Have Liberals lost their "ever loving" minds?

[Iceweasel]

That's the explanation I got when I asked
why do prochoice advocates CAMPAIGN AGAINST the slightest regulation by government
on the choice of abortion,

Same reason the NRA killed universal background checks even though 80% of Americans favor it.

The "Slippery Slope" argument.

We have background checks for every firearm purchase. Even cops have to wait the the fed's approval.

 

[Iceweasel]

Imho - There is no such thing as I right that has not been fought for and won.

You need to bone up on the Constitution and the founding of this country. Rights are natural, government can only intrude and the Constitution limits that ability.

 

[jillian]

The people are so divided that they aren't even on speaking terms. There is no point on which the right and left will agree.

This can only end one way. The nation will divide. Will it be peaceful and reasoned or violent?

the country is going to divide because you can't impose your religious beliefs on others?

er,,, ok... feel free to go live in afghanistan

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That's the explanation I got when I asked
why do prochoice advocates CAMPAIGN AGAINST the slightest regulation by government
on the choice of abortion, and demand to keep government OUT of private health decisions,
but the same prochoice activists believe in Singlepayer health care through government,
and denounce when OPPONENTS to ACA want "freedom of choice" in health care without imposing government fines and regulations?

He said it's because liberal Democrats have "lost their ever loving minds."

"They demand that federal government stay out of women's wombs,
but want to hand over "every cell of their body" to government programs."

I asked some prochoice friends.

Some admit they oppose ACA, but of those people, nobody but me is willing to push for reforms, and some are afraid of aligning with conservative opponents on a common goal of restoring free choice; they seem to have a bias against working with conservatives, but are content to let "those people" fight against this issue for them, and aren't helping by going along instead of opposing it.

Most of my friends do not perceive any responsibility or connection between "using public funds or public authority" and answering to the beliefs of other people who are equally represented. Any other views are treated as invalid, so these don't count in public policy.
Only theirs counts as public policy and should govern all the regulations and decisions?

There seems to be an assumption that whatever policies or plans they believe in using government for, that is the "right way anyway" and all other people are either wrong, or should change their minds or follow along with this government system as they set it up.

They don't seem to have any concept of OTHER people with OTHER views having an equal say in policy where it involves the federal government.

That is the most I could figure out.

I believe it is because people have different "political beliefs"
and cannot understand or even perceive of each other's views as valid.

The same way atheist and Christians both think the other is wrong and need to be
overruled, this is happening with political beliefs in right to choose and right to health care.

I think it is due to people's sincere beliefs in being right and having no concept
that the other views are valid much less correct and equally included under law.

But others assume the "right to health care" advocates are intellectually dishonest;
they are wrong and trying to impose their way and they KNOW they are contradictory
but choose to overlook it.

From talking with people I DON'T think they are aware they are imposing or excluding
anyone. They truly believe their way is helping all people and objections are invalid.

What do you think?
Is it a conscious political choice to keep using media and political campaigns to
overrule the opposition?
Is it a lack of understanding that the opposition to ACA is based on valid points
and beliefs that are equally protected as their own beliefs?
Or is it "insanity" where people really do not have any sense, and are either emotionally, mentally, or legally incompetent to reason through these conflicts and resolve them?

Is it intentional or not?
And if not, is it just a difference in beliefs or is there a real mental imbalance going on?

I've brought this very question up myself.
They scream stay out of our vaginas!! But they dont seem to have a problem turning over control of the vagina life support system to the gov.

 

[emilynghiem]

Imho - There is no such thing as I right that has not been fought for and won.

I think the right to make mistakes
has always come naturally to people.

People fight hard against making mistakes,
but they keep happening regardless.

 

[HenryBHough]

"Have Liberals lost their "ever loving" minds?"

Read the lyrics of "Life Is Just a Bowl of Cherries".

Read for friggin' comprehension then re-read the header for this entire thread. You know...the line that begins "So how can you lose...."

 

[emilynghiem]

The people are so divided that they aren't even on speaking terms. There is no point on which the right and left will agree.

This can only end one way. The nation will divide. Will it be peaceful and reasoned or violent?

the country is going to divide because you can't impose your religious beliefs on others?

er,,, ok... feel free to go live in afghanistan

No, but more people will learn how to invest their labor and resources
DIRECTLY into building their own solutions and community developments,
deduct the expenses or donations from taxes,
and start shifting control over management locally to programs that represent them.

People are already free to fund their own businesses, churches, charities, schools,
political or religious nonprofits. When more people organize and do this
"en masse" the shift will be toward local governance and independence
in order to meet the standards of "equal rights and protections under law".

 

[natstew]

Liberals don't have a mind to lose.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi CC Jones

Singlepayer health care through government

We currently have a single payer system, it’s called Medicare.

And all that’s being proposed is the existing single payer system be expanded, a position that in no way ‘conflicts’ with advocacy of privacy rights.

???

A. WHERE in Medicaid
are people required to BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE
or pay a fine of 1% their income?

B. The new legislation ADDED requirements that employer insurance
provide abortifacient drugs that previously were NOT required.

To you, this may be the same.

To business owners who can tolerate SOME forms of birth control or prescriptions,
but not others, this is NOT THE SAME.

C. Also, many of the same objectors ALSO object to the federal govt
using Medicaid and Medicare funding to hold over States. They would
prefer to shift ALL of this back to the States where people can vote per State,
and not play politics and coercion games in Congress over the funding.

So back to the issue
there IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE if the policy/funding is decided on
the FEDERAL LEVEL where reps and populations from ALL 50 STATES are competing to
pass, block, or change parts of legislation and regulation through one govt body

VERSUS
State level where only the populations and reps of that State
need to agree on policy that represents their interests and demographics

Why can't people get this?
=========================================
If I had to set up plans and budgets for building a house, which is more efficient:

A. going through a state commission with Reps from all cities or counties over the ENTIRE STATE, where Reps write or approve plans for all counties, cities and people per STATE
* without direct vote or input in how the plans are written or revised before passing it *

B. going through a city commission with reps from all districts over the same CITY,
and having reps write or approve plans representing all the people in the CITY
* who can even VOTE on the actual wording and content of the plans *

C. going through a district ordinance with reps from all households in the same DISTRICT,
and having reps write or approve plans representing all people in the NEIGHBORHOOD
* who have DIRECT input in writing and revising the content and wording of the plans *

ESPECIALLY if people and states DO NOT AGREE with each other, why would you insist on going through the federal level where only HALF the people are represented in the decision and HALF are left out; instead of allocating the responsibility LOCALLY to the states/people.

Why would you insist on using a higher level of law that is not necessary and which limits representation to HALF the population who agrees with the bill, instead of delegating to the states to represent their own populations? Why would you do that if the laws require EQUAL representation and protection of all people, without discrimination by creed?

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberals don't have a mind to lose.

As a progressive prochoice Democrat, I thought I understood that prochoice meant to keep personal decisions private, and free from penalty by government imposition and legal complications of criminalizing abortion;

But this has really blown my mind.

So if the other Democrats aren't crazy, but can actually justify being anti-choice and imposing penalties on something as harmless as free choice of health care; while demanding prochoice defense against ANY govt regulation (much less any penalty) on a choice as risky as abortion,

then I must be the one who is "crazy" if I can't figure this out.

I am seriously worried this will make me more nuts and depressed
if I can't find a rational way to resolve this.

I do not believe in participating in any party or govt process that would
make this legal and enforce such a bias in policy while denouncing it elsewhere.

Cannot resolve my "cognitive dissonance" on this, but I am still trying.

I believe if I really understood the conflict, I would be able to explain and correct it.

If I can't resolve it, that means I don't understand the conflict well enough to correct it.
So that bothers me, and I really want to understand it where it can be remedied.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Have Liberals lost their "ever loving" minds?"

Read the lyrics of "Life Is Just a Bowl of Cherries".

Read for friggin' comprehension then re-read the header for this entire thread. You know...the line that begins "So how can you lose...."

if people have never owned property or a business,
how can they understand the unequal demands on and leverage involved?

if people depend on govt or party to represent or defend their interests
how can they understand people who don't? how can they understand the
true extent of freedom and liberating potential for political and financial independence
if they keep relying on "other people in govt" or "other people running businesses"

if people think they can just let govt fix everything,
and don't do all the work themselves to set up sustainable systems,

then when the govt can't meet all the needs, or costs taxpayers loss, damage or waste,
why do these SAME people then turn to those
who manage resources independently (and oppose reliance on govt)
and ask for THEIR help because "they have more of their own resources."

Gee, wonder why?

 

[francoHFW]

No more ducking responsibility- everyone must have a doctor and preventive care at affordable cost. Cry me a river...It's good for everyone and great for the economy, getting our ridiculous health costs under control- more to come of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Have Liberals lost their "ever loving" minds?

Of course they have, and so have the conservatives.

American strength comes from the American middle.

 

[HenryBHough]

No more ducking responsibility- everyone must have a doctor and preventive care at affordable cost. Cry me a river...It's good for everyone and great for the economy, getting our ridiculous health costs under control- more to come of course.

Wow!

The first volunteer for proctology practice by newly conscripted government medical teams! Let us know if they find a brain.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeebus what an ignorant Pubtroll- the only kind...

 

[emilynghiem]

No more ducking responsibility- everyone must have a doctor and preventive care at affordable cost. Cry me a river...It's good for everyone and great for the economy, getting our ridiculous health costs under control- more to come of course.

[MENTION=32338]francoHFW[/MENTION]
Why this assumption it must come at the cost of freedom?
Why not develop health care systems through a MIX of charity, medical schools, and businesses working together?

The SCHOOLS would be a better way to organize health care, because private schools are free to work with any of these other groups.

But if GOVT is in charge, there is a limit to working with faith-based organizations and sources.

Spiritual healing is totally left out of the picture, and that is the key to medical research to cure mental, physical and criminal illness backlogging our prisons, mental health systems and hospitals.

Going through Govt is one venue for those who believe in it.

But by religious freedom, free choice given by God as human nature,
we need all other choices. Govt cannot dictate, regulate much less PUNISH people for exercising free choice, but that's what ACA mandates do: penalize free choices.