the books,
I can be prolife or AGAINST abortion but still believe in keeping the CHOICE on the books as a legal option.

Being prolife in that sense can be practiced at the same time as being prochoice LEGALLY.

I believe ALL abortion can be PREVENTED 100% by PROCHOICE approaches.
So I can be prolife and prochoice at the same time.

Don't punish or criminalize the women by laws prohibiting, banning or penalizing abortion as a legal violation or crime.
But still WORK to PREVENT ALL ABORTION 100% which is PROLIFE, 100% against abortion,
WITHOUT making it illegal so that is still 100% prochoice.

Most people I find are some degree of both.
Where more and more people will say they are against abortion and want it prevented,
but they do not support making it illegal as the solution.

You just made a great post about how you can be against gay marriage, but leave it on the books.

Rested your own case derp derp

I never was against gay marriage. I said it was always legal by religious freedom. It can never be legally banned because govt cannot regulate religion or creed.

That's like being FOR Christianity but agreeing to keep Christian practice out of the state.
I am FOR anyone's beliefs about gay marriage or traditional marriage, but if we can't all agree, then keep it out of the state.

I am all FOR spiritual healing, but it has to be by free choice and can't be mandated to integrate/implement through the state unless ALL people AGREE to that choice, since it is FAITH BASED.

Same with marriage rites, and also the issue of termination as in the case of Terri Schiavo which is a spiritual issue.
That choice should be mediated to form a consensus among the family, so all their beliefs are equally protected, and not be adjudicated by the court which took one side's beliefs over another which violates religious freedom of the dissenting side.

but you just said we can disagree on abortion and keep it IN the state (law)

 

[G.T.]

just trying to get you to see how epically daft it is to think that people disagreeing on something means it cant be law, dumb dumb.

gay marriage legal, through the state, is right, fair and just.

 

[longknife]

Agreed about the posts being long-winded, often wandering, more whining than informative, and generally not worth wasting time with.

 

[Michelle420]

I don't know anyone who doesn't agree on defending their First Amendment Rights!

..leftards do it only when it fits THEIR agenda.

What is a leftard? I drunk a(one) shipyard IPA and feeling pretty good right now.

Strange seeing Emily and GT arguing outside of religion. This political season must be heating up!!

Hi amrchaos:
G.T. has decided I am some kind of Jim Crow Bigot
for saying that until and unless all sides agree on the terms of marriage and how public laws are to be written,
then this should be REMOVED from the state and kept private.

I was trying to recognize and treat all beliefs about marriage equally
by saying to "separate church and state" and keep them all OUT of the state except where all people agree within
that state what SHOULD be public policy. And if they can't agree on beliefs, then keep them private.

If you drifter Impenitent or anyone else can please explain to G.T.
how this approach treats all beliefs equally and does NOT endorse one approach to marriage while
keeping the others "separate but equal" -- I would LIKE to have an understanding with G.T. that this
IS treating ALL beliefs equally as free to exercise under the First Amendment and not mix any of these with Govt
unless ALL people agree to how to do that.

G.T. freaked out and said my ideas were dumb, marriage is already in the state, and people will not agree.
I am saying because people don't agree, that's why it should be removed from the state.
And only keep the neutral policies where people DO agree.

How is that being a "onesided bigot" if I am offering a way to treat all beliefs the same?

Can anyone please explain this to G.T. ?
RKMBrown ? drifter? anyone who can make this shorter and not TLDR?

I support Gay marriage. I support polygamy marriage. Will I ever marry? probably not because marriage is a financial prison in a lot of ways. I'm just going to be perpetually engaged.

Love you Emily.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know anyone who doesn't agree on defending their First Amendment Rights!

..leftards do it only when it fits THEIR agenda.

What is a leftard? I drunk a(one) shipyard IPA and feeling pretty good right now.

Strange seeing Emily and GT arguing outside of religion. This political season must be heating up!!

Hi amrchaos:
G.T. has decided I am some kind of Jim Crow Bigot
for saying that until and unless all sides agree on the terms of marriage and how public laws are to be written,
then this should be REMOVED from the state and kept private.

I was trying to recognize and treat all beliefs about marriage equally
by saying to "separate church and state" and keep them all OUT of the state except where all people agree within
that state what SHOULD be public policy. And if they can't agree on beliefs, then keep them private.

If you drifter Impenitent or anyone else can please explain to G.T.
how this approach treats all beliefs equally and does NOT endorse one approach to marriage while
keeping the others "separate but equal" -- I would LIKE to have an understanding with G.T. that this
IS treating ALL beliefs equally as free to exercise under the First Amendment and not mix any of these with Govt
unless ALL people agree to how to do that.

G.T. freaked out and said my ideas were dumb, marriage is already in the state, and people will not agree.
I am saying because people don't agree, that's why it should be removed from the state.
And only keep the neutral policies where people DO agree.

How is that being a "onesided bigot" if I am offering a way to treat all beliefs the same?

Can anyone please explain this to G.T. ?
RKMBrown ? drifter? anyone who can make this shorter and not TLDR?

I support Gay marriage. I support polygamy marriage. Will I ever marry? probably not because marriage is a financial prison in a lot of ways. I'm just going to be perpetually engaged.

Love you Emily.

Hi drifter until marriage is removed from the state, and the govt cannot impose on
custody and estate cases and "make decisions FOR people" I probably would not get married under
the state EITHER.

If marriage were removed from the state, and people could have the ceremony in church
without it causing obligation through the state to combine finances and decisions legally,
I might have a church marriage and not do the civil contract unless there is an agreement how to write it up.

It shouldn't be automatically tied together. In Texas if you even announce or present yourself
as husband and wife, this counts as common law married and your property is assumed as joined.

That's messed up, sorry.

I think if you want to join your business as a combined entity this should require writing out a contract,
and not be automatic. The spiritual side of marriage and the civil contracts and custody/estate agreements
should be separated where people can opt in.

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

None of that is in keeping with my beliefs.

if this tax penalty mandate doesn't change to optional, I may have to either sue over that,
petition the Democrat leaders who allowed this law to pass and stand to pay the 300 difference
so I can keep my insurance as promised if I am going to be required by federal law to do so,
and/or sue for the money to HIRE a legal team to separate the policies that otherwise violate my creed.

I think lawyers might listen to money, so lobbying to raise 1-10 million to pay for the cost of
legal separation might attract some attention. If I had the money I would ask to hire Ralph Nader
to write out some legislation similar to OSHA and the Consumer Protection laws. Find out how
much that would cost to set up similar legislation modeled after that to 'separate" the marriage
and health care tracks in Texas, and ask help online to raise the money and resources to do that.

Not only for me, but for anyone else who believe these federal policies violate religious freedom
and 'separation of church and state" by imposing and discriminating by creed against people of other beliefs.

The catch is I don't believe in passing laws that benefit me or one group and not all others facing the same.
So a general commission or process would need to be set up to handle ALL cases of Constitutional
conflicts of interest involving political beliefs or creeds in conflict with state or federal laws, and means
of mediation to resolve disputes, and assistance to write out revisions or reforms to CORRECT the conflicts.

That woudl be a Constitutional solution to me, not only to address the impositions on MY beliefs,
but on all other citizens so we are all EQUALLY protected from infringements due to political conflicts of interests and beliefs that the current system hasn't adequately addressed, checked against tor corrected.

Thanks drifter you are one of the people I would recommend to build such a team around
to serve people who are facing these conflicts. You and I have our biases and our differences,
but they way you work with me and others, the biases should not get in the way of forming a fair solution.
Each performer in a band or troupe is biased and designed to play just one certain part, but it
still builds an ensemble where each part is necessary for the whole to work out. So I hope to work
with you to set up means for other people and groups to manage working and playing together effectively.

love and thanks to you and everyone here that benefits from sharing and interacting together

And Happy says hello also (see attached)
He has a little bit more space at the top of my storage now
and isn't so crumpled up and grumpy as before. Smiles!!

 

[G.T.]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know anyone who doesn't agree on defending their First Amendment Rights!

..leftards do it only when it fits THEIR agenda.

What is a leftard? I drunk a(one) shipyard IPA and feeling pretty good right now.

Strange seeing Emily and GT arguing outside of religion. This political season must be heating up!!

Hi amrchaos:
G.T. has decided I am some kind of Jim Crow Bigot
for saying that until and unless all sides agree on the terms of marriage and how public laws are to be written,
then this should be REMOVED from the state and kept private.

I was trying to recognize and treat all beliefs about marriage equally
by saying to "separate church and state" and keep them all OUT of the state except where all people agree within
that state what SHOULD be public policy. And if they can't agree on beliefs, then keep them private.

If you drifter Impenitent or anyone else can please explain to G.T.
how this approach treats all beliefs equally and does NOT endorse one approach to marriage while
keeping the others "separate but equal" -- I would LIKE to have an understanding with G.T. that this
IS treating ALL beliefs equally as free to exercise under the First Amendment and not mix any of these with Govt
unless ALL people agree to how to do that.

G.T. freaked out and said my ideas were dumb, marriage is already in the state, and people will not agree.
I am saying because people don't agree, that's why it should be removed from the state.
And only keep the neutral policies where people DO agree.

How is that being a "onesided bigot" if I am offering a way to treat all beliefs the same?

Can anyone please explain this to G.T. ?
RKMBrown ? drifter? anyone who can make this shorter and not TLDR?

I support Gay marriage. I support polygamy marriage. Will I ever marry? probably not because marriage is a financial prison in a lot of ways. I'm just going to be perpetually engaged.

Love you Emily.

Too stupid for words.

Pro choice is the opposite of pro life.

The scientist/ artist analogy doesnt work dumb dumb

Its more like "you cant be a scientist and a non scientist."


Your walls of very boring and poorly lucid text arent worth the bandwidth theyre using up.

HI G.T.
A. if you only look at LEGALLY if someone is FOR or AGAINST making abortion legal or illegal,
then that relationship is opposites.

B. What I find is most people are a mix of BOTH prochoice and prolife:
* both wanting to stop or PREVENT ABORTION (different
degrees of being against abortion as something that is better prevented or stopped altogether for extreme opponents.
I don't know any people who are 100% proabortion or who do not prefer to PREVENT abortion by preventing the pregnancy)
* and wanting free choice where NOBODY wants the govt to enforce laws they don't believe are right, fair or property written

So G.T. the same way I can be AGAINST the death penalty but keep it as a choice legally on the books,
I can be prolife or AGAINST abortion but still believe in keeping the CHOICE on the books as a legal option.

Being prolife in that sense can be practiced at the same time as being prochoice LEGALLY.

I believe ALL abortion can be PREVENTED 100% by PROCHOICE approaches.
So I can be prolife and prochoice at the same time.

Don't punish or criminalize the women by laws prohibiting, banning or penalizing abortion as a legal violation or crime.
But still WORK to PREVENT ALL ABORTION 100% which is PROLIFE, 100% against abortion,
WITHOUT making it illegal so that is still 100% prochoice.

Most people I find are some degree of both.
Where more and more people will say they are against abortion and want it prevented,
but they do not support making it illegal as the solution.

You just made a great post about how you can be against gay marriage, but leave it on the books.

Rested your own case derp derp

I never was against gay marriage. I said it was always legal by religious freedom. It can never be legally banned because govt cannot regulate religion or creed.

That's like being FOR Christianity but agreeing to keep Christian practice out of the state.
I am FOR anyone's beliefs about gay marriage or traditional marriage, but if we can't all agree, then keep it out of the state.

I am all FOR spiritual healing, but it has to be by free choice and can't be mandated to integrate/implement through the state unless ALL people AGREE to that choice, since it is FAITH BASED.

Same with marriage rites, and also the issue of termination as in the case of Terri Schiavo which is a spiritual issue.
That choice should be mediated to form a consensus among the family, so all their beliefs are equally protected, and not be adjudicated by the court which took one side's beliefs over another which violates religious freedom of the dissenting side.

but you just said we can disagree on abortion and keep it IN the state (law)

Dear G.T. that is if the prolife people agree to that.
If they don't, then by separating the health care tracks, the prochoice parties could take that on
and manage it independently where the prolife don't have to endorse it as protected under govt.

I can't speak for the extreme prolife that oppose this.

My anti death penalty friends also have a problem with separation
and want capital punishment completely stopped and not a choice at all by the state.

This will have to be worked out.

If the two are considered together, they two sides might agree to keep the choices
under the state in order to keep both the death penalty and abortion. They should look
at what mechanism could treat and separate these where the public doesn't have to fund what they disagree with.

That might be good enough.

With the gay marriage issue, I am guessing that nothing but complete separation
may be needed.

Because I can see how abortion or the death penalty would require the state to keep them legal and safe.
But marriage can be done WITHOUT going through the state. That isn't necessary.

People can manage their social lives, benefits and resources WITHOUT going through the state.

Public safety is more an issue of the state. So I understand where the prison/capital punishment
and the medical safety and regulations on abortion as a surgical procedure call for special licensing.

Personal agreements on paying for your family and health care can be done completely privately.
if you WANT a public institution to manage your benefits for you,
why not create a system to "opt into" so you have that choice.
But don't require it for all people as mandatory and coming out of your salary/income automatically.

Again, I can't speak for all people who have beliefs about where to draw the line with govt.

I would leave the process open to people of each state and party to work out,
and just offer certain recommendations of where I would draw the line.
The final agreements on policy would depend on the people of that state
and how they want to manage their resources, what they believe and don't believe is govt jurisdiction,
and respect the different views so everyone is represented in the process, even by party affiliation if that's the best way.

I've met the most outstanding people on all these issues
I am confident can pull together policies that won't leave out a single point.

If we can achieve this is Houston and Texas, then similar models
can be used to form consensus policies for other states that aren't so widely diverse as Texas is.
If we can pull it off, anyone can. The diversity of beliefs and cultures in Houston alone
is like night and day living together under the same roof. We need to develop and
perfect this process for issues currently dividing our citizenry left and right.
And whatever we can work out, can help other people and parties facing the same challenges.

Thank you G.T. It is very important that everyone
speaks out and defends their viewpoints as you do.
the consensus process does not work if people roll over and compromise.
The whole point is to include all views and beliefs in their true form and to QUIT compromising.

We need to build a TRUE consensus, not a faked forced one to look like we are agreeing when we aren't.

Nothing is going to be sustainable unless it is build on true agreement and solutions we equally share
stakes and ownership in. It has to be real or it won't work.

Thanks for being REAL with me.
That is what it takes, and we can win every battle we face by fighting the good fight together, not at odds,
but pushing for everyone's goals to be achieved in a way that works for the whole. Nothing has to be in conflict.
We can work it out as long as we talk openly and honestly as you have here.

Thanks for that!

 

[G.T.]

on block

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe I should sue to have marriage removed from the state with respect to "separation of church and state"
and to separate the health care policies that also overreach beyond govt jurisdiction.

!

^^ shows how dumb you are.

state marriage has nothing to do with religion, thus its already exibiting a "seperation of church and state," ya fuckin ninny.

Dear G.T. I would AGREE if the laws would remain completely neutral.
So yes I am arguing to write them where they WOULD keep any other beliefs OUT of state jurisdiction.

That would solve the problem if the laws were written and implemented to be completely secular matters only.
In which case EVERYONE could have civil unions and domestic partnerships and not imply anything further.
I AGREE that would be the ideal goal. And we should work toward that, as the whole point of separating the beliefs!

Sorry G.T. but if you look at what happened in cases
in Texas and Florida, you can see how the state takes over these marriage issues:

* in Texas the courts gave custody of children back to their abusive fathers who had a string of
corrupt connections between their lawyers and the judges making the decisions that were paying each other off.

There was not a separation of the govt authority from the beliefs and consent of the actual families affected,
and this connection got corrupted where judicial campaign funding influenced certain lawyers and judges in these cases.

Since the govt had authority to DICTATE for the families what their divorce arrangements would be,
this caused damage to the best interests of the children. This controversy with the Family Law center was protested visibly with sit in strikes over a year and led to public exposure and some degree of action and reforms.

I knew the ladies who fought the battle and took turns striking and protesting on a rotating basis until the issues were addressed. One activist was even killed in a hit and run "accident" walking all the way to Austin in protest of this scandal.

This is NOT separating church and state
but giving the state unequal authority to make PERSONAL decisions FOR the family and minor children
based on being "married" as husband/wife and giving up decision making authority to the state

This is an example of why I stand for mediation and consensus so there isn't this temptation to throw decisions
with conflicts of interests favoring one side over another. I believe in protecting ALL sides and especially the kids' interests.
so CONSENSUS is the best standard, not giving state "divine authority of God" to make decisions FOR people as "justice."

* in Florida Terri Schiavo left no written proof, no directive in writing that she wanted to refuse life support.
So on the word and belief of her ex-husband, the court endorsed HIS beliefs over her families about
her right to live or die. the court basically played GOD and made the decision FOR the family that was in conflict.

The correct way to "separate church and state" would be to order these people to mediate or
take a vote or something to settle the dispute between them where THEY as the FAMILY make the spiritual decision
since nothing in writing was left behind by Terri.

NOT have the judge in court make the spiritual decision
"just because her husband has more legal standing"
when in fact, he had a PROVEN conflict of interest
as already living with another woman and no longer acting as the husband anyway.
He wanted to end the relationship, so why not let the family take over guardianship as they asked?

This is a Spiritual decision yet it was decided by the Court
due to recognizing the LEGAL HUSBAND of Terri Schiavo even though that was disputed in SPIRIT.

There were too many conflicts of interest in that case.
The court should not have decided for the family where life and death and means of termination involve Spiritual beliefs.

clearly this violates Separation of Church and State.

 

[emilynghiem]

on block

^ And WHO is being closeminded here? ^

And WHO is the open minded liberal progressive trying to include diverse views no matter how different they are?
Where is the inclusion and tolerance that the left likes to champion?

When I try to practice inclusion, is this what I get but a door slammed in my face?
By a fellow liberal, how ironic.

 

[G.T.]

i had to block this lady because her diatribes are disjointed and nauseating and....

the BIGGEST reason....is she is so illogical that I'd rather have an in depth conversation with an eleven year old than emily.

good night emily, if you can see this where ive blocked ya

but your long assed diatribes full of horrendous logic are tedious and ugly

 

[whitehall]

Somehow the term "log cabin republicans" stuck to describe the homosexual republican lobby but personally I find the term creepy and somehow vaguely disturbing but it is what it is.

 

[emilynghiem]

i had to block this lady because her diatribes are disjointed and nauseating and....

the BIGGEST reason....is she is so illogical that I'd rather have an in depth conversation with an eleven year old than emily.

good night emily, if you can see this where ive blocked ya

but your long assed diatribes full of horrendous logic are tedious and ugly

I challenge you on this premise that my solutions are illogical.

If you are a man enough to stand for your arguments against
me instead of running away and hiding behind a block.

When Einstein defended his views, he didn't just do "hit and run"
insult the people who didn't understand them and refuse to explain.

So if you REALLY believe you are so right you could finish the conversation
like a man instead of acting like a child and playing games.

Sorry but I am being serious here, and thought we were making progress
in AGREEING what the goals are -- to make it where the laws are neutral and not religiously biased by beliefs.

And then you turn around and chicken out.
Sorry G.T. but that says more about YOU than it does about me.

My views are very well thought out for long term planning on how to transition
to sustainable systems of govt and economy

Earned Amnesty

I challenge you to a bet. That the ideas I have for sustainable campus
development along the border are better for uniting party leaders around common goals and solutions
and are not "illogical" nonsense as you assume because you think my ideas are DUMB.

Again G.T. that assumption reflects more on YOU than it does on ME.

I've compiled the best ideas from many different sources.
This is very comprehensive. Sorry if you don't get it or you are too afraid to face political reality.

Take care and enjoy your blockade.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW Impenitent and G.T.
1. First Impenitent
Given my Constitutional views that ALL beliefs should be included represented and protected equally in public policy, why would you just say it is only my boyfriend's interests that are influencing me?

Why shouldn't I want to include him and ALL people both known and unknown,
both allies and adversaries from Obama, Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich,
all the people of America and all parties from Left, Right, Green, Central, far extremes,
anarchist, socialist in my solutions?

Isn't that unconstitutional to exclude anyone's beliefs and consent from being equally included?

Why are you saying it is a bad thing to work with all people and find common solutions?
If you are afraid that one group is going to dominate and hijack the process,
well, that's why it is important to include YOUR objections and everyone else's so that
any problems can be resolved! That's how to build a consensus, by INCLUSION not competing to EXCLUDE.

Do you understand my approach and where do you feel I am being unfair, leaving things out
excluding or favoring one group over another. What isn't included in the idea of organizing by
party and building educational campus and training programs so everyone has equal access?

2. Now G.T.
let me try again to explain that it isn't so much the content of the marriage laws
but the abuse of govt to impose changes instead of respecting free choice.

Right now we have discrimination against Muslims and Arab/Middle Eastern people
suspected and treated negatively for being associated with cultures or groups supporting terrorist jihadists.

What if Muslims passed laws claiming that SINCE there has been a HISTORY of discrimination
and abuses excluding Muslims, then there needs to be Equal Rights for MUSLIMS and recognize
MUSLIMS specifically naming them in these laws.

Wouldn't the normal reaction be that under Religious Freedom that is already protected.
And if people aren't following the laws, then this needs to be changed through education not passing more laws?

Well, a lot of people see the gay discrimination as something that
can be resolved fully by outreach and education. It is an issue on a SPIRITUAL level
so it requires SPIRITUAL change.

What I have found out is it requires MUTUAL spiritual change and growth.
It is equally the LGBT community members that also need to go through a learning and growth curve.

So I focus on the educational outreach to effect changes that way by FREE WILL
NOT by FORCE of LAW.

Obama did not use Force of Law to FORCE him to change his mind on gay marriage.
All the people I know who support gay marriage do so by FREE CHOICE.
Same as all the prolife advocates.

So G.T. if it came to MUSLIM rights, would you support
Muslims writing out specific laws to name them as protected as a group given past discrimination against them.
or would you say Islam is already protected along with other practices under the First Amendment.

To change the discrimination, you have to work with the people not following the laws and fix it with them.

Is this closer to explaining why I believe, just like with Obama, it is supposed to be
changing people's beliefs by free will (not forcing it through govt)
and then you can work together to change the laws when people AGREE what direction to take.

But forcing change in beliefs through govt causes BACKLASH and REJECTION.
So it makes the problem WORSE by obstructing relations even more.

Now we have even more upset distrustful people feeling betrayed and imposed upon by
govt sponsored political beliefs pushed unconstitutionally which leads to more legal fights.

All this can be prevented by respecting free choice and consent, as Obama used when he changed his mind.

Why are you so against people the process of people choosing to change their beliefs instead of forcing it by govt? And isn't that in violation of separation of church and state? Why can't you see the very thing that disgusts you when Conservatives do it, abusing govt to justify pushing their beliefs, that you come across as doing that to them with YOUR beliefs instead of respecting free choice

 

[Impenitent]

You aren't comfortable with the typical righty rhetoric - you can't swallow how they get to their destination. So you devise circuitous route, add window dressing, and arrive at the same place they do.

It's not wrong to have right wing views. What's wrong it to
Falsely represent yourself as a Democrat, Infiltrate their process, then influence their programs.

 

[emilynghiem]

You aren't comfortable with the typical righty rhetoric - you can't swallow how they get to their destination. So you devise circuitous route, add window dressing, and arrive at the same place they do.

It's not wrong to have right wing views. What's wrong it to
Falsely represent yourself as a Democrat, Infiltrate their process, then influence their programs.

Dear Impenitent

1. What is wrong with being a Constitutionalist and a Democrat both, and achieving BOTH the
goals and standards and not contradicting either one.

Don't the Constitutional laws apply to all people so that is central?

Why are you implying I can't be Democrat and enforce the Constitution?
If the Democrat platform VIOLATES the Constitution are you sure you want to support something in conflict
with law? What are you SAYING Impenitent

Aren't the Democrat policies INCLUDED in enforcing Constitutional principles of equal protection of the laws and religious free choice (ie Democrat ideals of defending prochoice, for inclusion and uplifting of diverse minorities underrepresented and underserved, and working on the grassroots level to reach all working people in general).

Why are you saying that putting Constitutionalist principles first as the umbrella
for all people and groups can't also still fulfill the Democrat goals equally?

2. What is WRONG with enforcing the Constitution and then letting other groups practice their policies underneath that umbrella?

Are you saying I can't "sincerely" support Muslims because I enforce the Constitution and then let them practice Islam under that?

Are you saying I cannot SINCERELY support the free exercise of Muslim beliefs if I don't AGREE and PRACTICE them myself? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying with Conservative beliefs!

NO, I DON'T agree with either prolife on taking views to such an extreme as to ban abortion unless it is by consent of all the people; NOR do I support banning the death penalty as not a choice unless it is by the consent of all the people. YET I do defend BOTH the people who are THAT against abortion and THAT against the death penalty, that I would say the laws need to reflect THEIR consent as well! So that IS defending THEIR beliefs EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM MYSELF. I DO AGREE with eliminating the use of the death penalty and of abortion, but by preventing pregnancy and murder to prevent abortion and executions. So that doesn't involve BANNING these but still gets rid of them by FREE CHOICE. it still achieves tje same end but in a different way that doesn't violate the beleifs of others.

I don't have to be comfortable with Islam, Jewish or Pagan beliefs to enforce the FREE exercise of those beliefs under the CONSTITUTION.

What are you SAYING Impenitent

I must be totally misreading what you mean, because it makes no sense.

So you are saying it doesn't count as defending the rights and beliefs of others equally
unless I AGREE with those views and practice them myself? What?

if you are not comfortable with how i support different parties and beliefs at the same time,
then just say it is your OWN discomfort. Don't go and blame it on me as "not being sincere"
and "pretending" to support things. What?

Like I said, I support universal principles in the natural laws that govern ALL people
so that covers ALL cases. Free exercise of religion is basically free will or free choice,
checked by the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble so our free will free speech and press
etc. cannot be abused to the point of disrupting the PEACE and freedom of others or it violates the same laws.

I find that respect for peace and freedom covers ALL people and groups and their beliefs.

All people need their free exercise or free choice/right to consent and dissent,
their free speech and press to petition for redress of grievances, resolving conflicts,
and participating in democratic due process, and the right to assemble peacefully and securely.

How is this "insincere" in either supporting Democrats or Republicans or anyone else
in achieving their own set goals and beliefs?

All I ask is that people respect the equal rights of others and don't impose back and forth causing disruption.

Impenitent I appreciate you trying your best to point out honestly where you feel I am being
inconsistent or intellectually dishonest. But I don't see where you are getting that and what needs
to be corrected that I am not already trying to correct.

Which things are you saying I am either not supporting i should be
or what am I contradicting in either the Constitutional laws or Democratic values about
serving the best interests of the people and making sure there is justice economically, socially and legally.

What are you saying is in conflict, can you please explain???