Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

[JakeStarkey]

No, Emily, you are not punished. You lost the crucial elections, the law was passed, was opined constitutional, and none of that is going to change despite your \"national religion" nonsense.

Want to change it? Win elections with a compliant president willing to work with a Congress that supports you.

Otherwise, you are really saying nothing more than, "wah, we lost, wah.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, Emily, you are not punished. You lost the crucial elections, the law was passed, was opined constitutional, and none of that is going to change despite your \"national religion" nonsense.

Want to change it? Win elections with a compliant president willing to work with a Congress that supports you.

Otherwise, you are really saying nothing more than, "wah, we lost, wah.

JakeStarkey if these solutions don't even make sense to fellow liberals
then it's not presente dproperly.

YOU may believe in bullying over people and forcing change through legislating it.

I believe in forming a consensus first, and then working TOGETHER to legislate.

I believe in CONSENSUS first then laws and contracts follow.
Otherwise I contradict my own beliefs that I am arguing to defend.

So that makes no sense, Jake, I cannot argue against bullying over people's beliefs
by writing up laws and bullying them over people's beliefs to pass them.

Jake, depending on a President and Congress to legislate your values for you
is just as wrongful and UNCONSTITUTIONAL as expecting to elect
a President and Congress who are
* Prolife so you can force Prolife beliefs by majority rule
* Christian or Muslim so you can legislate Christian or Muslim laws by majority rule

Partisan beliefs should not be the motivation for people especially office holders to vote;
All govt officials should put the Constitution before party and partisan beliefs.

I'm sorry you don't see it but you think that is the way the system is supposed to be used!

This is very strange. But I get it now.
Some people like you REALLY depend on having a President and Congress
to legislate your rights for you or they don't exist naturally. I get that.

But that is what i am saying is a POLITICAL BELIEF or RELIGION
and should not be the way govt is used to overrule other beliefs that the Constitution checks govt decisions.

Thanks but no thanks Jake.

I will find a way to explain this dilemma
besides how Rush Limbaugh calls it mental illness.

It is close to cult mentality, but in this case it isn't a choice of cult
it is a natural way you and other liberals BELIEVE so you do have the right to your BELIEF
but it needs to be either separated or balanced with other people who DON'T use govt this way.

It is against our Constitutional beliefs to abuse govt as you do,
which isn't against your beliefs but in keeping with them.

This is just plain strange, but I understand why opponents think this is cult mentality and mentally brainwashing.
They don't get that this IS YOUR BELIEFS.

I get that now, but these beliefs are incompatible
with those who are consistent about separating church and state
or private beliefs, even political beliefs from public govt.

Sorry but I need to form a consensus first,
and then the legislation and reforms will follow without opposition
if this is presented correctly.

Thanks, Jake!

 

[emilynghiem]

No, Emily, you are not punished. You lost the crucial elections, the law was passed, was opined constitutional, and none of that is going to change despite your \"national religion" nonsense.

Want to change it? Win elections with a compliant president willing to work with a Congress that supports you.

Otherwise, you are really saying nothing more than, "wah, we lost, wah.

P.S. I know you do not mean this but your reply above ^ was completely insulting.

This is like saying to a slave fighting against slavery that too bad for you.
Until the laws are changed by getting someone in office that believes slavery is unlawful,
then it is lawful and you are stuck. boo hoo for you.

Or telling a rape victim after losing in court that too bad for you.
Until you elect a judge that will believe you were raped, then by law it isn't proven.
So sorry.

Sorry Jake but people's beliefs shouldn't require proof to defend
(UNLESS that belief is being used to take away other people's rights and freedom).

Here the proponents of ACA mandates weren't required to prove their beliefs about this
to the public or to the proponents BEFORE adding restrictions mandates and penalties to limit their liberties.

You are not asked to prove YOUR beliefs, before passing a law,
but you are either demanding defenders to prove ours, or go through
legal and legislative rigamorole "to get rights back that are being taken by govt."

So now you've put the RAPE victim on trial.
We have to prove we are being punished or else it doesn't exist.
Just like the rape victim has to prove she was raped first before being taken seriously.

Really disgusting and insulting.

Reminds me of when people with REAL grievances about the Iraqi War were
dismissed as unamerican and just trying to politically remove Bush at the expense of national security etc.

It gets me that I was TRYING to help those people get their grievances heard,
and they were called names and attacked as anti-Bush etc.

And now when the Constitutionalists have real grievances against ACA,
they are called names and assumed to "be against access to health care" and to be "against Obama"
etc.

So both times I get "punished" by being harassed and mocked for defending my beliefs.
How is that not being "punished" because of my views, Jake?
If you cannot see this, then I guess you don't mean to punish anyone and you have no idea you are doing it.
But dismissing someone's beliefs as not valid and worthy of equal defense as your own
becomes COLLECTIVE DISCRIMINATION when a whole voting block or party does this to another class of voters.

It is a form of BIGOTRY and discrimination by creed to dismiss someone's equal beliefs
until they have Courts and Congress support to "prove their religious beliefs are valid"
Sorry but that is not inalienable if you have to go through govt to restore rights you believe are natural.

What's sad, Jake, is that "right to health care" IS DEFENSIBLE as a religious belief and creed,
had it been argued that way, but it cannot be legislated by govt at the expense of other beliefs.

but now, with people like you and Obama who believe that rights must be established by govt,
you are IMPOSING your belief on me by REQUIRING me to do that in order to establish my natural rights.

If you respected First Amendment religious freedom and Fourteenth Amendment nondiscrimination by creed,
this would never happen. but because this belief in forcing beliefs through govt was pushed by ACA
now you are saying I have to use the same system to push it the other way.

And consensus to form laws without bullying over people's creed is "no longer a choice"
because the law got passed. So doesn't that prove the law should not be passed if it then imposes this
way of forcing beliefs by law? had the law been formed and passed by consensus, then it could
be reformed by that way, by forming consensus first then legislating afterwards based on that.

But since ACA was used to "establish the belief that rights depend on Govt and Party and are not inherent
by practicing and respecting them directly" now you are saying I am FORCED to go through govt now,
when before I HAD the ability to establish and exercise beliefs freely and naturally WITHOUT having to go through Govt to defend them from infringement.

Truly sad.

No wonder Dante and Peach Left the Democrats if this is how they think. Very depressing like a Cult.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not insulting at all, neither intention and not normally received.

You are crying about how our system works, that somehow you are offended because our system works this way.

Get over it, and work within the system to change what you don't like.

Your perception that somehow the passage of ACA does create and "establish the belief that rights depend on Govt and Party and are not inherent by practicing and respecting them directly" is not so. Your right are guaranteed in the Constitutions. The ACA does not invalidate them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not insulting at all, neither intention and not normally received.

You are crying about how our system works, that somehow you are offended because our system works this way.

Get over it, and work within the system to change what you don't like.

No, the system is NOT working if half the nation keeps protesting partisanship and is not being heard due to partisanship.
Party majority should not decide policies over consent of ALL the people.

If you have this political belief that bully is okay, then you can practice that on those like you sharing this belief.
I don't. I believe in consensus that represents and protects ALL the people.

I guess that is why you hide behind Republicans who believe in bullying back.
And why I am a Democrat because I believe in equal inclusion, even when my own Party fails to practice that.

Your perception that somehow the passage of ACA does create and "establish the belief that rights depend on Govt and Party and are not inherent by practicing and respecting them directly" is not so. Your right are guaranteed in the Constitution. The ACA does not invalidate them.

^ You just did it again ^
You do not see rights as natural without Govt, but keep saying it DEPENDS on the Constitution and how govt interprets or passes laws under that to establish.

Do you see this is DIFFERENT from people who believe
that rights are INHERENT and INALIENABLE and don't depend on Govt.

We use laws to PREVENT Govt or other people from encroaching on our rights.

The ACA was used to establish Federal Govt systems of managing health care
but made the MISTAKE of MANDATING that people participate financially instead of keeping it voluntary.

If you don't see this is an infringement on people's beliefs in natural freedom and liberty or "freedom of choice"
then I cannot blame you if you are "just not able" to see this.

You do not intend to violate the rights of others,
but really BELIEVE your way is right.

Others may call this mental illness or denial
but I understand it is your political BELIEF that makes you say and see it this way.

Not your fault that you believe this,
but IS the fault or responsibility of govt officials who allowed legislation to pass BASED on this belief and BIAS.

You have the right to your beliefs, Jake, but not the right to impose them by law on others who
believe rights and freedom are natural from God and the role of Govt laws is to defend that from infringement by Govt.

I don't believe in imposing EITHER political belief on the other,
so I work by CONSENSUS. That way i can respect and include both as much as I can.

 

[JakeStarkey]

God's given rights in our secular world does depend on a secular Constitution because no one in America is going to let anyone else speak for God when it comes to lawful governing.

And "What kind of website would accuse people of guilty until proven innocent?" is a perfect example of your type speech that I reject. When you talk like that, you are rejecting consensus yourself and judging others.

 

[emilynghiem]

2. The irony, JakeStarkey is that I seem to be one of the few people left willing to work with Parture
and his website. So I am still following through with this process of resolving conflicts to reach consensus.
I prefer you wait until we work it out, whether to judge me as "rejecting and judging others."
If you read my messages to him, I think you can see my tone and approach is still INCLUSIVE.
And my messages and attempts to interact with him and his website were to UNDERSTAND
someone coming from an Arminian background that has been likened to a cult. If you want to start judging me as "rejecting and judging" him please look at all my msgs. Please find where I said he was "heading to hell"
as he declares for me. And I still offer to work with him as a fellow Christian who believes in a universal approach to salvation. Where is the judgment and rejection in that, Jake?

1.

God's given rights in our secular world does depend on a secular Constitution because no one in America is going to let anyone else speak for God when it comes to lawful governing.

2. And "What kind of website would accuse people of guilty until proven innocent?" is a perfect example of your type speech that I reject. When you talk like that, you are rejecting consensus yourself and judging others.

Dear JakeStarkey
Look what you said in #1. You said that the Constitution is to make sure you don't let "anyone else speak for God when it comes to lawful governing" but when this bill passed and people like Obama declare that "health care is a right" and ACA are the "law of the land" that is trying to ENFORCE and ESTABLISH that as a God given right.

It IS doing the equivalent of using the govt authority to establish BELIEFS.

So it is NOT putting freedom and rights of God first and then using the Constitution to protect that from "infringement by religious opinions trying to speak for God

it is putting ASIDE the God given rights and freedoms of HALF the nation dissenting and opposing this bill,
then using/abusing Constitutional process to ESTABLISH this legislation to declare CERTAIN beliefs to be law
and to DENY the equal beliefs of people that
1. government does NOT have the right to impose such a tax without representation of the people affected
2. the people and states reserve those rights and did NOT give consent to authorize federal govt to pass or enforce such mandates or tax penalties
3. the BELIEF that the two conflicting beliefs should be respected equally but not establishing one over the other

So for #3 if the two beliefs cannot agree, that's why I am asking to be fair and separate by party,
organize complementary solutions and systems, and allow people to choose which system to participate in and fund.

THAT WOULD BE more in keeping with "inherent free will by human nature given by God"

So JakeStarkey compared with your solutions, you ARE using/abusing the Constitution to "speak for God"
by saying this freedom is alienable after all, and can be overridden by using govt process to discriminate by creed, as long as legislation gets "majority rule" and gets approved by Courts.

If you are using THAT criteria by itself, and not consent of the people on how to INTERPRET and APPLY govt, then this is back to the days of Reformation where only the authority in charge could interpret laws and
"THEY SPOKE ON BEHALF OF GOD"

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW why do you claim that no one is punished?
If we all exercised the same freedom as before, and sought to pay for health care in other ways, and only bought insurance as we saw fit, by free choice,
we would now face an ADDITIONAL tax penalty of 1% of our salaries we didn't have before.

JakeStarkey before this ACA passed, I could focus fulltime on trying to save national history in Freedmen's Town. I could stretch my salary to cover debts I bailed out on my credit, after govt was abused to evict and destroy community nonprofit groups and restoration plans. So I was ALREADY using my salary to protect the equal interests and beliefs that the law SHOULD HAVE protected under Constitutional laws not being enforced.

Now, not only am I constantly worried about having enough money to push the project to save national history, but if I lose my insurance, then I will GET FINED ADDED money I already needed to pay for this project.
And the people I once depended on for support all have to worry about paying THEIR costs going up, which means I have to cover EVEN MORE with my two jobs.

I haven't been able to work on this like before, I missed project deadlines, and may lose IRREPLACEABLE history.

And even people who weren't helping yet became TIED UP having to fight against this ADDITIONAL battle.

So NOT ONLY DOES IT IMPOSE ADDED COSTS "deducted from our salaries or labor" it just created more work in terms of political and educational lobbying that could have been focused on SOLUTIONS.

So that is causing a burden on SEVERAL LEVELS because this bill was passed, not as a voluntary public option, but as a MANDATE with TAX PENALTY that crossed the line and went too far.

So are you saying that because I haven't had to PAY it yet, that I am not punished? Like saying until someone is actually executed, then just sentencing them to death is not punishment yet?

No, Emily, you are not punished. You lost the crucial elections, the law was passed, was opined constitutional, and none of that is going to change despite your \"national religion" nonsense.

Want to change it? Win elections with a compliant president willing to work with a Congress that supports you.

Otherwise, you are really saying nothing more than, "wah, we lost, wah.

Would this analogy help?

What if Prolife people passed a law banning abortion, and said this isn't changing anything
because abortion was never a choice anyway. It was always murder which this bill is enforcing.
So no rights are being taken away.

And what if you or others protested saying that you believe in defending life, but not in using GOVT
to establish a mandate that penalizes people on the basis of beliefs not shared.

And someone says to you: this doesn't affect you. You are not being punished.

How would YOU defend your beliefs in prochoice, and in not abusing Govt to mandate prolife?

Would you just accept the legislation as law until the right people get voted into office and can change it?

Wouldn't YOU try to teach as many people as possible that pushing prolife beliefs is okay in private
and to set up your own prolife programs, but to mandate through govt under tax penalty is violating
free choice and discriminating on the basis of creed?

 

[hauke]

is it acceptable for a governement to force on you something you do not want ?

what a idiot question

a democratic elected governement

will do onto its population things

that less then 50% of people don t want, they elected the losing opposition

but more then 50% of people want it

in any governement the governement will do things some peple don t want

in any democracy its acceptebal for the governement to do it because the majority of people want it


and if you don t want it done to you :

leave and go somewhere else

i think the columbian people army should pac and go to cuba or venuzuela

i think they should go to cuba stop fighting and build a better communist nation

or go to venuzuela and build

it would be good for the simple people in columbia

1. 
   Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

 

[dblack]

is it acceptable for a governement to force on you something you do not want ?

what a idiot question

a democratic elected governement

will do onto its population things

that less then 50% of people don t want, they elected the losing opposition

but more then 50% of people want it

in any governement the governement will do things some peple don t want

in any democracy its acceptebal for the governement to do it because the majority of people want it


and if you don t want it done to you :

leave and go somewhere else

i think the columbian people army should pac and go to cuba or venuzuela

i think they should go to cuba stop fighting and build a better communist nation

or go to venuzuela and build

it would be good for the simple people in columbia

Your ignorance of the fundamental values of our nation is telling. The whole point of the Constitution, the reason we have rules restricting government regardless of the will of the majority, is to protect individuals and minorities from oppression.

 

[hauke]

if i understand your constitution correctly

if you want slavery

and the majority doesent

then your not allowed to have slaves

 

[hauke]

acctualy those parts of the american constitution that forbid slavery don t matter

i used a bad example

 

[airplanemechanic]

I see you're another retard that thinks the purpose of health insurance and auto insurance is the same thing.

Libtard morons don't understand that car insurance was mandated to protect the other guy, health insurance was mandated only to protect you. It's up to ME what I should get to protect ME.

And I don't have to pay car insurance if I don't have a car. Please tell me my options on not having to pay health insurance without a fine.

And you do not have to have auto insurance, you can self insure. A lot of people don't realize that.

 

[HenryBHough]

You can own and drive as many vehicles without insurance so long as you don't do it on public roads. In fact, though, in some states if the vehicle qualifies as a FARM vehicle you don't need insurance or registration provided you are moving it from it's parking place to a working field or from field to field.

Self-insurance provisions are not available in all states. I've lost track of which ones allow it these days.

 

[hauke]

yeah true

exept most people don t own enough land to drive something

its for the rich

they can have targets for rpg 7

 

[hauke]

a billionaer

can buy land

and a tank

which blows up beautifully when hit

by a small inexpensive

antitankweapon

 

[hauke]

and the billionaers land will be a 1st class target

have fun

 

[hauke]

if you want to survive, don t be rich

 

[hauke]

rich is a target

 

[hauke]

if you kill a lot you got yourselfs targeted, obviousely your worth a fight