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

[emilynghiem]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, we live in a constitutional republic with generally democratic procedures. We decide matters that way in this country. ACA has been passed and signed and opined as the constitutional law of the land. This is how we do things in this country.

Yeah, you are done whether you agree or not.

 

[westwall]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, we live in a constitutional republic with generally democratic procedures. We decide matters that way in this country. ACA has been passed and signed and opined as the constitutional law of the land. This is how we do things in this country.

Yeah, you are done whether you agree or not.

Again you don't seem to see the difference with fundamental beliefs.
Sorry but slavery was not a done deal just because it was endorsed by courts.

Here JakeStarkey
I did some looking up political beliefs and found this:
Political Beliefs and the Equality Act 2010 - Harper Macleod News Blogs

I am not the only one questioning how to discern whether political beliefs
are merely opinions, or they constitute a self-standing belief and where to draw the line.

In fact, we may be BEHIND the UK if they already started having this discussion seriously.

Political Beliefs and the Equality Act 2010
inShare
As employers will be aware, the Equality Act 2010 ("the Act") prohibits direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment in the workplace in respect of religion, religious belief and philosophical belief (or lack of such beliefs).

However, the scope of "philosophical belief" has been the subject of numerous cases, and what has been relatively unclear is whether a political belief amounts to a philosophical belief for the purpose of bringing a discrimination claim under the Act. Indeed, prior to the Act coming into force, a government spokesperson stated that the Act was not intended to cover political beliefs.

When considering the scope of the Act, it had previously been held by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that a philosophical belief was one which:

• is genuinely held
• is a belief not an opinion or viewpoint
• is in relation to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attains a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
• is worthy of respect in a democratic society but need not "allude to a fully fledged system of thought"

The EAT further stated that while mere support of a political party would not qualify as a philosophical belief, a belief in a political philosophy or doctrine might amount to one.

A recent Employment Tribunal judgment has given some further guidance as to what amounts to a philosophical belief in the context of political views. In Olivier v Department of Work and Pensions, an employee who had strong ties to the Labour Party and a belief in "democratic socialism" was entitled to bring a discrimination claim on the basis that this amounted to a philosophical belief.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your ignorance should be your greater concern, as the ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to have insurance.

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

 

[HenryBHough]

It's clear that Jammie Jake agrees with, indeed loves, Obamacare.

Would he have posed for the illustrations of how to "sell it to your family" if he didn't?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's clear that Jammie Jake agrees with, indeed loves, Obamacare.

Would he have posed for the illustrations of how to "sell it to your family" if he didn't?

View attachment 36091

My question HenryBHough
If JakeStarkey and others really believe in it, why aren't they willing to fund it by fellow supporters?

When Catholics believe in their programs they all chip in and encourage participating members to fund it.
The program is proportional, the more people served and chipping in, the more that it can cover.

When Muslims believe in their programs, they fund them themselves. They don't force or expect
Hindus to pay for their programs in order for them to exist.

it seems quite odd to me that for people who have so much faith their program
works, why can't it work first among the party members supporting it and then grow from there voluntarily?

And the biggest question to me is why does the program depend on NONSUPPORTERS to pay for it.

That should be a big fat clue something is wrong with this picture!

If in order to cover the costs of providing Big Mac's to people through McDonald's I have to charge all the people who choose Burger King or Jack in the Box instead, and tax them for going through another restaurant,
while exempting McDonald's customers from an extra tax, in order to pay for the food service through McDonald's?

And the justification is everyone will buy hamburgers anyway?

Who said we all had to go through McDonald's?
Just because they have more locations in more cities and states so that is "most convenient."

But what is wrong with INCLUDING the Burger Kings and Jack in the Boxes if people choose to pay
more for those places AS A CHOICE? Why are these other choices penalized unnecessarily?

Oh, but the law was already passed through Congress and Courts
so it's a done deal.

If this doesn't get fixed any other way, I may have to write my own
legal revision or own judicial correction and teach people what the law SHOULD Have said
to keep this optional and open to free choice of funding the programs by one's equal choice and beliefs.

 

[westwall]

It doesn't? If you don't have insurance you get fined. What's that called again? Oh yeah... FORCE!

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

You can call him to the carpet all you like but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. So what can you really accomplish?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi westwall I think
C_Clayton_Jones brought this up before, and I'm surprised we haven't resolved it.

I offered to set up a bet that if ACA doesn't compel or force people to buy insurance,
then would CCJones agree to pay all the imaginary costs and fines under ACA
for people who would rather choose other ways of paying for health care.

So if they only agree to pay for their previous plan,
and ACA forces otherwise, CCJones would pay the difference necessary to keep the same plan
at the same price the person paid before.

If they don't agree to pay for health insurance but prefer to pay their own costs other ways,
then CCJones would pay for the 1% tax per year (and the other person still pays their way,
so if this bill really works, then if the person AGREES the 1% is better, they pay that and CCJones doesn't have to)

So this would ensure the same freedom as before
if CCJones agrees to pay the difference if ACA isn't cheaper and thus isn't forcing them to compromise

And I agree to set up a fund to help.
If the Democrats really believe this plan is better
why not accept responsibility for paying the difference if it is wrong?

If people want to prove spiritual healing is better than marijuana
then fund that research instead.

So take responsibility for the plans you want to prove are better
and there is no problem offering that as a choice, where people are covered if there is a price difference

What do you think?

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

You can call him to the carpet all you like but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. So what can you really accomplish?

Hmm well let's see if C_Clayton_Jones will answer
or will make that same statement again.
Most people will at least have the integrity to shut up
once they are called on it and don't answer.

If we get past that point, we can go on to the next.
And dig up all the reasons this thing was justified for passing without being contested by more people.

If we are going to unravel this, and weave the country back together,
I need to know what is in the fibre and what materials we are working with.

What ARE the beliefs people really stand for and are willing to back?
And what is the fluff in the way that isn't the real reason?

 

[westwall]

It's a cute, but ultimately useless idea.

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

You can call him to the carpet all you like but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. So what can you really accomplish?

Hmm well let's see if C_Clayton_Jones will answer
or will make that same statement again.
Most people will at least have the integrity to shut up
once they are called on it and don't answer.

If we get past that point, we can go on to the next.
And dig up all the reasons this thing was justified for passing without being contested by more people.

If we are going to unravel this, and weave the country back together,
I need to know what is in the fibre and what materials we are working with.

What ARE the beliefs people really stand for and are willing to back?
And what is the fluff in the way that isn't the real reason?

There is nothing that you or I can do to shame him. Or anyone for that matter. All we can do is point out the ridiculous nature of their arguments and then laugh at them when they post more of the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily does not get that the fabric, the weaving, of America is a continuing action not a done deal. She wants to go back to somewhere in her mind. America has been changing its carpet forever, and they foolishly believe they can change it.

Emily and HBH and others simply say they will not be bound by American law and procedure. Yes, they will. The only way the can change it is by the normal way, and I don't think they will ever be able to do it. We see the far right and social cons trying to tear down the fabric of American culture and how we do things.

Tough to be them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why? If C_Clayton_Jones is so convinced there are no fines or no rights lost,
why not support such a bet? If there is nothing to lose?

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

You can call him to the carpet all you like but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. So what can you really accomplish?

Hmm well let's see if C_Clayton_Jones will answer
or will make that same statement again.
Most people will at least have the integrity to shut up
once they are called on it and don't answer.

If we get past that point, we can go on to the next.
And dig up all the reasons this thing was justified for passing without being contested by more people.

If we are going to unravel this, and weave the country back together,
I need to know what is in the fibre and what materials we are working with.

What ARE the beliefs people really stand for and are willing to back?
And what is the fluff in the way that isn't the real reason?

There is nothing that you or I can do to shame him. Or anyone for that matter. All we can do is point out the ridiculous nature of their arguments and then laugh at them when they post more of the same.

Oh yeah! You and Emily will have the last laugh!

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily and HBH and others simply say they will not be bound by American law and procedure. Yes, they will. The only way the can change it is by the normal way, and I don't think they will ever be able to do it. We see the far right and social cons trying to tear down the fabric of American culture and how we do things.

Tough to be them.

You miss the point. They are seeking to enforce the "bounds and procedures" that forbid govt from being abused to establish one belief over another, or discriminate by creed. We are seeking to enforce laws consistently.

and the corrections CAN be made so nobody gets their rights abridged
By separating by party (similar to separating hindus and muslims by religion)
everyone remains Equally FREE to fund their OWN belief systems about health care, including abortion.
WE can even expand this system to separate beliefs about the death penalty, so that problem is finally solved also!

JakeStarkey what I am willing to do to be fair
is to ask the leaders and members of both major parties to PROVE
they TRULY believe in their own ways of funding health care, that
they AGREE to set up and fund their own sysetms for their own members.

You seem to believe that they don't really object.
And I can't seem to find any pro-ACA willing to pay for their own system
but keep relying on NONSUPPORTERS to pay for it. Just like if Hindus
depend on Muslims or Muslims depend on Christians, but won't fund their own programs by themselves.

So I will take the links to the references that Dante also posted:
Unpopular Mandate - The New Yorker

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

And ask Republicans that if you REALLY believe the mandates are unconstitutional
then help me write a waiver clause that allows the option of setting up alternatives by Party.
And likewise with Democrats if you REALLY believe your system under ACA will work,
then start with a select population of supporters and build the sysetm using participants
who agree to be under those mandates. And yes, since THIS group believes that the
govt can make it mandatory, then this group taht is for ACA can make it mandatory for
anyone they are going to pay for through those health care networks, and separate these.

Pay for your own beliefs if you believe them so much
and if really oppose the other system so much you don't want to be under it.

Prove it, so it isn't one group or the other preaching things
they can't prove they really support or not.

 

[westwall]

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

You can call him to the carpet all you like but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. So what can you really accomplish?

Hmm well let's see if C_Clayton_Jones will answer
or will make that same statement again.
Most people will at least have the integrity to shut up
once they are called on it and don't answer.

If we get past that point, we can go on to the next.
And dig up all the reasons this thing was justified for passing without being contested by more people.

If we are going to unravel this, and weave the country back together,
I need to know what is in the fibre and what materials we are working with.

What ARE the beliefs people really stand for and are willing to back?
And what is the fluff in the way that isn't the real reason?

There is nothing that you or I can do to shame him. Or anyone for that matter. All we can do is point out the ridiculous nature of their arguments and then laugh at them when they post more of the same.

Oh yeah! You and Emily will have the last laugh!

I do. Every day you silly people make me laugh with your ridiculous assertions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because to support a bet you have to have money. Do you see a problem here yet?

Yes, so (1) if C_Clayton_Jones is so CONVINCED of being right, what difference does it make to bet $10 or $10 million?
it should not matter and this person should not be afraid to make a bet if there is so much certainty there are no fines
(2) I even OFFER to help set up a public website and fundraising site
so ANYONE who wants to back this who BELIEVES it is not punitive but money saving can chip in!

Either they really are truly convinced and are willing to back it.
Or they really aren't convinced and don't dare back it.

But either way, it will call them to the carpet.

You can call him to the carpet all you like but this is an ANONYMOUS Board. So what can you really accomplish?

Hmm well let's see if C_Clayton_Jones will answer
or will make that same statement again.
Most people will at least have the integrity to shut up
once they are called on it and don't answer.

If we get past that point, we can go on to the next.
And dig up all the reasons this thing was justified for passing without being contested by more people.

If we are going to unravel this, and weave the country back together,
I need to know what is in the fibre and what materials we are working with.

What ARE the beliefs people really stand for and are willing to back?
And what is the fluff in the way that isn't the real reason?

There is nothing that you or I can do to shame him. Or anyone for that matter. All we can do is point out the ridiculous nature of their arguments and then laugh at them when they post more of the same.

Oh yeah! You and Emily will have the last laugh!

Dear LoneLaugher

This could prove truly tragic!

If Jake is right and no Republicans are really willing to build independent health care systems
(such as run by vets instead of depending on govt or using spiritual healing instead of marijuana)
then I could be left by myself as the only person willing to fund what I stand for.

Just like how Gladys House and I are the only people
working two jobs to save a historic site while the MEN
leaders and officials argue back and forth whose party is more corrupt.

This could be another sad chapter in FU-ness!

Where everybody expects other people to fix the problems
and wants to project blame but not invest in the solutions.

You make me realize how much more respect I have
for my Prolife friends left holding the bag and trying
to pay the costs of supporting prolife programs while
all the money going to politicians doesn't pay for anything....

I knew this happened with Democrats sucking the resources
out of constituents to push political campaigns for office,
but this is what people have warned me about when
Republicans do the same, pimping the prolife vote
and now the free market health care vote without really fixing it.

If that's so, then we are going to see change in this country.
If I have to out both parties at the same time for not
funding their own programs, but only their own campaigns!

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily does not get that the fabric, the weaving, of America is a continuing action not a done deal. She wants to go back to somewhere in her mind. America has been changing its carpet forever, and they foolishly believe they can change it.

Emily and HBH and others simply say they will not be bound by American law and procedure. Yes, they will. The only way the can change it is by the normal way, and I don't think they will ever be able to do it. We see the far right and social cons trying to tear down the fabric of American culture and how we do things.

Tough to be them.

What? you were the one saying it was a "done deal"!!!

I believe that the democratic process works toward CONSENSUS
so until there is AGREEMENT then the process continues.

Until we AGREE there is EQUAL JUSTICE and Equal Inclusion/representation,
then whoever is left out is going to protest to be included equally.
It's easy to tell if you are done or not done if the people are in agreement,
or if they're still saying wait, there's this problem or conflict that was left out.
It's not that hard to tell when you have consensus or not if you know what you are looking for.

So JakeStarkey unlike you
when I hear people object, I try to listen to what is the reason
so that conflict can be addressed. That's called inclusion in the democratic process.

This "bullying" habit of discrediting the dissenters
is what the rape culture uses to diminish the violation and
justify that the person objecting "really asked for it anyway."

And note: when I find I have a BIAS on issues such as marriage
or voting rights or marijuana, I TAKE NOTE and understand that
I NEED TO PARTNER with someone who DOESN'T have my bias
if I am going to include people equally I might otherwise exclude.

Mediation is hard enough. When you have people who don't even
know what consent or consensus looks like, it's even harder.
And if you don't even think it is possible, then of course it's not even a choice!
That causes censorship. Sorry but I believe in Constitutional inclusion.

So solutions must include and respect beliefs equally or they're not "done" yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agreement was reached. Consensus means 50% plus one and a ratification of the courts if challenged. Not everyone in America, particularly Emily. Guess what? Marriage equality and ACA are part of the fabric of America.

 

[emilynghiem]

Agreement was reached. Consensus means 50% plus one and a ratification of the courts if challenged. Not everyone in America, particularly Emily. Guess what? Marriage equality and ACA are part of the fabric of America.

Yikes! Sorry JakeStarkey
if people AGREE to 50% plus 1 then that is consensus
But people have vocally and legally acted to show they don't agree
so that is NOT consensus.

You remind me of people who assumes if a woman agrees to marry a man
then she already agrees to have sex with him.
But in a particular instance, if he forces himself on her sexually
in ways she does NOT consent to that is still forcible rape.

Same for marriage laws, since these involve religious beliefs,
if people AGREE to majority rule then they can agree that's good enough
to call it a consensus.

But obviously they didn't consent
if people sued through courts to overturn laws.

but hey, Jake, you may be right.
If the people who oppose gay marriage are "hollering about nothing"
they will eventually give in and give up and accept 50% plus 1.

I prefer to err on the side of NOT supporting coercion and rape.
so if someone objects, I am going to try to include and answer that objection.

You can follow your standards and wonder why people bully over you.
If you are saying that's okay, you are inviting coercion but I don't agree with that tactic.

 

[emilynghiem]

Agreement was reached. Consensus means 50% plus one and a ratification of the courts if challenged. Not everyone in America, particularly Emily. Guess what? Marriage equality and ACA are part of the fabric of America.

^ You have a very strange sense of consensus ^
What part of an entire party objecting,
and half the nation protesting the ACA mandates do you
count as "consensus" and agreeing to this?

JakeStarkey remember I am still looking for a SINGLE
supporter of ACA willing to pay to fund this themselves.
haven't found one.

All the people I've found supporting it depend on other people to pay for it,
but don't believe in funding or backing the costs themselves.

You think you haven't found enough people willing to fund alternatives,
I haven't found ANY, not ONE PERSON, willing to pay for this ACA.

So how is that consensus if nobody wants to pay for it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, this is how our country runs, and I don't care whether you approve.

How you change it now is by a majority vote or a court ruling, neither of which are foreseeably in the future.