Luddly: Fighting for Equal Rights vs. whatever you call what you are doing

[emilynghiem]

Dear Luddly and friends:
Feel free to change the subject or topic to something
tangible we can confront.

I am basically having difficulty reconciling the concept of
prochoice with "whatever people are using to support ACA"
and Luddly's avatar claiming to be Fighting for Equal Rights
while excluding Constitutional views of half the nation who should
be represented equally by govt.

At this point my working theories are
A. this bias is a backlash against past oppression by Republican
rightwing or conservative bullies, and thus is a temporary reaction
I still do not believe that is equal, but two wrongful impositions
which may be going in opposite directions, but both were
individually exclusive and thus together they are doubly so, not cancelled out.
So it created twice the waste on political problems and bickering.
One did not cancel the other, two wrongs don't make either right.

B. this need to use govt to represent whatever views these
people have who use govt this way is the equivalent of
a religious belief and cannot be helped. anymore than you
can prevent a Christian from expressing faith using those ways,
if that is the basis of that person's faith. If so, I also see
Constitutionalists as having religious convictions and principles
that should not be excluded by govt by these same grounds.
So majority rule is not necessarily justification for overriding these.

C. people could actually expand their thinking or resolve conflicts
to see how they should include each other equally in order to
fulfill Constitutional duties to equal representation and protection of the laws.
If not, if other people do not believe in this and cannot change their beliefs,
then MY beliefs in it constitute some kind of political religion which I cannot help either.

So I want to know which way it is, one or more or none of the above
which explains how can Luddly or other liberal supporters of ACA
claim to be prochoice or fighting for equal rights and inclusion yet totally discount opposing views as not valid in making decisions without considering these.

Can someone please help me shape this in some kind of
debate or topic or points.

If I knew how to word this, I would have resolved this by now!
Thanks if you can please help.

How do we explain the difference between my views of equality
and inclusion and Luddly's where we both agree that's what we're doing and why.
And don't sit there calling the other wrong or disregarding, but really
validating the views and why these are coming out different. Please help!

D. PS. I also believe these differences can be resolved Constitutionally
by dividing programs by party if they are not agreed upon nationwide.
So regardless if we call them political or religious differences, why
can't we agree to separate by party the same way religions do?
Again I keep running into people who can't believe or envision this.
Is it a religious difference that cannot be helped?
Is it a conscious choice and if so, how can that be resolved where we don't impose on each other's way of equal inclusion?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Uh, Emily, if I don't read your posts elsewhere, why would you think I would read them here?

Okay, I read this far though--

I am basically having difficulty reconciling the concept of
prochoice with "whatever people are using to support ACA"
and Luddly's avatar claiming to be Fighting for Equal Rights
while excluding Constitutional views of half the nation who should
be represented equally by govt.

The first sentence makes no sense BUT - "pro-choice" is not a concept. Our bodies belong to us. That's it. Period. No more discussion. And, no govt control of reproduction.

If this

"whatever people are using to support ACA"

is supposed to be a quote of something I wrote, please refer me to the link because I really have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

Actually, I've been thinking about what I wrote earlier and I do have a tiny bit of a conflict.

On one hand, I believe our government is hugely bloated and we need to cut - starting with a military that could be cut in half and we would still be biggest on the planet by far.

If the government is the only way, the only chance we have at getting equal health care for all Americans, then yes. I'm for it.

ObamaCare isn't even up and the usual suspects are saying it doesn't work. Same thing happened with Medicare, Medicaid, SS and all have worked really well. Needing maintenance is not the same as "failing".

The right does not seem to understand that its the law, its constitutional and its here to stay. What they need to do is stop trying to screw us over and work toward making it work for us. All of us.

My equality avatar refers to women, blacks, gays - ALL Americans. The very people the right pretty much hates.

And, what does this mean?

excluding Constitutional views of half the nation who should
be represented equally by govt.

Are you saying that half of the nation is not represented by govt? If so - who? And what is not being represented?

 

[Michelle420]

I guess this went no where

 

[emilynghiem]

Uh, Emily, if I don't read your posts elsewhere, why would you think I would read them here?

Okay, I read this far though--

I am basically having difficulty reconciling the concept of
prochoice with "whatever people are using to support ACA"
and Luddly's avatar claiming to be Fighting for Equal Rights
while excluding Constitutional views of half the nation who should
be represented equally by govt.

The first sentence makes no sense BUT - "pro-choice" is not a concept. Our bodies belong to us. That's it. Period. No more discussion. And, no govt control of reproduction.

If this

"whatever people are using to support ACA"

is supposed to be a quote of something I wrote, please refer me to the link because I really have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

Actually, I've been thinking about what I wrote earlier and I do have a tiny bit of a conflict.

On one hand, I believe our government is hugely bloated and we need to cut - starting with a military that could be cut in half and we would still be biggest on the planet by far.

If the government is the only way, the only chance we have at getting equal health care for all Americans, then yes. I'm for it.

ObamaCare isn't even up and the usual suspects are saying it doesn't work. Same thing happened with Medicare, Medicaid, SS and all have worked really well. Needing maintenance is not the same as "failing".

The right does not seem to understand that its the law, its constitutional and its here to stay. What they need to do is stop trying to screw us over and work toward making it work for us. All of us.

My equality avatar refers to women, blacks, gays - ALL Americans. The very people the right pretty much hates.

And, what does this mean?

excluding Constitutional views of half the nation who should
be represented equally by govt.

Are you saying that half of the nation is not represented by govt? If so - who? And what is not being represented?

Hi Luddly: I posted here because I really hoped to keep one central place to work out the points.

Let me start with two points here first:

(a). who is not represented by govt
When Bush was in office and the left were left out of most of the policies pushed with the war, then that was not equal representation. All decisions would need to be made by consensus to include both the left and right, liberal conservative, D and R equally, as well as other parties. Parties can agree to compromise and put up with not getting their way,
but when a policy is decidedly SLANTED by party, that is obviously shows partisan bias.

With ACA, the vote was decidedly supported by Democrats/liberals who didn't mind compromising and opposed by Republicans/conservatives who did mind and who objected.

Since there was such a clear split, this shows the legislation was unfairly biased toward the views and beliefs of one party. Since these are religiously held views, this amounts to religious discrimination. The opposition who believe in limited govt and that the Constitution restricts federal govt from exercising powers except expressly given by the Constitution UNLESS the Constitution is first Amended by set process, was not represented by ACA.

Because the refusal of the President, Party and Congress to recognize this bias and imposition, the government does not represent half the nation that believes in limited govt
and that most of the programs and resources shoudl be managed democratically by states and peopel instead of risked and vested in federal authority which is Constitutional limited.

(b). how the bill could have been fair
Given the ACA is a transition and not proven if there were better ways, if more people could be covered, or if federal govt could manage it as written,
then to be fair
the people who PASSED and SUPPORT it should be required to pay for it and be under it to prove it works
This is similar to church groups who believe their system or denomination is the best.
They pay for their own programs and submit to their own policies and reps withint that organization.
This prevents from imposing anything they believe in funding
onto other people who believe or practice otherwise.

What I suggest is allowing equal choice to participate voluntarily,
so that peopel who believe in a central singlepayer system can
set this up through the parties that agree, and operate it to perfect it.
like any business, it would start small with just the people willing to fund
it and cover the costs and people who can be reached, and then grow from there
by VOLUNTARY participation and funding.

the mistake I see made with ACA is it did not acknowledge equal free choice
to fund and participate. in fact, the politicians like Obama had FULL KNOWLEDGE
of dissent and political objection, again which I argue is religiously held by nature,
thus was deliberately violating harassing and abusing such objectors by their beliefs.

the way to correct this is to form an agreement to respect free choice of paying
and providing health care, with or without government, develop the best choices
and then decide by agreement which avenues enough people agree on to
merit adopting by govt.

NOT adopting something by faith and then imposing it by penalty of law
on people who don't have that faith and who religiously believe this is in violation.

that was a mistake, and I believe it is Constitutional duty to make sure it is corrected.

can we start with those two points?
thanks Luddly sorry I'm still behind
trying to catch up with your posts!

Yours truly,
Emily

(c) ps about prochoice being a concept
same as God if you believe in that or not
the govt has no right to pass laws infringing on your belief
by forcing you to violate it against your will

if you only restricted religious freedom and equal protection from discrimination
to "organized religions" then this would discriminate unfairly against atheists
or people of unique beliefs that aren't in a set group. people would not be equally protected.

What I am arguing for is to recognize that political beliefs in concepts
such as limited govt, the constitution, marriage equality,
are equally valid and protected under law.

If we need yet more amendments or legislation spelling this out
pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendment, maybe we need
a law on Consent of the Governed and right to mediation and consensus on
laws that involve religious concepts, issues or religiously held political beliefs.

If you agree this would help strengthen the concept of political equality,
to write up such a bill and present it to States and to Congress,
Luddly I would be more than honored to work with you on this!

If it passed, or even changes some minds about consensus not only
being possible but legally necessary for Constitutional equal protection,
I would be happy it is doing good even to circulate the idea.

I would be happy to name it after you or one of your heroes,
and I will add names of my favorite heroes if we do propose a bill to both parties.
I think that would be cool.

What do you think?
Do we need additional writing to specify that concepts or religiously held values like
prochoice and prolife deserve equal legal protection from govt imposition by law?

 

[Huey]

Do you troll much?

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you troll much?

Hi Huey: I work out issues individually with each person, according to what they want to reply to or resolve.

So it's the OPPOSITE of trolling or spamming which does NOT use one-on-one interaction
to take responsibility for following up. I believe in working things through until a successful conclusion is reached. That cannot be achieve by trolling or spamming.

I'm probably one of the few people on here that is SERIOUS about
taking issues and solutions agreed upon here, and building a consensus in the REAL world.

We need to use the internet for THAT, not wasting time bashing, spamming or trolling
with no intent of resolving anything. Doesn't that get OLD?

I am serious about resolving religious and political issues to form a consensus
on church-state issues. I believe the future of our country, govt, economy and society depends on
learning how to resolve conflicts. And this forum happens to be full of people with that ability, but on different issues.

So for each person, it takes following up specifically.

Trolling and spamming does not solve any problems, sorry!

 

[Michelle420]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

Agreed, it is just her thinking/writing that is convoluted to the point of near incoherence at times.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

Agreed, it is just her thinking/writing that is convoluted to the point of near incoherence at times.

IMO, Emily is anything but straightforward but I do agree that her posts are all but unintelligible. As with PoliticalChic and Flanders, I never bother actually reading more than the first line or so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

Agreed, it is just her thinking/writing that is convoluted to the point of near incoherence at times.

IMO, Emily is anything but straightforward but I do agree that her posts are all but unintelligible. As with PoliticalChic and Flanders, I never bother actually reading more than the first line or so.

I think we should put Emily on a diet of one line posts only.

If she cannot say what needs to be said in a single sentence she must refrain from posting.

Be interesting to see if she can rise to that challenge.

As far as PoliticalSpice goes she cannot debate and defend her positions. Instead she just resorts to ad homs. Gets tiresome really quickly.

 

[Michelle420]

She's passionate about her point of view. I read all of her posts and I don't always agree with everything she says but I like that she takes the time to respond and puts work into her responses.

I admit my bias as we have become friends offline.

 

[Rotagilla]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

..and she is polite and doesn't resort to namecalling or insults when she doesn't agree with someone. That alone makes her fairly unique in here.

 

[Moonglow]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

..and she is polite and doesn't resort to namecalling or insults when she doesn't agree with someone. That alone makes her fairly unique in here.

She does it and you don't even know it...

 

[Moonglow]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

Agreed, it is just her thinking/writing that is convoluted to the point of near incoherence at times.

IMO, Emily is anything but straightforward but I do agree that her posts are all but unintelligible. As with PoliticalChic and Flanders, I never bother actually reading more than the first line or so.

It always the same old hash...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Do you troll much?

Emily is a straight forward poster.

Agreed, it is just her thinking/writing that is convoluted to the point of near incoherence at times.

IMO, Emily is anything but straightforward but I do agree that her posts are all but unintelligible. As with PoliticalChic and Flanders, I never bother actually reading more than the first line or so.

It always the same old hash...

With lots of nonsensical corned beef.