GREAT! If the Arkansas law was kicked back to be rewritten, why not ACA???

[emilynghiem]

Arkansas governor rejects bill after pressure over gay discrimination - Yahoo News

For Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists concerned about the bill in Arkansas
that the Governor refused to sign, and kicked it back to the legislature to fix it first,
WHY NOT DEMAND THE SAME FOR THE ACA MANDATES???

Instead of protesting this "kickback" why not demand equal revision
in the case of the ACA mandates that pushed the belief in govt health care
on people and states, under tax penalties that discriminated by creed?

 

[rightwinger]

Because Obamacare was not vetoed

 

[emilynghiem]

Because Obamacare was not vetoed

OK rightwinger
and WHY did Obama let that pass, which discriminated by creed and imposed overreaching mandates,
and THIS governor LISTENED to the objections and said "not good enough"

Why would you CELEBRATE Obama "not listening to half of Congress, and
half the nation" protesting the ACA as it was written? and SIGNING IT ANYWAY!

You are happy that was forced on people when it was clearly objected to as flawed,
but object to this state law being forced on people instead of fixing the flaws first? Why?
Why the double standard???

 

[rightwinger]

Because Obamacare was not vetoed

OK rightwinger
and WHY did Obama let that pass, which discriminated by creed and imposed overreaching mandates,
and THIS governor LISTENED to the objections and said "not good enough"

Why would you CELEBRATE Obama "not listening to half of Congress, and
half the nation" protesting the ACA as it was written? and SIGNING IT ANYWAY!

You are happy that was forced on people when it was clearly objected to as flawed,
but object to this state law being forced on people instead of fixing the flaws first? Why?
Why the double standard???

Obamacare was overwhelmingly passed by 60% of Congress and declared valid by the Supreme Court

It was historic legislation providing needed coverage to millions of Americans

Why would Obama even consider a veto?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Arkansas governor rejects bill after pressure over gay discrimination - Yahoo News

For Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists concerned about the bill in Arkansas
that the Governor refused to sign, and kicked it back to the legislature to fix it first,
WHY NOT DEMAND THE SAME FOR THE ACA MANDATES???

Instead of protesting this "kickback" why not demand equal revision
in the case of the ACA mandates that pushed the belief in govt health care
on people and states, under tax penalties that discriminated by creed?

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because Obamacare was not vetoed

OK rightwinger
and WHY did Obama let that pass, which discriminated by creed and imposed overreaching mandates,
and THIS governor LISTENED to the objections and said "not good enough"

Why would you CELEBRATE Obama "not listening to half of Congress, and
half the nation" protesting the ACA as it was written? and SIGNING IT ANYWAY!

You are happy that was forced on people when it was clearly objected to as flawed,
but object to this state law being forced on people instead of fixing the flaws first? Why?
Why the double standard???

Obamacare was overwhelmingly passed by 60% of Congress and declared valid by the Supreme Court

It was historic legislation providing needed coverage to millions of Americans

Why would Obama even consider a veto?

If he respected Constitutional principles before partisan agenda and beliefs.

And the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights "equal protection of the law"
from "discrimination by Creed" and by the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
about not evading laws but exposing corruption wherever discovered, and not
putting party or conflicts of interest before Govt duty to uphold principles.

Just because it is the MEDIA AND PARTISAN CULTURE
to put political agenda above following Constitutional laws
does not make it right or make it Constitutional.

rightwinger what is the difference between the objections of the people
on THIS level -- expressing VERY clearly that this bill went too far and didn't protect people from discrimination --
and the objections of the people that Congress, the President and Supreme Court DIDN'T account for.

Are you REALLY basing your decisions of right and wrong on what is PASSED through govt?

Are you telling me that GOVT decides what beliefs are protected or not?

Shouldn't it be the PEOPLE who automatically have beliefs protected
and don't require GOVT to endorse them first? Isn't that "violating separation of church and state"
to depend on GOVT to establish your RELIGION or YOUR BELIEFS?

Can't you see this whole scenario is messed up.

It's ironic that when the Conservatives are petitioned to respect the BELIEFS of people,
they DO redress those grievances and seek to revise the laws to reflect CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

but OBAMA and the Democrats in Congress ****REFUSED**** to revise the ACA mandates
when these were protested.

Why the double standard? Why do the Conservatives listen to the objections and try to resolve the issue.
But the DEMOCRATS DON'T include the opposition?

And WHY are you CELEBRATING and JUSTIFYING that???

You expect Conservatives to put up with imposing on THEIR beliefs,
but when the shoe is on the other foot, you expect Conservatives to
ACCOMMODATE the opposing beliefs. When Democrats wouldn't do the same?

Why is being onesided justified to you?

So you are okay when Govt imposed YOUR bias in YOUR favor,
but not okay if the Govt imposes a law AGAINST your beliefs.

rightwinger are you telling me that you do not treat beliefs equally?
That only yours count, and Govt is only justified if Govt imposes YOUR beliefs.
And is wrong if Govt imposes AGAINST YOUR beliefs.

And these same standards DO NOT COUNT for people of other political beliefs, only yours?
Really?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi NYcarbineer
You don't see the common pattern?
If two sides both have political beliefs, and a law is passed that favors one side to the point the other can be discriminated against, then people OBJECT and demand that the law be CORRECTED so it doesn't discriminate against them.

In the case of ACA mandates, this penalizes and discriminates against people who don't believe in that either!!!
Why weren't THOSE objections respected and taken seriously?

These objections have not changed, but were expressed even before ACA was passed through Congress (as NOT tax),
expressed again when the Courts ruled it was valid AS A TAX (where the arguments remained that this law was not passed both through Congress and Courts as a tax, and does not represent the people being taxed).

You don't see that in one case "public pressure and vocal objection" was enough for lawmakers to HEAR the objections and AGREE to correct the conflicts in the bill.

And in the other case, the parties in charge REFUSE TO LISTEN to objections and REFUSE to correct problems with the bill.

Why can't you see that one group heard petitions DIRECTLY and didn't wait to sue in court to change it.
While the other REFUSED to HEAR AND REDRESS grievances and objections,
forcing it to go through more and more process before being forced to change anything?

You don't see the difference in how the objections are being TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
instead of ignored and insulting/discrediting the objectors in the case of religious objection to ACA mandates?

NYcarbineer and rightwinger
If you honestly don't see how the objections are based on political beliefs NOT treated and respected equally,
then the issue of political discrimination by creed is worse than I thought.

I don't see how the party system can continue if
party politics is abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights"

I will take this up with the progressive groups to see what can be done.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous if you can only see your side and you cannot see when others are excluded
from redressing grievances and objections on Constitutional grounds. Very disturbing if you are that biased.

No wonder the President cannot see this bias either. Many people think he is DELIBERATELY excluding and bullying the
political opposition as coercion and leverage. But the more I hear from people like you, I don't think you are even aware
you are doing that, if you don't even see the bias going on. If that is part of your political religion, to exclude opposition,
then Constitutionalists like me who believe in equal protection and inclusion, need to be protected from voters like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hi NYcarbineer
You don't see the common pattern?
If two sides both have political beliefs, and a law is passed that favors one side to the point the other can be discriminated against, then people OBJECT and demand that the law be CORRECTED so it doesn't discriminate against them.

In the case of ACA mandates, this penalizes and discriminates against people who don't believe in that either!!!
Why weren't THOSE objections respected and taken seriously?

These objections have not changed, but were expressed even before ACA was passed through Congress (as NOT tax),
expressed again when the Courts ruled it was valid AS A TAX (where the arguments remained that this law was not passed both through Congress and Courts as a tax, and does not represent the people being taxed).

You don't see that in one case "public pressure and vocal objection" was enough for lawmakers to HEAR the objections and AGREE to correct the conflicts in the bill.

And in the other case, the parties in charge REFUSE TO LISTEN to objections and REFUSE to correct problems with the bill.

Why can't you see that one group heard petitions DIRECTLY and didn't wait to sue in court to change it.
While the other REFUSED to HEAR AND REDRESS grievances and objections,
forcing it to go through more and more process before being forced to change anything?

You don't see the difference in how the objections are being TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
instead of ignored and insulting/discrediting the objectors in the case of religious objection to ACA mandates?

NYcarbineer and rightwinger
If you honestly don't see how the objections are based on political beliefs NOT treated and respected equally,
then the issue of political discrimination by creed is worse than I thought.

I don't see how the party system can continue if
party politics is abused to "conspire to violate equal civil rights"

I will take this up with the progressive groups to see what can be done.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous if you can only see your side and you cannot see when others are excluded
from redressing grievances and objections on Constitutional grounds. Very disturbing if you are that biased.

No wonder the President cannot see this bias either. Many people think he is DELIBERATELY excluding and bullying the
political opposition as coercion and leverage. But the more I hear from people like you, I don't think you are even aware
you are doing that, if you don't even see the bias going on. If that is part of your political religion, to exclude opposition,
then Constitutionalists like me who believe in equal protection and inclusion, need to be protected from voters like you.

If you want law by unanimous consent then you will have no law.

 

[rightwinger]

Because Obamacare was not vetoed

OK rightwinger
and WHY did Obama let that pass, which discriminated by creed and imposed overreaching mandates,
and THIS governor LISTENED to the objections and said "not good enough"

Why would you CELEBRATE Obama "not listening to half of Congress, and
half the nation" protesting the ACA as it was written? and SIGNING IT ANYWAY!

You are happy that was forced on people when it was clearly objected to as flawed,
but object to this state law being forced on people instead of fixing the flaws first? Why?
Why the double standard???

Obamacare was overwhelmingly passed by 60% of Congress and declared valid by the Supreme Court

It was historic legislation providing needed coverage to millions of Americans

Why would Obama even consider a veto?

If he respected Constitutional principles before partisan agenda and beliefs.

And the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights "equal protection of the law"
from "discrimination by Creed" and by the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
about not evading laws but exposing corruption wherever discovered, and not
putting party or conflicts of interest before Govt duty to uphold principles.

Just because it is the MEDIA AND PARTISAN CULTURE
to put political agenda above following Constitutional laws
does not make it right or make it Constitutional.

rightwinger what is the difference between the objections of the people
on THIS level -- expressing VERY clearly that this bill went too far and didn't protect people from discrimination --
and the objections of the people that Congress, the President and Supreme Court DIDN'T account for.

Are you REALLY basing your decisions of right and wrong on what is PASSED through govt?

Are you telling me that GOVT decides what beliefs are protected or not?

Shouldn't it be the PEOPLE who automatically have beliefs protected
and don't require GOVT to endorse them first? Isn't that "violating separation of church and state"
to depend on GOVT to establish your RELIGION or YOUR BELIEFS?

Can't you see this whole scenario is messed up.

It's ironic that when the Conservatives are petitioned to respect the BELIEFS of people,
they DO redress those grievances and seek to revise the laws to reflect CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

but OBAMA and the Democrats in Congress ****REFUSED**** to revise the ACA mandates
when these were protested.

Why the double standard? Why do the Conservatives listen to the objections and try to resolve the issue.
But the DEMOCRATS DON'T include the opposition?

And WHY are you CELEBRATING and JUSTIFYING that???

You expect Conservatives to put up with imposing on THEIR beliefs,
but when the shoe is on the other foot, you expect Conservatives to
ACCOMMODATE the opposing beliefs. When Democrats wouldn't do the same?

Why is being onesided justified to you?

So you are okay when Govt imposed YOUR bias in YOUR favor,
but not okay if the Govt imposes a law AGAINST your beliefs.

rightwinger are you telling me that you do not treat beliefs equally?
That only yours count, and Govt is only justified if Govt imposes YOUR beliefs.
And is wrong if Govt imposes AGAINST YOUR beliefs.

And these same standards DO NOT COUNT for people of other political beliefs, only yours?
Really?

Sorry Emily......Too damn long

Cut it down to three distinct sentences and I will respond