emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
My boyfriend cracks me up with the questions he has for Liberals he can't quite figure out. He reminds me of the boy who got kicked out of Sunday school, for interrupting the big lecture on "God creating the heavens and the earth and firmaments" to ask the teacher: Where was God standing when he did all of this???
Of the profound questions he has for Liberals that neither he nor I can get a straight answer on,
I think these are three of the funniest:
1. Why do Liberals demand that government "stay out of a woman's womb,"
then turn around and hand over their wallet and control of "every cell of their body" to federal govt to manage with the funding of health care and insurance mandates. WTFFF???
2. Why do Liberals insist that nobody should have guns but the police. Then turn around and say they don't trust the police with guns and "having all the power." Which way is it? Should police have all the guns and power or not? Should nobody have guns at all? Then who should stop criminals with guns?
3. Related: Why do Liberals demand that Govt regulate and control people's access to guns, but not to drugs.
And another one I ask:
4. Why is it okay to Liberals to push "belief in homosexuality and gay marriage" on the public through govt but NOT the "belief in Christianity and celebrating Christmas."
If Liberals insist that Christmas and Christian "references" such as crosses, Bibles, prayers, terms like "God" or "Heaven" do not include everyone's beliefs and therefore should NOT be imposed through govt but REMOVED from public property and institutions; then why insist on pushing Gay Parades, gay marriage and "beliefs" about gender and orientation "that do NOT include everyone's beliefs" but actually conflict with them.
What happened to 'separation of church and state' or does that only apply to OTHER PEOPLE'S beliefs but not to Liberals who don't see their own biases by belief and creed.
===================================
My equivalent way of asking these same questions:
1. Why do Liberals insist on pushing the right to choose and REFUSING any penalty or regulation trying to promote the BELIEF in the 'right to life' as fundamental; yet when it comes to the BELIEF in the "right to health care" then Liberals push a federal mandate that OVERRIDES the right to choose and personal liberty protected from govt intrusion.
2. Why do Liberals distrust "big corporate entities" which clearly abuse collective authority and resources to subvert individual rights, equality and protections; yet trust the GOVERNMENT to be in control of rights and decisions, as a huge collective corporate entity, and the only institution authorized to compel people to comply under penalty of law.
3. If the point of the health care mandates is to ensure people take responsibility for paying for the costs of their own health care and medical expenses, then why push for drug legalization, instead of introducing MORE regulations to "make sure people take responsibility" for the costs, complications, or consequences of their choice to take recreational drugs?
If prochoice liberals believe in the "freedom to choose" whether or not to indulge in drug use, and also the choice of abortion WITHOUT PENALTY or fear of regulatory restrictions, regardless of the consequences, then why insist that govt regulate the choice of health care? How is the choice of paying for health care "so dangerous and compelling" where it merits being criminalized or penalized by govt, while at the same time rejecting any regulation by govt on the use of drugs, abortion, etc.
If FREEDOM is more important in the choice of drugs and abortion, why not so in the choice of how to pay for health care? How dangerous is it to give people that freedom, if similar arguments are used to DEFEND the choice of abortion and drugs from penalties or criminalization imposed by govt "instead of leaving it to people."
=====================================
RE: drugs vs. guns
Kids get into drugs, major longlasting damage is done to people's brains using drugs, people die of homicide, suicide, overdoses and drug related accidents and crimes.
If you compare the statistics on the costs, damages, deaths, crime and destruction related to drugs,
isn't that worse than guns? At least guns have also been used to combat and deter crime.
Have drugs ever been used to combat, deter and reduce drug related abuse, addiction and crime?
NOTE: One person on here has given me an example of how medically monitored use of "certain drugs"
can help people during detox and rehab to withdraw gradually. That is one valid example. However, I pointed out that through natural spiritual healing to free people from addiction, this process has worked with NO withdrawal symptoms at all! So it is up to the person if they need to withdraw gradually depending on their level of abuse. If they weren't so psychologically and physically dependent, they wouldn't need to use other drugs; so this STILL points to risks and dangers of drugs, causing such a dependency that users aren't free to stop.
4. Why do Liberals assume that immigrants coming to America who aren't citizens yet have "equal human rights," giving them the benefit of the doubt, treating them as innocent of any crime until and unless proven guilty; but when it comes to FELLOW CITIZENS whose rights ARE protected by laws under the Constitution, these Americans are assumed to be criminal! Deserving to (a) lose their rights to bear arms until proven innocent "afterwards" and not posing any threat (b) lose their liberty to choose freely how and when to pay for health care or provide it through charity or private sector development, but are required they "prove they will pay by having insurance" (c) be attacked as enemies and terrorists, while the same attackers won't speak up against Jihadist terrorists who are assumed to be 'reacting' to previous oppression fueling their protests and militant takeovers. If foreign Jihadists terrorists can be viewed neutrally as "reacting" and merely defending their homeland from loss or attack; then why can't liberals see conservatives on a similar level? As having valid grievances and reasons for protesting oppression, instead of being viewed as political terrorists or criminals.
Of the profound questions he has for Liberals that neither he nor I can get a straight answer on,
I think these are three of the funniest:
1. Why do Liberals demand that government "stay out of a woman's womb,"
then turn around and hand over their wallet and control of "every cell of their body" to federal govt to manage with the funding of health care and insurance mandates. WTFFF???
2. Why do Liberals insist that nobody should have guns but the police. Then turn around and say they don't trust the police with guns and "having all the power." Which way is it? Should police have all the guns and power or not? Should nobody have guns at all? Then who should stop criminals with guns?
3. Related: Why do Liberals demand that Govt regulate and control people's access to guns, but not to drugs.
And another one I ask:
4. Why is it okay to Liberals to push "belief in homosexuality and gay marriage" on the public through govt but NOT the "belief in Christianity and celebrating Christmas."
If Liberals insist that Christmas and Christian "references" such as crosses, Bibles, prayers, terms like "God" or "Heaven" do not include everyone's beliefs and therefore should NOT be imposed through govt but REMOVED from public property and institutions; then why insist on pushing Gay Parades, gay marriage and "beliefs" about gender and orientation "that do NOT include everyone's beliefs" but actually conflict with them.
What happened to 'separation of church and state' or does that only apply to OTHER PEOPLE'S beliefs but not to Liberals who don't see their own biases by belief and creed.
===================================
My equivalent way of asking these same questions:
1. Why do Liberals insist on pushing the right to choose and REFUSING any penalty or regulation trying to promote the BELIEF in the 'right to life' as fundamental; yet when it comes to the BELIEF in the "right to health care" then Liberals push a federal mandate that OVERRIDES the right to choose and personal liberty protected from govt intrusion.
2. Why do Liberals distrust "big corporate entities" which clearly abuse collective authority and resources to subvert individual rights, equality and protections; yet trust the GOVERNMENT to be in control of rights and decisions, as a huge collective corporate entity, and the only institution authorized to compel people to comply under penalty of law.
3. If the point of the health care mandates is to ensure people take responsibility for paying for the costs of their own health care and medical expenses, then why push for drug legalization, instead of introducing MORE regulations to "make sure people take responsibility" for the costs, complications, or consequences of their choice to take recreational drugs?
If prochoice liberals believe in the "freedom to choose" whether or not to indulge in drug use, and also the choice of abortion WITHOUT PENALTY or fear of regulatory restrictions, regardless of the consequences, then why insist that govt regulate the choice of health care? How is the choice of paying for health care "so dangerous and compelling" where it merits being criminalized or penalized by govt, while at the same time rejecting any regulation by govt on the use of drugs, abortion, etc.
If FREEDOM is more important in the choice of drugs and abortion, why not so in the choice of how to pay for health care? How dangerous is it to give people that freedom, if similar arguments are used to DEFEND the choice of abortion and drugs from penalties or criminalization imposed by govt "instead of leaving it to people."
=====================================
RE: drugs vs. guns
Kids get into drugs, major longlasting damage is done to people's brains using drugs, people die of homicide, suicide, overdoses and drug related accidents and crimes.
If you compare the statistics on the costs, damages, deaths, crime and destruction related to drugs,
isn't that worse than guns? At least guns have also been used to combat and deter crime.
Have drugs ever been used to combat, deter and reduce drug related abuse, addiction and crime?
NOTE: One person on here has given me an example of how medically monitored use of "certain drugs"
can help people during detox and rehab to withdraw gradually. That is one valid example. However, I pointed out that through natural spiritual healing to free people from addiction, this process has worked with NO withdrawal symptoms at all! So it is up to the person if they need to withdraw gradually depending on their level of abuse. If they weren't so psychologically and physically dependent, they wouldn't need to use other drugs; so this STILL points to risks and dangers of drugs, causing such a dependency that users aren't free to stop.
4. Why do Liberals assume that immigrants coming to America who aren't citizens yet have "equal human rights," giving them the benefit of the doubt, treating them as innocent of any crime until and unless proven guilty; but when it comes to FELLOW CITIZENS whose rights ARE protected by laws under the Constitution, these Americans are assumed to be criminal! Deserving to (a) lose their rights to bear arms until proven innocent "afterwards" and not posing any threat (b) lose their liberty to choose freely how and when to pay for health care or provide it through charity or private sector development, but are required they "prove they will pay by having insurance" (c) be attacked as enemies and terrorists, while the same attackers won't speak up against Jihadist terrorists who are assumed to be 'reacting' to previous oppression fueling their protests and militant takeovers. If foreign Jihadists terrorists can be viewed neutrally as "reacting" and merely defending their homeland from loss or attack; then why can't liberals see conservatives on a similar level? As having valid grievances and reasons for protesting oppression, instead of being viewed as political terrorists or criminals.
