Generic God Or A Specific One?

[emilynghiem]

but I just herad today Texas went from having over 20 aborton clinics to 5. Pretty big state to just have 5 abortion clinics. Most women who voted for Bush said, "oh they'll never ban abortion". Just look at all the anti abortion legislation that has been passed in the last 10 years. AND ON OBAMA, Reed AND PELOSI'S WATCH?

Prochoice can be defended by the Constitution if Democrats would enforce that consistently.
It is consistent with religious freedom not to make laws that establish a religion.

However, with the Democrat politicians passing anti-choice laws, they defeat their own arguments.
We would need leaders standing on Constitutional principles, and even the prolife Republican politicians like
Rudy Guiliani and Kay Bailey Hutchison have stood up for prochoice beliefs in keeping with Constitutional
principles of religious freedom and limited govt not interfering with personal beliefs.

Unfortunately most Democrat politicians aren't standing on Constitutional principles
but keep relying on party politics to push their points. so this is an inferior position compared
with defending prochoice and freedom under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

you cannot enforce laws consistently if you are too busy violating them for other people.
as long as Democrats keep pushing only their agenda and beliefs, at the expense
and exclusion of other beliefs, they make the same mistakes they are lobbying against.

 

[sealybobo]

Like us liberals believed Obama was the guy, you righties need to realize that Jesus isn't the guy. Sorry. Like Mohammad his policies are too divisive and wrong.

This reminds me of when we first got Obama elected. We loved him. He killed Bin Ladin and fixed the economy. We couldn't see what the other side didn't like about him. Ultimately we had to accept that he is just too divisive of a character just like Jesus or Mohammad.

????

1. First of all who are you calling "you righties"
Are you implying that only rightwing can believe in Jesus?

All the Quakers who fought for abolition were the CHRISTIAN LEFT.
Hello.....

Dolly Madison was a Christian Left Quaker Abolitionist
married to a slave owner James Madison who justified slavery and condoned it.

We have that same battle going on today:
many Christian Left are pushing for microlending and forgiving debts
in order to liberate people from poverty.

Don't forget there are many Democrats who are even more conservative
than I am, including Prolife Democrats while I am prochoice.

Seallybobo if you are callling me a rightie then we're really in trouble....

2. Also what is wrong with teaching that Jesus
means "Equal Justice for ALL"
"Restorative Justice"
"Peace and Justice" for all humanity

Are you saying that it is wrong for me to
teach and share this faith that all humanity
can receive lasting peace and justice
and be healed of past wrongs as we work together to solve our problems?

What is wrong with teaching JUSTICE with PEACE.

Can you tell me what is so bad about that, thanks!
I have NO PROBLEM teaching this is what Jesus means:
to EMBODY The spirit of truth peace and justice BY CONSCIENCE
so that WE the PEOPLE or the church body or the government
EMBRACE and ENFORCE the laws of Equal Justice for ALL.

Ok you aren't a righty! LOL. But here is what is wrong with what you teach. It is a lie. A lie is lie no matter how good it makes you feel.

• Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
• For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
• Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions. See also: Cituke.
• Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
• Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.

1. These can all be blamed on political abuses of religion.
so if you are going to argue to get rid of religion because of abuses,
are you equally going to argue to get rid of politics because of abuses.
At least that would be fair.

Sealybobo, this is like blaming race for causing problems of racism.
yet if we didn't have different races, people would nitpick over something else:
hair color, fat or skinny body sizes, political affiliations. (in fact, political affiliations and abuses
can be argued as even more dangerous than religion; as this marks the difference between the Nazis in the Holocaust vs aryan supremacists who stay out of politics and govt and the difference between violent Jihadists versus peaceful Muslims who don't use politics or govt
to push their agenda: a key difference is whether the groups use political force to attack and kill)

If people are dividing into groups to dominate and abuse others,
that is caused by mob and pecking order mentality to control groups by peer pressure
and propaganda!

How is religion any different from other means of doing this.
people ahve bullied each other to death by suicide using the internet.

does that mean we need to ban the use of the internet?

2. on that note, with the internet we know that more lives aer saved
and more good is done by having free access to the internet than by the abuses of it to traffick, abuse or kill people.

same with religion.

It is just that you do not have the same understanding of the good in religion
as you do the good in the internet or anything else that can be abused.

you have more negative information and perception about religion
than you do positive beliefs and experiences or understanding with it

3. lastly you associate the good in religion with some other source
that isn't coming fromthe religion or dependent on it.
so you imagine that the good can still be achieved without the religion whichis namely a tool forexpression.

so why can't you see the evil abuses also do not come from the religion per se
but also come from a source that would affect peopleanyway without the religion?

so if getting rid of the religion would not change the good that comes through it
getting rid of the religion would not change the bad that happens which is also existent independent of religion

4. and finally I will post sources that explain
how some teachings and practice in religion
are unique and the only cure for some sicknesses
that otherwise cost people's lives, health, mind, sanity and relations and quality of life.

there is no substitute for some of these cures.
if you can teach them independent of religion, that's fine, many people have benefited from the relief from spiritual
healing without converting to the religion,
but the teachings and spiritual healing process itself cannot be rejected.
the healing is natural and cannot be divorced from human nature that relies
on forgiveness as part of the therapy to maintain or restore health of body mind spirit and relations with others in society.

This is why I argue against God as a matter of fact. If you knew me 2 years ago you'd remember I always loved arguing politics with right wingers. Then I realized how much the GOP uses religion to manipulate the idiot middle class and poor in America and I decided to stop wasting my time trying to convince people who believe in an invisible man that they are voting against their own financial interests because of stupid wedge issues like god, gays, guns, abortion, racism. They use these wedge issues to divide the masses.

And I'd be ok with wedge issue voters if things were better in this country and the GOP gave a damn about the middle class. They don't. They only care about the business owners and stock holders. And the only reason they win elections is they con half of working class America to vote for them over bullshit issues like religion.

Anyways, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the importance of regulations, government, taxes, public schools and not polluting the planet to idiots who believe an invisible man watches and cares for them and sends all their enemies to hell. To talk rationally with a brainwashed person you have to first snap them out of it. So first go after the irrational illogical thought, God. Then maybe we can talk fiscal policies.

 

[sealybobo]

but I just herad today Texas went from having over 20 aborton clinics to 5. Pretty big state to just have 5 abortion clinics. Most women who voted for Bush said, "oh they'll never ban abortion". Just look at all the anti abortion legislation that has been passed in the last 10 years. AND ON OBAMA, Reed AND PELOSI'S WATCH?

Prochoice can be defended by the Constitution if Democrats would enforce that consistently.
It is consistent with religious freedom not to make laws that establish a religion.

However, with the Democrat politicians passing anti-choice laws, they defeat their own arguments.
We would need leaders standing on Constitutional principles, and even the prolife Republican politicians like
Rudy Guiliani and Kay Bailey Hutchison have stood up for prochoice beliefs in keeping with Constitutional
principles of religious freedom and limited govt not interfering with personal beliefs.

Unfortunately most Democrat politicians aren't standing on Constitutional principles
but keep relying on party politics to push their points. so this is an inferior position compared
with defending prochoice and freedom under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

you cannot enforce laws consistently if you are too busy violating them for other people.
as long as Democrats keep pushing only their agenda and beliefs, at the expense
and exclusion of other beliefs, they make the same mistakes they are lobbying against.

I just heard a great woman on NPR talking about how we need to re frame the abortion issue. The right controls the message. Even the way us lefties talk is wrong. I'll try to remember some examples.

1. Stop making women who get an abortion feel bad. They feel bad enough.

2. There are not "too many" abortions happening every year. Each year we have just the right amount of abortions because abortions are for women who want abortions so clearly every woman who had an abortion got one and that's good. They should have access to abortion if they want one.

3. No one is using abortion as birth control. And most abortions happen in the first trimester. Stop acting like a lot of women who get abortions get them late. And every late term abortion was done after a lot of thought and prayer. That family didn't want to have a severely retarded child and I don't blame them. If you want one fine but I think you should not make a person have a severely retarded child.

4. She talked about the percentage of people who use rubbers have accidents vs percent that have accidents with birth control and how 20 somethings can't afford to have kids now. Bottom line is planned parenthood is very important to people and religion is clueless about that. Back in the day a poor guy could raise a family. Today a poor couple both working can't afford to have a family and that's IF they stay together.

Anyways, I already know what you're going to say. I agree. Lets work towards lowering the number of women who get pregnant on accident and then lets try to lower the number of women who when they do get pregnant on accident feel the need to get an abortion. 1 reason might be she can't afford it. What does the right want to do to make it so poor people can better afford kids?

Then don't expect them to have kids and please don't expect they aren't going to **** and you know with ******* comes accidents.

 

[emilynghiem]

Like us liberals believed Obama was the guy, you righties need to realize that Jesus isn't the guy. Sorry. Like Mohammad his policies are too divisive and wrong.

This reminds me of when we first got Obama elected. We loved him. He killed Bin Ladin and fixed the economy. We couldn't see what the other side didn't like about him. Ultimately we had to accept that he is just too divisive of a character just like Jesus or Mohammad.

????

1. First of all who are you calling "you righties"
Are you implying that only rightwing can believe in Jesus?

All the Quakers who fought for abolition were the CHRISTIAN LEFT.
Hello.....

Dolly Madison was a Christian Left Quaker Abolitionist
married to a slave owner James Madison who justified slavery and condoned it.

We have that same battle going on today:
many Christian Left are pushing for microlending and forgiving debts
in order to liberate people from poverty.

Don't forget there are many Democrats who are even more conservative
than I am, including Prolife Democrats while I am prochoice.

Seallybobo if you are callling me a rightie then we're really in trouble....

2. Also what is wrong with teaching that Jesus
means "Equal Justice for ALL"
"Restorative Justice"
"Peace and Justice" for all humanity

Are you saying that it is wrong for me to
teach and share this faith that all humanity
can receive lasting peace and justice
and be healed of past wrongs as we work together to solve our problems?

What is wrong with teaching JUSTICE with PEACE.

Can you tell me what is so bad about that, thanks!
I have NO PROBLEM teaching this is what Jesus means:
to EMBODY The spirit of truth peace and justice BY CONSCIENCE
so that WE the PEOPLE or the church body or the government
EMBRACE and ENFORCE the laws of Equal Justice for ALL.

Ok you aren't a righty! LOL. But here is what is wrong with what you teach. It is a lie. A lie is lie no matter how good it makes you feel.

• Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
• For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
• Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions. See also: Cituke.
• Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
• Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.

1. These can all be blamed on political abuses of religion.
so if you are going to argue to get rid of religion because of abuses,
are you equally going to argue to get rid of politics because of abuses.
At least that would be fair.

Sealybobo, this is like blaming race for causing problems of racism.
yet if we didn't have different races, people would nitpick over something else:
hair color, fat or skinny body sizes, political affiliations. (in fact, political affiliations and abuses
can be argued as even more dangerous than religion; as this marks the difference between the Nazis in the Holocaust vs aryan supremacists who stay out of politics and govt and the difference between violent Jihadists versus peaceful Muslims who don't use politics or govt
to push their agenda: a key difference is whether the groups use political force to attack and kill)

If people are dividing into groups to dominate and abuse others,
that is caused by mob and pecking order mentality to control groups by peer pressure
and propaganda!

How is religion any different from other means of doing this.
people ahve bullied each other to death by suicide using the internet.

does that mean we need to ban the use of the internet?

2. on that note, with the internet we know that more lives aer saved
and more good is done by having free access to the internet than by the abuses of it to traffick, abuse or kill people.

same with religion.

It is just that you do not have the same understanding of the good in religion
as you do the good in the internet or anything else that can be abused.

you have more negative information and perception about religion
than you do positive beliefs and experiences or understanding with it

3. lastly you associate the good in religion with some other source
that isn't coming fromthe religion or dependent on it.
so you imagine that the good can still be achieved without the religion whichis namely a tool forexpression.

so why can't you see the evil abuses also do not come from the religion per se
but also come from a source that would affect peopleanyway without the religion?

so if getting rid of the religion would not change the good that comes through it
getting rid of the religion would not change the bad that happens which is also existent independent of religion

4. and finally I will post sources that explain
how some teachings and practice in religion
are unique and the only cure for some sicknesses
that otherwise cost people's lives, health, mind, sanity and relations and quality of life.

there is no substitute for some of these cures.
if you can teach them independent of religion, that's fine, many people have benefited from the relief from spiritual
healing without converting to the religion,
but the teachings and spiritual healing process itself cannot be rejected.
the healing is natural and cannot be divorced from human nature that relies
on forgiveness as part of the therapy to maintain or restore health of body mind spirit and relations with others in society.

This is why I argue against God as a matter of fact. If you knew me 2 years ago you'd remember I always loved arguing politics with right wingers. Then I realized how much the GOP uses religion to manipulate the idiot middle class and poor in America and I decided to stop wasting my time trying to convince people who believe in an invisible man that they are voting against their own financial interests because of stupid wedge issues like god, gays, guns, abortion, racism. They use these wedge issues to divide the masses.

And I'd be ok with wedge issue voters if things were better in this country and the GOP gave a damn about the middle class. They don't. They only care about the business owners and stock holders. And the only reason they win elections is they con half of working class America to vote for them over bullshit issues like religion.

Anyways, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the importance of regulations, government, taxes, public schools and not polluting the planet to idiots who believe an invisible man watches and cares for them and sends all their enemies to hell. To talk rationally with a brainwashed person you have to first snap them out of it. So first go after the irrational illogical thought, God. Then maybe we can talk fiscal policies.

Hmmm how can you blame this on faith in the invisible man when
(A) many such believers agree with all you said about govt policy and responsibility
(And do NOT believe in abusing faith in the invisible man to brainwash or abuse anyone)
(B) not all your conservative opponents believe in God as someone else pointed out about Atheist Republicans, so again the political lines cannot be based on just faith in God alone or no faith aline.

What invisible bogeyman do you blame that on ?

 

[emilynghiem]

I

but I just herad today Texas went from having over 20 aborton clinics to 5. Pretty big state to just have 5 abortion clinics. Most women who voted for Bush said, "oh they'll never ban abortion". Just look at all the anti abortion legislation that has been passed in the last 10 years. AND ON OBAMA, Reed AND PELOSI'S WATCH?

Prochoice can be defended by the Constitution if Democrats would enforce that consistently.
It is consistent with religious freedom not to make laws that establish a religion.

However, with the Democrat politicians passing anti-choice laws, they defeat their own arguments.
We would need leaders standing on Constitutional principles, and even the prolife Republican politicians like
Rudy Guiliani and Kay Bailey Hutchison have stood up for prochoice beliefs in keeping with Constitutional
principles of religious freedom and limited govt not interfering with personal beliefs.

Unfortunately most Democrat politicians aren't standing on Constitutional principles
but keep relying on party politics to push their points. so this is an inferior position compared
with defending prochoice and freedom under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

you cannot enforce laws consistently if you are too busy violating them for other people.
as long as Democrats keep pushing only their agenda and beliefs, at the expense
and exclusion of other beliefs, they make the same mistakes they are lobbying against.

I just heard a great woman on NPR talking about how we need to re frame the abortion issue. The right controls the message. Even the way us lefties talk is wrong. I'll try to remember some examples.

1. Stop making women who get an abortion feel bad. They feel bad enough.

2. There are not "too many" abortions happening every year. Each year we have just the right amount of abortions because abortions are for women who want abortions so clearly every woman who had an abortion got one and that's good. They should have access to abortion if they want one.

3. No one is using abortion as birth control. And most abortions happen in the first trimester. Stop acting like a lot of women who get abortions get them late. And every late term abortion was done after a lot of thought and prayer. That family didn't want to have a severely retarded child and I don't blame them. If you want one fine but I think you should not make a person have a severely retarded child.

4. She talked about the percentage of people who use rubbers have accidents vs percent that have accidents with birth control and how 20 somethings can't afford to have kids now. Bottom line is planned parenthood is very important to people and religion is clueless about that. Back in the day a poor guy could raise a family. Today a poor couple both working can't afford to have a family and that's IF they stay together.

Anyways, I already know what you're going to say. I agree. Lets work towards lowering the number of women who get pregnant on accident and then lets try to lower the number of women who when they do get pregnant on accident feel the need to get an abortion. 1 reason might be she can't afford it. What does the right want to do to make it so poor people can better afford kids?

Then don't expect them to have kids and please don't expect they aren't going to **** and you know with ******* comes accidents.

I totally agree to focus on practical steps and programs that help reduce and prevent worse problems.

Incidentally I met a prolife medical researcher who also advocates for more effective birth control and education since people are going to conitinue having sex without intent to have abd raise kids if pregnancy occurs.

I am prochoice and still hold that ppl can be taught to refrain from sex unless the partners are prepared to have and raise a child should pregnancy occur. The prolife movement is proof that people can choose to avoid unwanted pregnancy by abstaining.
If people who are considered idiots can figure out to teach abstinence and choose to prevent pregnancy and abortion, anyone can figure it out. It's not like sex happens by accident. Mature responsible adults need to have at least that much education and respect to live in society, and not expect others to bear the burden of consequences for their decisions. That should be required of citizens -- especially if you believe the public should bear the costs of welfare or health care if ppl can't pay for themselves or their children,

 

[sealybobo]

Like us liberals believed Obama was the guy, you righties need to realize that Jesus isn't the guy. Sorry. Like Mohammad his policies are too divisive and wrong.

This reminds me of when we first got Obama elected. We loved him. He killed Bin Ladin and fixed the economy. We couldn't see what the other side didn't like about him. Ultimately we had to accept that he is just too divisive of a character just like Jesus or Mohammad.

????

1. First of all who are you calling "you righties"
Are you implying that only rightwing can believe in Jesus?

All the Quakers who fought for abolition were the CHRISTIAN LEFT.
Hello.....

Dolly Madison was a Christian Left Quaker Abolitionist
married to a slave owner James Madison who justified slavery and condoned it.

We have that same battle going on today:
many Christian Left are pushing for microlending and forgiving debts
in order to liberate people from poverty.

Don't forget there are many Democrats who are even more conservative
than I am, including Prolife Democrats while I am prochoice.

Seallybobo if you are callling me a rightie then we're really in trouble....

2. Also what is wrong with teaching that Jesus
means "Equal Justice for ALL"
"Restorative Justice"
"Peace and Justice" for all humanity

Are you saying that it is wrong for me to
teach and share this faith that all humanity
can receive lasting peace and justice
and be healed of past wrongs as we work together to solve our problems?

What is wrong with teaching JUSTICE with PEACE.

Can you tell me what is so bad about that, thanks!
I have NO PROBLEM teaching this is what Jesus means:
to EMBODY The spirit of truth peace and justice BY CONSCIENCE
so that WE the PEOPLE or the church body or the government
EMBRACE and ENFORCE the laws of Equal Justice for ALL.

Ok you aren't a righty! LOL. But here is what is wrong with what you teach. It is a lie. A lie is lie no matter how good it makes you feel.

• Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
• For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
• Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions. See also: Cituke.
• Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
• Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.

1. These can all be blamed on political abuses of religion.
so if you are going to argue to get rid of religion because of abuses,
are you equally going to argue to get rid of politics because of abuses.
At least that would be fair.

Sealybobo, this is like blaming race for causing problems of racism.
yet if we didn't have different races, people would nitpick over something else:
hair color, fat or skinny body sizes, political affiliations. (in fact, political affiliations and abuses
can be argued as even more dangerous than religion; as this marks the difference between the Nazis in the Holocaust vs aryan supremacists who stay out of politics and govt and the difference between violent Jihadists versus peaceful Muslims who don't use politics or govt
to push their agenda: a key difference is whether the groups use political force to attack and kill)

If people are dividing into groups to dominate and abuse others,
that is caused by mob and pecking order mentality to control groups by peer pressure
and propaganda!

How is religion any different from other means of doing this.
people ahve bullied each other to death by suicide using the internet.

does that mean we need to ban the use of the internet?

2. on that note, with the internet we know that more lives aer saved
and more good is done by having free access to the internet than by the abuses of it to traffick, abuse or kill people.

same with religion.

It is just that you do not have the same understanding of the good in religion
as you do the good in the internet or anything else that can be abused.

you have more negative information and perception about religion
than you do positive beliefs and experiences or understanding with it

3. lastly you associate the good in religion with some other source
that isn't coming fromthe religion or dependent on it.
so you imagine that the good can still be achieved without the religion whichis namely a tool forexpression.

so why can't you see the evil abuses also do not come from the religion per se
but also come from a source that would affect peopleanyway without the religion?

so if getting rid of the religion would not change the good that comes through it
getting rid of the religion would not change the bad that happens which is also existent independent of religion

4. and finally I will post sources that explain
how some teachings and practice in religion
are unique and the only cure for some sicknesses
that otherwise cost people's lives, health, mind, sanity and relations and quality of life.

there is no substitute for some of these cures.
if you can teach them independent of religion, that's fine, many people have benefited from the relief from spiritual
healing without converting to the religion,
but the teachings and spiritual healing process itself cannot be rejected.
the healing is natural and cannot be divorced from human nature that relies
on forgiveness as part of the therapy to maintain or restore health of body mind spirit and relations with others in society.

This is why I argue against God as a matter of fact. If you knew me 2 years ago you'd remember I always loved arguing politics with right wingers. Then I realized how much the GOP uses religion to manipulate the idiot middle class and poor in America and I decided to stop wasting my time trying to convince people who believe in an invisible man that they are voting against their own financial interests because of stupid wedge issues like god, gays, guns, abortion, racism. They use these wedge issues to divide the masses.

And I'd be ok with wedge issue voters if things were better in this country and the GOP gave a damn about the middle class. They don't. They only care about the business owners and stock holders. And the only reason they win elections is they con half of working class America to vote for them over bullshit issues like religion.

Anyways, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the importance of regulations, government, taxes, public schools and not polluting the planet to idiots who believe an invisible man watches and cares for them and sends all their enemies to hell. To talk rationally with a brainwashed person you have to first snap them out of it. So first go after the irrational illogical thought, God. Then maybe we can talk fiscal policies.

Hmmm how can you blame this on faith in the invisible man when
(A) many such believers agree with all you said about govt policy and responsibility
(And do NOT believe in abusing faith in the invisible man to brainwash or abuse anyone)
(B) not all your conservative opponents believe in God as someone else pointed out about Atheist Republicans, so again the political lines cannot be based on just faith in God alone or no faith aline.

What invisible bogeyman do you blame that on ?

Good points. on social issues the GOP have suckered Christians into thinking their party is the moral party and then on fiscal policies the GOP worships an atheist like Ayn Rand.

 

[emilynghiem]

Good points. on social issues the GOP have suckered Christians into thinking their party is the moral party and then on fiscal policies the GOP worships an atheist like Ayn Rand.

Wow sealybobo if you and I can sort through all my mess of ideas
and pick out points where we actually agree, invisible bogeyman or not,
perhaps there is hope for this torn and twisted world that cannot find its way
out of a paper bag any more than I can. With a GPS, invisible bogeyman or not.

Now that you've summarized what is wrong with the GOP,
can you name as many points that are good with the GOP?

Or summarize what is wrong with the Democrats, and what the equivalent is on that side of the fence?

My theory, on human equality, is that for everything bad
you can say about a group or person, there is something good that approach can be used for (even if that
person or group abused it, the same tactic or belief has a good application and purpose if used correctly).
And vice versa, for everything good there is something bad, the flipside of that which doesn't work in some situations.

And for the OPPOSITE group to them, you can find the parallel good and bad also,
that is proportional to the group you single out. Thus people are basically equal though not the same.

Sealybobo I am happy we at least agree on this much!

I think if everyone could assess both the good and the bad on both sides,
we'd at least "consider all things equally" and not give the wrong impression
we are deliberately skewing or excluding anything and not being fair.

Thanks SB, I find it refreshing and relieving
that we can align this much. I don't want to push it overboard
but just let it unfold naturally as we go. Thanks for this!
==========================================
To be fair, I will try harder to be equally critical of Republicans as Democrats,
and equally supportive of what Democrats get right as what Republicans get right.

I tend to take some things for granted:
I tend to be harsher on Democrats for violating inclusion and prochoice, because consistent enforcement
is best done between peers/fellow members, where I feel I share in that responsibility directly.
I tend to trust Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists to "police themselves," and am actually
shocked when they don't respond to corrections or reforms that I assume are clear by the Constitution.

With liberals and Democrats I am more shocked if I can make sense to fellow progressives
and reach agreement. So thanks for bearing with me while I learn how to communicate more clearly.
(The more we connect and align, over time the less I will talk or go in circles by hit and miss.
So it will get easier, thanks for being so kind and supportive as a good influence on me!)

 

[sealybobo]

Good points. on social issues the GOP have suckered Christians into thinking their party is the moral party and then on fiscal policies the GOP worships an atheist like Ayn Rand.

Wow sealybobo if you and I can sort through all my mess of ideas
and pick out points where we actually agree, invisible bogeyman or not,
perhaps there is hope for this torn and twisted world that cannot find its way
out of a paper bag any more than I can. With a GPS, invisible bogeyman or not.

Now that you've summarized what is wrong with the GOP,
can you name as many points that are good with the GOP?

Or summarize what is wrong with the Democrats, and what the equivalent is on that side of the fence?

My theory, on human equality, is that for everything bad
you can say about a group or person, there is something good that approach can be used for (even if that
person or group abused it, the same tactic or belief has a good application and purpose if used correctly).
And vice versa, for everything good there is something bad, the flipside of that which doesn't work in some situations.

And for the OPPOSITE group to them, you can find the parallel good and bad also,
that is proportional to the group you single out. Thus people are basically equal though not the same.

Sealybobo I am happy we at least agree on this much!

I think if everyone could assess both the good and the bad on both sides,
we'd at least "consider all things equally" and not give the wrong impression
we are deliberately skewing or excluding anything and not being fair.

Thanks SB, I find it refreshing and relieving
that we can align this much. I don't want to push it overboard
but just let it unfold naturally as we go. Thanks for this!
==========================================
To be fair, I will try harder to be equally critical of Republicans as Democrats,
and equally supportive of what Democrats get right as what Republicans get right.

I tend to take some things for granted:
I tend to be harsher on Democrats for violating inclusion and prochoice, because consistent enforcement
is best done between peers/fellow members, where I feel I share in that responsibility directly.
I tend to trust Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists to "police themselves," and am actually
shocked when they don't respond to corrections or reforms that I assume are clear by the Constitution.

With liberals and Democrats I am more shocked if I can make sense to fellow progressives
and reach agreement. So thanks for bearing with me while I learn how to communicate more clearly.
(The more we connect and align, over time the less I will talk or go in circles by hit and miss.
So it will get easier, thanks for being so kind and supportive as a good influence on me!)

What's good about the GOP? Well, capitalism is the best ISM there is and they are the masters of Capitalism. Us liberals understand that we need corporations and business owners. It is them who thinks they no longer need us. At least not at a decent wage.

If you are rich, Republicans are for you! So if you are rich then the GOP will make you the most on your investments and save you the most in taxes. Unfortunately for the masses who are not part of the investor class, this doesn't help them. In fact this shifts the tax burden more onto the rest of us when the rich get tax breaks.

We use to have a functional government where it wasn't career suicide to compromise with the Democrats. As we have seen the last several years the GOP won't give the Dems an inch. Look at how they all signed a pledge to Grover Norquist to to raise taxes EVER! Who the **** is he? So our country is broke and infrastructure is falling apart and the GOP, now that the Dems are in charge, all of the sudden become deficit hawks. Watch the minute they get into office they will stop worrying about the debt because as we have seen the GOP love pork even more than Democrats do.

And what is wrong with the Democrats? They no longer represent the people much either. Are they worrying about middle class wages, raising the minimum wage, defending unions and labor? Not as much as they should be or use to. Democrats today are Corporate Democrats. Our entire government has been taken over by corporations. We are now a fascist country. I just realize the Democrats are the middle class' only hope.

And forget about becoming rich if they do away with the middle class. People have to be able to go from poor to middle and from middle to rich. Very few go from poor to rich. No middle class, the American dream is gone.

And I see the middle class disappearing every day. The GOP don't care. In fact they love it. They also love blaming Obama for it. Even though they have no plan on raising wages if/when they get into power, they love to blame Obama for wages going down. When they sent all those good paying manufacturing jobs overseas?

 

[sealybobo]

Good points. on social issues the GOP have suckered Christians into thinking their party is the moral party and then on fiscal policies the GOP worships an atheist like Ayn Rand.

Wow sealybobo if you and I can sort through all my mess of ideas
and pick out points where we actually agree, invisible bogeyman or not,
perhaps there is hope for this torn and twisted world that cannot find its way
out of a paper bag any more than I can. With a GPS, invisible bogeyman or not.

Now that you've summarized what is wrong with the GOP,
can you name as many points that are good with the GOP?

Or summarize what is wrong with the Democrats, and what the equivalent is on that side of the fence?

My theory, on human equality, is that for everything bad
you can say about a group or person, there is something good that approach can be used for (even if that
person or group abused it, the same tactic or belief has a good application and purpose if used correctly).
And vice versa, for everything good there is something bad, the flipside of that which doesn't work in some situations.

And for the OPPOSITE group to them, you can find the parallel good and bad also,
that is proportional to the group you single out. Thus people are basically equal though not the same.

Sealybobo I am happy we at least agree on this much!

I think if everyone could assess both the good and the bad on both sides,
we'd at least "consider all things equally" and not give the wrong impression
we are deliberately skewing or excluding anything and not being fair.

Thanks SB, I find it refreshing and relieving
that we can align this much. I don't want to push it overboard
but just let it unfold naturally as we go. Thanks for this!
==========================================
To be fair, I will try harder to be equally critical of Republicans as Democrats,
and equally supportive of what Democrats get right as what Republicans get right.

I tend to take some things for granted:
I tend to be harsher on Democrats for violating inclusion and prochoice, because consistent enforcement
is best done between peers/fellow members, where I feel I share in that responsibility directly.
I tend to trust Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists to "police themselves," and am actually
shocked when they don't respond to corrections or reforms that I assume are clear by the Constitution.

With liberals and Democrats I am more shocked if I can make sense to fellow progressives
and reach agreement. So thanks for bearing with me while I learn how to communicate more clearly.
(The more we connect and align, over time the less I will talk or go in circles by hit and miss.
So it will get easier, thanks for being so kind and supportive as a good influence on me!)

What do you mean when you said: harsher on Democrats for violating inclusion and prochoice?

 

[sealybobo]

Also, I saw a great Southpark where they explained how America needs conservatives and liberals. If we were all conservatives, the rest of the world would hate us. And if we were all liberals, the rest of the world wouldn't fear/respect us.

 

[emilynghiem]

Good points. on social issues the GOP have suckered Christians into thinking their party is the moral party and then on fiscal policies the GOP worships an atheist like Ayn Rand.

Wow sealybobo if you and I can sort through all my mess of ideas
and pick out points where we actually agree, invisible bogeyman or not,
perhaps there is hope for this torn and twisted world that cannot find its way
out of a paper bag any more than I can. With a GPS, invisible bogeyman or not.

Now that you've summarized what is wrong with the GOP,
can you name as many points that are good with the GOP?

Or summarize what is wrong with the Democrats, and what the equivalent is on that side of the fence?

My theory, on human equality, is that for everything bad
you can say about a group or person, there is something good that approach can be used for (even if that
person or group abused it, the same tactic or belief has a good application and purpose if used correctly).
And vice versa, for everything good there is something bad, the flipside of that which doesn't work in some situations.

And for the OPPOSITE group to them, you can find the parallel good and bad also,
that is proportional to the group you single out. Thus people are basically equal though not the same.

Sealybobo I am happy we at least agree on this much!

I think if everyone could assess both the good and the bad on both sides,
we'd at least "consider all things equally" and not give the wrong impression
we are deliberately skewing or excluding anything and not being fair.

Thanks SB, I find it refreshing and relieving
that we can align this much. I don't want to push it overboard
but just let it unfold naturally as we go. Thanks for this!
==========================================
To be fair, I will try harder to be equally critical of Republicans as Democrats,
and equally supportive of what Democrats get right as what Republicans get right.

I tend to take some things for granted:
I tend to be harsher on Democrats for violating inclusion and prochoice, because consistent enforcement
is best done between peers/fellow members, where I feel I share in that responsibility directly.
I tend to trust Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists to "police themselves," and am actually
shocked when they don't respond to corrections or reforms that I assume are clear by the Constitution.

With liberals and Democrats I am more shocked if I can make sense to fellow progressives
and reach agreement. So thanks for bearing with me while I learn how to communicate more clearly.
(The more we connect and align, over time the less I will talk or go in circles by hit and miss.
So it will get easier, thanks for being so kind and supportive as a good influence on me!)

What do you mean when you said: harsher on Democrats for violating inclusion and prochoice?

I tend to focus more on criticizing Democrats for that hypocrisy:
of excluding people's beliefs while claiming to be inclusive of diversity
and promoting anti-choice laws while claiming to be prochoice.

Because as a member I feel it is even more my responsibility
to police my own party and hold it accountable and consistent
and that I am more likely to succeed as a sincere supporter of the Democratic goals
(just not in agreement with methods I find conflicting) than someone criticizing Democrats
from the outside as an adversary (which is dismissed as readily
as how Republicans will assume any criticism from Democrats is purely political)

So if you do not know me, you might think I AM one of those
Republicans complaining about Democrats for political points (ie not interested in corrections or solutions)
instead of a fellow Democrat seeking to RESOLVE conflicts from within the party
to replace the problems with solutions that all sides views and parties can align with
so the party leaders and members CAN achieve the goals effectively and constitutionally.

So I tend to be harder on myself and on my own party since I take personal responsibility.
And almost sorry I made that commitment because it feels like an uphill losing battle.

 

[emilynghiem]

Also, I saw a great Southpark where they explained how America needs conservatives and liberals. If we were all conservatives, the rest of the world would hate us. And if we were all liberals, the rest of the world wouldn't fear/respect us.

1. one person said it this way
the Democrats were like the Mommy party where you go to get your Mommy issues taken care of
(like boo hoo I have a boo boo and need a band aid)
the Republicans were like the Daddy party where you turn when you need a Daddy figure
(like hey there's a criminal intruder, and you need someone to grab a gun, bang bang, no questions asked)

2. Rev. Moon said an amazingly simply thing:
he said it takes both the left wing and the right wing for the dove to fly.
and of course the dove is a symbol of peace (and one of the birds I think Jefferson wanted
as the American symbol, I'd have to go look that up. I think Franklin wanted the Turkey).

I think we need both church and state
like mother and father figures
husbands and wives
sisters and brothers.

I think there is a harmonious complementary check and balance
going on. Like how Type A and Type B personalities help each other not to go too far to their own extremes.

We need to use both parties and leadership styles where they work best in government
and avoid placing them in positions where it is disastrous.

3. I also came up with the analogy about
the red and blue blood vessels in the body.
One is to bring in petitions to the govt to be redressed so this should be as inclusive as possible,
no request for help should go unaddressed but must be answered one way or another.

The other is to issue authority and solutions to grievances outwards,
so this should be delegated to the local channels to reach all the parts.

You cannot have either a restrictive flow where some places are cut off and neglected.
You cannot have overflow where some places hemorrhage or bleed out.

The flow must be consistent and cover equally, bringing in and flowing out.

 

[sealybobo]

Also, I saw a great Southpark where they explained how America needs conservatives and liberals. If we were all conservatives, the rest of the world would hate us. And if we were all liberals, the rest of the world wouldn't fear/respect us.

1. one person said it this way
the Democrats were like the Mommy party where you go to get your Mommy issues taken care of
(like boo hoo I have a boo boo and need a band aid)
the Republicans were like the Daddy party where you turn when you need a Daddy figure
(like hey there's a criminal intruder, and you need someone to grab a gun, bang bang, no questions asked)

2. Rev. Moon said an amazingly simply thing:
he said it takes both the left wing and the right wing for the dove to fly.
and of course the dove is a symbol of peace (and one of the birds I think Jefferson wanted
as the American symbol, I'd have to go look that up. I think Franklin wanted the Turkey).

I think we need both church and state
like mother and father figures
husbands and wives
sisters and brothers.

I think there is a harmonious complementary check and balance
going on. Like how Type A and Type B personalities help each other not to go too far to their own extremes.

We need to use both parties and leadership styles where they work best in government
and avoid placing them in positions where it is disastrous.

3. I also came up with the analogy about
the red and blue blood vessels in the body.
One is to bring in petitions to the govt to be redressed so this should be as inclusive as possible,
no request for help should go unaddressed but must be answered one way or another.

The other is to issue authority and solutions to grievances outwards,
so this should be delegated to the local channels to reach all the parts.

You cannot have either a restrictive flow where some places are cut off and neglected.
You cannot have overflow where some places hemorrhage or bleed out.

The flow must be consistent and cover equally, bringing in and flowing out.

And if you ever study the history of unions, you'll see they come and go. When the corporations take too much, the workers have to fight for their share. Then the unions get to bloated, corrupt and lazy and they deserve to go away. But then the corporations slowly start cutting our pay or not giving us cost of living adjustments and in 10 or 30 years, either we organize again or we vote and have our government be the referee.

So yes, it is a pendulum. Sometimes it swings in the workers favor, an sometimes it swings in the corporations favor. From 1950 to 2000 it swung the workers way and since 2000 it has been swinging the corporations way.