Serious Questions for Fellow Liberals: Can you help me explain, without laughing?

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Hi Honey!!! I had no idea you posted here!

 

[emilynghiem]

"Your guns are going to be taken" ...we've been hearing this forever...what a complete lie andcrock believed by those who ate of weak minds. Its in the constitution for gosh sakes. Are people in this country that dumb?

Dear initforme
This is similar to arguments that "any attempt to restrict or regulate abortion" is heading down a slippery slope that will "erode women's rights and amounts to a war on women."

BOTH sides will stop the MINUTE there is any political move to regulate
* gun rights
* abortion rights
For FEAR it will lead to more and more regulation by govt.
Both sides do this, but on different issues that symbolize citizen freedom from govt intrusion: gun rights for some folks and abortion rights for others (for others, it's drug legalization or voting rights)

If people from all parties got together and had an AGREEMENT that on issues of political beliefs, laws and reforms would be passed by CONSENSUS (and solving any conflicts that come up between groups on these issues) then the democratic process could collaborative and based on solving problems, instead of fear-based bullying politics....

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe Emi Lying Heim and her boyfriend needs to get out of the house and actually meet a few Liberals before they draw up their predetermined questions and conjure up their laughter?

Dear Care4all I'm a prochoice Democrat and have to deal with these liberals all the time.

On here, C_Clayton_Jones argued that the ACA mandates did not reduce or penalize any free choice in health care, and JakeStarkey supported the "democratic process" by which the liberals are okay with passing laws that are argued as Unconstitutional and opposed for that reason but passed anyway, and waiting until AFTERWARDS going through Courts or back through Congress to correct any argued Constitutional violations conflicts or issues AFTER THE FACT, even though it may cause violations in the meantime. I wasn't okay with that: if people are protesting UP FRONT that a bill is unconstitutional, why ignore the objections, why not solve the problems the minute it's clear they exist!

So that's the liberal mindset I'm talking about. And yes I run into it all the time on here, and my friend D who is one of these Democrats who will not protest the ACA mandates even though D is against them, but will "let the rightwing fight that battle and won't align with them" My other Democrat and Green friends for Universal Care oppose the ACA mandates but again, won't organize sue or say anything but just let the conservatives fight that and "hope for the best."

 

[emilynghiem]

can you explain which group is behind the agenda
* to regulate guns but deregulate/legalize drugs?

There is no "group" (singular). That's two different things.
It's also fatally vague especially in the second point. What do we even mean by "deregulate/legalize drugs"? That by itself is at least two more things, not even counting what the term "drugs" means. Depending on how those are defined I can easily take either side.

The flaw in all this is the broad brush you're trying to hammer with.

I understand the push for DEcriminalization.
but these arguments that people should have the freedom to access drugs
without penalty but not have unregulated access to guns, where or which group is that coming from?

No idea. Haven't seen "a group" taking that approach, even if it weren't so vague in meaning.

* to push for Govt to manage single payer health care
but then turn around and reject Govt regulations that interfere with reproductive health care
choices including birth control and abortions.

Again --- two different things.

Why exactly are you trying to take disparate issues and lump them together under a single label? Isn't that ignoring all those individuals who may favor one part and reject the other?


I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

Links?

And I mean -- to both parts?

Guess we'll see this dood ------- LATER.

thus why folks are easily fooled by our politicians. They steer clear of saying, word for word, what their intentions are....they seem to know most people are just too plain lazy to read into their actions.....too plain lazy to notice trends...too plain lazy to recognize patterns.

Instead, people simply want to see links showing it "word for word" or "its not true"

And then they are fooled.

Dear Jarhead I find the people who are dependent on govt to lead and reform policies for them (but we won't mention any names of parties that teach people this is the role of govt) use the
* Govt as the secular equivalent of their CHURCH
* President and courts as the secular equivalent of their
Pope and Priests.
They need some authority to declare and establish law for them. Especially for secular political activists who REJECT church and religious authority, of course it makes sense they would substitute and compensate by attaching and projecting this role onto SECULAR govt. Why not just admit this is going on?

We are dealing with a political religion.
So why not call these beliefs and parties out for what they are.
Constitutionalism also involves BELIEF -- in natural laws being inherit (which is faith based)
and in limited govt, so it's a political religion also.
So the Libertarians and Republicans are two different denominations of that.

The Liberals are mainly found among the Democrats, Greens and other Socialist/Worker type political parties and groups. They either DEPEND on govt and political leaders/parties to push and establish their agenda,
or they are the independent type that pushes to create the worker coops and schools/programs themselves and NOT depend on party politics,
similar to the independent conservative and constitutionalists who don't trust the party politics and corporate-influenced govt either. So there are independents on both left and right who prefer to invest and develop their own programs outside of govt and certain not depending on govt.

the followers of Sanders and Trump tend to attract those people who are sick of the corporate career politicians saying whatever it takes to get elected and then doing NOTHING.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

^ YES Pogo I agree to take each issue that involves BELIEFS and address them one by one. Regardless which people or groups support which side of which one. And YES the issue of the DEATH PENALTY is another huge issue of faith and belief that people cannot be forced to fund.

YES I believe we can be consistent about these by allowing people the option to fund alternatives if they don't believe in funding abortion, the death penalty, or don't believe in endorsing a certain type of marriage through the govt, etc. Separating issues by issue, by party or by state, whatever it takes in each case, can solve the problem even if the solution DIFFERS from one issue or instance or region/state to another. As long as the people affected work it out and come up with a solution they all agree respects their differences, then they can avoid imposing an objectionable bias on one group or another.

You are right, absolutely, it may not be the same for all people of a group or all states, etc. Each case may lead to a different solution,
and one person/group who sides one way on one issue, may align with a different group or angle on another issue.

That's not a problem, that's the solution!

 

[emilynghiem]

can you explain which group is behind the agenda
* to regulate guns but deregulate/legalize drugs?

There is no "group" (singular). That's two different things.
It's also fatally vague especially in the second point. What do we even mean by "deregulate/legalize drugs"? That by itself is at least two more things, not even counting what the term "drugs" means. Depending on how those are defined I can easily take either side.

The flaw in all this is the broad brush you're trying to hammer with.

I understand the push for DEcriminalization.
but these arguments that people should have the freedom to access drugs
without penalty but not have unregulated access to guns, where or which group is that coming from?

No idea. Haven't seen "a group" taking that approach, even if it weren't so vague in meaning.

* to push for Govt to manage single payer health care
but then turn around and reject Govt regulations that interfere with reproductive health care
choices including birth control and abortions.

Again --- two different things.

Why exactly are you trying to take disparate issues and lump them together under a single label? Isn't that ignoring all those individuals who may favor one part and reject the other?


I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

Hi Pogo
1. I AGREE to take it issue by issue. So drug legalization is another issue where people have different faith-based beliefs and can't force/prove their belief and make someone else be under that.
And YES we need to address ALL such issues one by one.
I'm perfectly FINE with that, what you are pointing out IS WHAT I AM SAYING -- to address each issue and resolve each factor of each issue

2. As for Groups, whatever people use to identify their affiliation or belief, that's fine. If they go by what their fellow Libertarian members or leaders say, write up or agree with, then we use THAT affiliation to represent those people who feel included in THAT group.

So let the PEOPLE decide if they just speak for themselves, or if some other person or group represents what they would follow or agree with.

I'm okay with any which way people express or represent themselves
individual, or with a group, or changing depending on the issue/situation.

both points you bring up are supposed to be taken into
account when we address and resolve these issues.

AGREED! Thanks Pogo Not a problem, but part of the structure so we can formulate solutions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I'll give my take on this. I don't speak for all Liberals, I consider myself liberal, and so I give my view point.

1) I believe the govt doesn't have the right to tell people to have an abortion or not in the first three months or so. I believe it's up to the people involved at that early stage.

Healthcare doesn't control you, so I'm not really sure why you're making such a dubious argument with it. People should have healthcare, it's an important, and often very costly, affair. I don't like it when you have corruption taking advantage of the whole situation and making massive profits out of it, merely for the sake of making profits (like by giving you the more expensive drugs just because the Pharam Companies will pay you good money to do so, and especially since Pharma companies rely in the govt giving scientists money to do experiments and the Pharma companies only get involved once they've shown something to be worth developing.)

2) People with guns cause lots of murders and things like that. Do I trust the government? No, i don't, however you having a gun doesn't make me trust the government any more.

In fact I mistrust the US govt far more than I mistrust other governments in other western countries.

So, this isn't a black and white argument at all. It's complex.

3) Drugs kill the person taking them. Guns kill the people being shot at. There's a big difference.
I don't have a problem with people trying to kill themselves with things, as long as they don't harm other people.

4) Pushing belief!
I believe all people should be treated equally under the law. That goes for gay people too.
People can choose to celebrate whatever festival they choose, they can also choose not to celebrate these things. Personally I think people go too far in trying to ban or restrict religious festivals. I was in Malaysia for the Chinese New Year, and I've been in Egypt for the Arabic New Year, and I've been in other places for their festivals and I like seeing different sorts of things.


To sum up, I feel that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others.

If they want to take drugs, then I think it's okay as long as the drugs don't make people go and harm others.
I also don't have a problem with guns necessarily. What I have a problem with is the govt not dealing with social issues that aggravate the gun problem in society. I do think guns should be more tightly controlled and those people who have them should be of a sound mind.

I believe abortion before 3 months is necessary in order to deal with issues that the modern world has. We're no longer in a time when having as many children as possible is essential, we're in an age when we have too many people, and the US has too many kids being born into bad situation that aren't being sorted out and aren't given the help to make it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I'll give my take on this. I don't speak for all Liberals, I consider myself liberal, and so I give my view point.

1) I believe the govt doesn't have the right to tell people to have an abortion or not in the first three months or so. I believe it's up to the people involved at that early stage.

Healthcare doesn't control you, so I'm not really sure why you're making such a dubious argument with it. People should have healthcare, it's an important, and often very costly, affair. I don't like it when you have corruption taking advantage of the whole situation and making massive profits out of it, merely for the sake of making profits (like by giving you the more expensive drugs just because the Pharam Companies will pay you good money to do so, and especially since Pharma companies rely in the govt giving scientists money to do experiments and the Pharma companies only get involved once they've shown something to be worth developing.)

2) People with guns cause lots of murders and things like that. Do I trust the government? No, i don't, however you having a gun doesn't make me trust the government any more.

In fact I mistrust the US govt far more than I mistrust other governments in other western countries.

So, this isn't a black and white argument at all. It's complex.

3) Drugs kill the person taking them. Guns kill the people being shot at. There's a big difference.
I don't have a problem with people trying to kill themselves with things, as long as they don't harm other people.

4) Pushing belief!
I believe all people should be treated equally under the law. That goes for gay people too.
People can choose to celebrate whatever festival they choose, they can also choose not to celebrate these things. Personally I think people go too far in trying to ban or restrict religious festivals. I was in Malaysia for the Chinese New Year, and I've been in Egypt for the Arabic New Year, and I've been in other places for their festivals and I like seeing different sorts of things.


To sum up, I feel that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others.

If they want to take drugs, then I think it's okay as long as the drugs don't make people go and harm others.
I also don't have a problem with guns necessarily. What I have a problem with is the govt not dealing with social issues that aggravate the gun problem in society. I do think guns should be more tightly controlled and those people who have them should be of a sound mind.

I believe abortion before 3 months is necessary in order to deal with issues that the modern world has. We're no longer in a time when having as many children as possible is essential, we're in an age when we have too many people, and the US has too many kids being born into bad situation that aren't being sorted out and aren't given the help to make it.

thank you for a very specific informative reply to numerous points.
Super! frigidweirdo

Where it isn't so easy to just let govt make a policy that lets people do as they believe, there are still CONSEQUENCES that affect others that aren't agreed how to pay for those or take them into account.

Examples:
A. if people are free to experiment with, use or even abuse drugs
A1. who is going to pay for their health care when they cause such brain damage they can't work and end up with longterm hospitalization or disability.
A2. Do the people who agree to decriminalize/legalize drugs also AGREE to pay for any health care costs that become extenuated as a consequence to promoting this policy?
Because as someone who does NOT believe in promoting recreational drug use, but believes people should have FULLY INFORMED choices, I DON'T I believe I should get stuck paying for people who can't or refuse to work because they get addicted to drugs or damage their brains/health so badly as to make themselves become disabled.
I will help raise money for charities that help such people, but do not believe in forcing taxpayers to pay through govt especially where this was against beliefs to begin with. It should be a choice to pay for if you accept responsibility for promoting this as a choice.
A3. What about the person addicted to drugs who DOES abuse or harm another person because of it? I know someone who got other people hooked on drugs so they could sell drugs and fund their own habit. So it is causing harm to others to get others addicted or possibly harmed, in order to fund one's own drug use, addiction or abuse.

Another level I've run into:
For issues of gay marriage and abortion,
some people's beliefs are NOT okay with just letting other people do that as long as they don't have to approve or pay for. Some people cannot have govt ENDORSE these things or it's against their beliefs.
So it's more than just letting others do whatever.

Where I would draw the line:
The same way that WITHIN a private religion or belief system, people can CHOOSE how to conduct a wedding, communion, baptism, etc.
Then in private, people already have religious freedom to do what they want, and govt does not get involved in dictating or endorsing it in any way.

So marriage should be on that level. Where it is decided by the people case by case and govt does not make or impose a decision for anyone.

Let the govt still be in charge of overseeing certain custody/estate/civil contracts, but not mention or dictate the social relationship between any parties. If you agree that two people share equally, or one person depends on the other, then that relationship can be written up without specifying what are the two roles. So keep it neutral, and govt is not endorsing any specific relationship between the parties, and just governing the financial contract between two parties regardless of what they are to each other.

The problem with govt endorsing the gay marriage where it is actually recognized/implemented by the state: it leads to situations of "accommodations" where people in govt or in businesses are being put in a position where they can't choose to excuse themselves if they don't agree to be involved or around anything to do with same sex marriage.

I suggest that people write up mediation agreements and waivers; stating that the parties agree to resolve any disputes by consensus, and in cases where differences in belief make resolution impossible, the parties agree to refrain from conducting business together and not to fault either side for this irreconcilable difference in beliefs. So either people AGREE how to do business together so they can interact; or in cases where they cannot agree, they can at least agree to refrain altogether and not fault anyone. (Instead of lawsuits going on over this).

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I'll give my take on this. I don't speak for all Liberals, I consider myself liberal, and so I give my view point.

1) I believe the govt doesn't have the right to tell people to have an abortion or not in the first three months or so. I believe it's up to the people involved at that early stage.

Healthcare doesn't control you, so I'm not really sure why you're making such a dubious argument with it. People should have healthcare, it's an important, and often very costly, affair. I don't like it when you have corruption taking advantage of the whole situation and making massive profits out of it, merely for the sake of making profits (like by giving you the more expensive drugs just because the Pharam Companies will pay you good money to do so, and especially since Pharma companies rely in the govt giving scientists money to do experiments and the Pharma companies only get involved once they've shown something to be worth developing.)

2) People with guns cause lots of murders and things like that. Do I trust the government? No, i don't, however you having a gun doesn't make me trust the government any more.

In fact I mistrust the US govt far more than I mistrust other governments in other western countries.

So, this isn't a black and white argument at all. It's complex.

3) Drugs kill the person taking them. Guns kill the people being shot at. There's a big difference.
I don't have a problem with people trying to kill themselves with things, as long as they don't harm other people.

4) Pushing belief!
I believe all people should be treated equally under the law. That goes for gay people too.
People can choose to celebrate whatever festival they choose, they can also choose not to celebrate these things. Personally I think people go too far in trying to ban or restrict religious festivals. I was in Malaysia for the Chinese New Year, and I've been in Egypt for the Arabic New Year, and I've been in other places for their festivals and I like seeing different sorts of things.


To sum up, I feel that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others.

If they want to take drugs, then I think it's okay as long as the drugs don't make people go and harm others.
I also don't have a problem with guns necessarily. What I have a problem with is the govt not dealing with social issues that aggravate the gun problem in society. I do think guns should be more tightly controlled and those people who have them should be of a sound mind.

I believe abortion before 3 months is necessary in order to deal with issues that the modern world has. We're no longer in a time when having as many children as possible is essential, we're in an age when we have too many people, and the US has too many kids being born into bad situation that aren't being sorted out and aren't given the help to make it.

thank you for a very specific informative reply to numerous points.
Super! frigidweirdo

Where it isn't so easy to just let govt make a policy that lets people do as they believe, there are still CONSEQUENCES that affect others that aren't agreed how to pay for those or take them into account.

Examples:
A. if people are free to experiment with, use or even abuse drugs
A1. who is going to pay for their health care when they cause such brain damage they can't work and end up with longterm hospitalization or disability.
A2. Do the people who agree to decriminalize/legalize drugs also AGREE to pay for any health care costs that become extenuated as a consequence to promoting this policy?
Because as someone who does NOT believe in promoting recreational drug use, but believes people should have FULLY INFORMED choices, I DON'T I believe I should get stuck paying for people who can't or refuse to work because they get addicted to drugs or damage their brains/health so badly as to make themselves become disabled.
I will help raise money for charities that help such people, but do not believe in forcing taxpayers to pay through govt especially where this was against beliefs to begin with. It should be a choice to pay for if you accept responsibility for promoting this as a choice.
A3. What about the person addicted to drugs who DOES abuse or harm another person because of it? I know someone who got other people hooked on drugs so they could sell drugs and fund their own habit. So it is causing harm to others to get others addicted or possibly harmed, in order to fund one's own drug use, addiction or abuse.

Another level I've run into:
For issues of gay marriage and abortion,
some people's beliefs are NOT okay with just letting other people do that as long as they don't have to approve or pay for. Some people cannot have govt ENDORSE these things or it's against their beliefs.
So it's more than just letting others do whatever.

Where I would draw the line:
The same way that WITHIN a private religion or belief system, people can CHOOSE how to conduct a wedding, communion, baptism, etc.
Then in private, people already have religious freedom to do what they want, and govt does not get involved in dictating or endorsing it in any way.

So marriage should be on that level. Where it is decided by the people case by case and govt does not make or impose a decision for anyone.

Let the govt still be in charge of overseeing certain custody/estate/civil contracts, but not mention or dictate the social relationship between any parties. If you agree that two people share equally, or one person depends on the other, then that relationship can be written up without specifying what are the two roles. So keep it neutral, and govt is not endorsing any specific relationship between the parties, and just governing the financial contract between two parties regardless of what they are to each other.

The problem with govt endorsing the gay marriage where it is actually recognized/implemented by the state: it leads to situations of "accommodations" where people in govt or in businesses are being put in a position where they can't choose to excuse themselves if they don't agree to be involved or around anything to do with same sex marriage.

I suggest that people write up mediation agreements and waivers; stating that the parties agree to resolve any disputes by consensus, and in cases where differences in belief make resolution impossible, the parties agree to refrain from conducting business together and not to fault either side for this irreconcilable difference in beliefs. So either people AGREE how to do business together so they can interact; or in cases where they cannot agree, they can at least agree to refrain altogether and not fault anyone. (Instead of lawsuits going on over this).

When it comes to drugs, there is no tax on drugs, so the expense isn't paid for by the people using them. So legalizing drugs could help to pay for some problems for drug use.

Also if use were restricted to certain places where people could be monitored for certain drugs, then it could have a more positive impact.

With gay people, if a person's religion isn't okay with someone doing something that isn't harming anyone, my question is: So what? People do things I don't like all the time. Do I have a right to ban anything that I personally don't like?

But yes, I think you're right, people should be able to conduct their religion in private as long as it doesn't hurt others. Should the govt be involved in marriage? Well, they are, and if they are then they are involved only on the non-religious side. People can get married within their religion and not be recognized by the govt. That's fine.
Where it's not fine is if the govt gives people something if they marry, special status or whatever, and then denies people the chance to get married with another consenting person based on their sexuality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I'll give my take on this. I don't speak for all Liberals, I consider myself liberal, and so I give my view point.

1) I believe the govt doesn't have the right to tell people to have an abortion or not in the first three months or so. I believe it's up to the people involved at that early stage.

Healthcare doesn't control you, so I'm not really sure why you're making such a dubious argument with it. People should have healthcare, it's an important, and often very costly, affair. I don't like it when you have corruption taking advantage of the whole situation and making massive profits out of it, merely for the sake of making profits (like by giving you the more expensive drugs just because the Pharam Companies will pay you good money to do so, and especially since Pharma companies rely in the govt giving scientists money to do experiments and the Pharma companies only get involved once they've shown something to be worth developing.)

2) People with guns cause lots of murders and things like that. Do I trust the government? No, i don't, however you having a gun doesn't make me trust the government any more.

In fact I mistrust the US govt far more than I mistrust other governments in other western countries.

So, this isn't a black and white argument at all. It's complex.

3) Drugs kill the person taking them. Guns kill the people being shot at. There's a big difference.
I don't have a problem with people trying to kill themselves with things, as long as they don't harm other people.

4) Pushing belief!
I believe all people should be treated equally under the law. That goes for gay people too.
People can choose to celebrate whatever festival they choose, they can also choose not to celebrate these things. Personally I think people go too far in trying to ban or restrict religious festivals. I was in Malaysia for the Chinese New Year, and I've been in Egypt for the Arabic New Year, and I've been in other places for their festivals and I like seeing different sorts of things.


To sum up, I feel that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others.

If they want to take drugs, then I think it's okay as long as the drugs don't make people go and harm others.
I also don't have a problem with guns necessarily. What I have a problem with is the govt not dealing with social issues that aggravate the gun problem in society. I do think guns should be more tightly controlled and those people who have them should be of a sound mind.

I believe abortion before 3 months is necessary in order to deal with issues that the modern world has. We're no longer in a time when having as many children as possible is essential, we're in an age when we have too many people, and the US has too many kids being born into bad situation that aren't being sorted out and aren't given the help to make it.

thank you for a very specific informative reply to numerous points.
Super! frigidweirdo

Where it isn't so easy to just let govt make a policy that lets people do as they believe, there are still CONSEQUENCES that affect others that aren't agreed how to pay for those or take them into account.

Examples:
A. if people are free to experiment with, use or even abuse drugs
A1. who is going to pay for their health care when they cause such brain damage they can't work and end up with longterm hospitalization or disability.
A2. Do the people who agree to decriminalize/legalize drugs also AGREE to pay for any health care costs that become extenuated as a consequence to promoting this policy?
Because as someone who does NOT believe in promoting recreational drug use, but believes people should have FULLY INFORMED choices, I DON'T I believe I should get stuck paying for people who can't or refuse to work because they get addicted to drugs or damage their brains/health so badly as to make themselves become disabled.
I will help raise money for charities that help such people, but do not believe in forcing taxpayers to pay through govt especially where this was against beliefs to begin with. It should be a choice to pay for if you accept responsibility for promoting this as a choice.
A3. What about the person addicted to drugs who DOES abuse or harm another person because of it? I know someone who got other people hooked on drugs so they could sell drugs and fund their own habit. So it is causing harm to others to get others addicted or possibly harmed, in order to fund one's own drug use, addiction or abuse.

Another level I've run into:
For issues of gay marriage and abortion,
some people's beliefs are NOT okay with just letting other people do that as long as they don't have to approve or pay for. Some people cannot have govt ENDORSE these things or it's against their beliefs.
So it's more than just letting others do whatever.

Where I would draw the line:
The same way that WITHIN a private religion or belief system, people can CHOOSE how to conduct a wedding, communion, baptism, etc.
Then in private, people already have religious freedom to do what they want, and govt does not get involved in dictating or endorsing it in any way.

So marriage should be on that level. Where it is decided by the people case by case and govt does not make or impose a decision for anyone.

Let the govt still be in charge of overseeing certain custody/estate/civil contracts, but not mention or dictate the social relationship between any parties. If you agree that two people share equally, or one person depends on the other, then that relationship can be written up without specifying what are the two roles. So keep it neutral, and govt is not endorsing any specific relationship between the parties, and just governing the financial contract between two parties regardless of what they are to each other.

The problem with govt endorsing the gay marriage where it is actually recognized/implemented by the state: it leads to situations of "accommodations" where people in govt or in businesses are being put in a position where they can't choose to excuse themselves if they don't agree to be involved or around anything to do with same sex marriage.

I suggest that people write up mediation agreements and waivers; stating that the parties agree to resolve any disputes by consensus, and in cases where differences in belief make resolution impossible, the parties agree to refrain from conducting business together and not to fault either side for this irreconcilable difference in beliefs. So either people AGREE how to do business together so they can interact; or in cases where they cannot agree, they can at least agree to refrain altogether and not fault anyone. (Instead of lawsuits going on over this).

When it comes to drugs, there is no tax on drugs, so the expense isn't paid for by the people using them. So legalizing drugs could help to pay for some problems for drug use.

Also if use were restricted to certain places where people could be monitored for certain drugs, then it could have a more positive impact.

With gay people, if a person's religion isn't okay with someone doing something that isn't harming anyone, my question is: So what? People do things I don't like all the time. Do I have a right to ban anything that I personally don't like?

But yes, I think you're right, people should be able to conduct their religion in private as long as it doesn't hurt others. Should the govt be involved in marriage? Well, they are, and if they are then they are involved only on the non-religious side. People can get married within their religion and not be recognized by the govt. That's fine.
Where it's not fine is if the govt gives people something if they marry, special status or whatever, and then denies people the chance to get married with another consenting person based on their sexuality.

 

[Londoner]

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???

Strawman. We don't want to turn every cell of our bodies over to government. This sounds simplistic and stupid.

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?

Liberals have not said "nobody should own guns". They want tighter background checks, especially for criminals, the insane, and people on the terrorist watch list. Stop lying.

3. Related: Why do Liberals demand that Govt regulate and control people's access to guns, but not to drugs.

More lying. There should absolutely be regulations on drug use. We can't have people getting the munchies & giggles when an anti-government wingnut shoots up a federal building.

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."

False. You're confusing rights with beliefs. I don't believe in every activity someone has a right to perform. Just because someone has a right to post a picture of Obama with a monkey face doesn't mean I believe in it.

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.

Study the Establishment Clause. Your problem is with the Constitution. For my part, I'm a liberal and I have zero problems with Christmas symbols. The War on Religion that you are talking about has been strategically overblown by rightwing media to mobilize low-information voters. The Culture War is how the Reagan Revolution appealed to poor people, many of whom were Democrats alienated by the party's shift from working class issues to race and lifestyle politics in the 60s.

Seriously though, if your boyfriend doesn't get any of these issues, you might want to think twice about starting a family.

 

[jknowgood]

can you explain which group is behind the agenda
* to regulate guns but deregulate/legalize drugs?

There is no "group" (singular). That's two different things.
It's also fatally vague especially in the second point. What do we even mean by "deregulate/legalize drugs"? That by itself is at least two more things, not even counting what the term "drugs" means. Depending on how those are defined I can easily take either side.

The flaw in all this is the broad brush you're trying to hammer with.

I understand the push for DEcriminalization.
but these arguments that people should have the freedom to access drugs
without penalty but not have unregulated access to guns, where or which group is that coming from?

No idea. Haven't seen "a group" taking that approach, even if it weren't so vague in meaning.

* to push for Govt to manage single payer health care
but then turn around and reject Govt regulations that interfere with reproductive health care
choices including birth control and abortions.

Again --- two different things.

Why exactly are you trying to take disparate issues and lump them together under a single label? Isn't that ignoring all those individuals who may favor one part and reject the other?


I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

I'm a gun owner and my second amendment isn't being infringed.

Keep voting democrat and that will change. Hillary says if she becomes president, she will get as many guns off the street as she can. Also Obama's pick for sc is about anti gun as you can be.

 

[jknowgood]

can you explain which group is behind the agenda
* to regulate guns but deregulate/legalize drugs?

There is no "group" (singular). That's two different things.
It's also fatally vague especially in the second point. What do we even mean by "deregulate/legalize drugs"? That by itself is at least two more things, not even counting what the term "drugs" means. Depending on how those are defined I can easily take either side.

The flaw in all this is the broad brush you're trying to hammer with.

I understand the push for DEcriminalization.
but these arguments that people should have the freedom to access drugs
without penalty but not have unregulated access to guns, where or which group is that coming from?

No idea. Haven't seen "a group" taking that approach, even if it weren't so vague in meaning.

* to push for Govt to manage single payer health care
but then turn around and reject Govt regulations that interfere with reproductive health care
choices including birth control and abortions.

Again --- two different things.

Why exactly are you trying to take disparate issues and lump them together under a single label? Isn't that ignoring all those individuals who may favor one part and reject the other?


I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

Links?

And I mean -- to both parts?

Guess we'll see this dood ------- LATER.

My God where have you been for the past 7 years? A mass shooting happens and Obama trips all over himself to get behind the microphone. So you don't support Obama?

My God where have you been for the past 7 years? A mass shooting happens and Obama trips all over himself to get behind the microphone. So you don't support Obama?

Mass shootings should be ignored?

Obama comes out before the bodies are cold and politicizes the incident.

 

[peach174]

"Your guns are going to be taken" ...we've been hearing this forever...what a complete lie andcrock believed by those who ate of weak minds. Its in the constitution for gosh sakes. Are people in this country that dumb?

If the guns are banned for sale by congress you can't get future guns.
It is taking our guns if you can't buy a future very popular gun, like a glock or AK 47.

 

[jknowgood]

can you explain which group is behind the agenda
* to regulate guns but deregulate/legalize drugs?

There is no "group" (singular). That's two different things.
It's also fatally vague especially in the second point. What do we even mean by "deregulate/legalize drugs"? That by itself is at least two more things, not even counting what the term "drugs" means. Depending on how those are defined I can easily take either side.

The flaw in all this is the broad brush you're trying to hammer with.

I understand the push for DEcriminalization.
but these arguments that people should have the freedom to access drugs
without penalty but not have unregulated access to guns, where or which group is that coming from?

No idea. Haven't seen "a group" taking that approach, even if it weren't so vague in meaning.

* to push for Govt to manage single payer health care
but then turn around and reject Govt regulations that interfere with reproductive health care
choices including birth control and abortions.

Again --- two different things.

Why exactly are you trying to take disparate issues and lump them together under a single label? Isn't that ignoring all those individuals who may favor one part and reject the other?


I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

Links?

And I mean -- to both parts?

Guess we'll see this dood ------- LATER.

My God where have you been for the past 7 years? A mass shooting happens and Obama trips all over himself to get behind the microphone. So you don't support Obama?

What the fuck kind of link is that?
I clicked on every letter of every word. Even the question mark. Nothing.

It's called, do you have a memory or are you just a dumb fuck?

 

[imawhosure]

"Your guns are going to be taken" ...we've been hearing this forever...what a complete lie andcrock believed by those who ate of weak minds. Its in the constitution for gosh sakes. Are people in this country that dumb?

Dear initforme
This is similar to arguments that "any attempt to restrict or regulate abortion" is heading down a slippery slope that will "erode women's rights and amounts to a war on women."

BOTH sides will stop the MINUTE there is any political move to regulate
* gun rights
* abortion rights
For FEAR it will lead to more and more regulation by govt.
Both sides do this, but on different issues that symbolize citizen freedom from govt intrusion: gun rights for some folks and abortion rights for others (for others, it's drug legalization or voting rights)

If people from all parties got together and had an AGREEMENT that on issues of political beliefs, laws and reforms would be passed by CONSENSUS (and solving any conflicts that come up between groups on these issues) then the democratic process could collaborative and based on solving problems, instead of fear-based bullying politics....

Emily----------> all your questions can be answered in a short synopsis---------->

The conservative way is freedom, the lefts way is to MAKE you do something through force.

I scratch my head in wonderment at people who complain about rich corporations. Who made them rich? The people bitching about them. Were they forced to buy their computer, Apple I-phone, or specific auto at the point of a gun? No! Every time you see Apple release a new I-phone, you see lines (of mostly lefties) standing outside the building to purchase it freely; thus making Apple a very rich corporation indeed.

Now take the ACA. Do the people freely by that? No, or the government doesn't think they will. They fine the hell out of you if you do not have insurance, thus punishing you for not seeing it their way. Everything the government does is through threat of force, or punishment, to convince you to do it. This is exactly why excessive laws or regulations, give the power to the government to punish you MORE!

Consider this----------> I am not positive if it was last year, or over the 7 years Obama has been President that over 2500 new regulations have been put in place. Now how does the government get the people to abide by these regulations? Do they just ask? No! They threaten you with PAIN of one sort or the other; from fines, to imprisonment, sometimes both. This is why BIG GOVERNMENT is actually the opposite of freedom. How many regulations do we need, and when will they ever stop?

It is said, (and I believe it) that each and every day, a normal American citizen breaks at least 1 law or regulation, they are not aware of. Since ignorance is not a defense for breaking any law, if the powers that be want to get you and tie you up, they will do it! They can bring the weight of a government entity down on you, using tax payer money, and you have to use your own to defend yourself.

So how does the last 2500 regulations affect you, or yours? Who knows! Maybe a better question is------------> how does the last 25000 affect you on what you can, and can not do. When you find out, please let us know!

 

[hadit]

Actually, the principals at work here are valid fodder for comparison. Most of the same people who insist that, in the name of freedom, the government should NOT save the life of an unborn baby see no contradiction in also demanding that individual citizens be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare. They seem to think it's all about freedom. It is, as long as they are on the receiving end of the goodies.

The TRUTH is that we all, save for the ardent Libertarians, believe that government should enforce our beliefs on everyone else. Pro lifers believe that a developing baby in the womb is a human being and thus should enjoy the protection of the law. Pro socialist healthcare believers think the government should force everyone to pay for everyone else's healthcare. It all comes down to what you believe is a legitimate use of government power, and that struggle will never stop. That is why Libertarians resist ANY expansion of government power, because they know that once established, that power will never go away and the next battle will be over another expansion. Most people agree, for example, that obamadon'tcare is a disaster, but few will really fight to do away with it because it's already established.

 

[emilynghiem]

can you explain which group is behind the agenda
* to regulate guns but deregulate/legalize drugs?

There is no "group" (singular). That's two different things.
It's also fatally vague especially in the second point. What do we even mean by "deregulate/legalize drugs"? That by itself is at least two more things, not even counting what the term "drugs" means. Depending on how those are defined I can easily take either side.

The flaw in all this is the broad brush you're trying to hammer with.

I understand the push for DEcriminalization.
but these arguments that people should have the freedom to access drugs
without penalty but not have unregulated access to guns, where or which group is that coming from?

No idea. Haven't seen "a group" taking that approach, even if it weren't so vague in meaning.

* to push for Govt to manage single payer health care
but then turn around and reject Govt regulations that interfere with reproductive health care
choices including birth control and abortions.

Again --- two different things.

Why exactly are you trying to take disparate issues and lump them together under a single label? Isn't that ignoring all those individuals who may favor one part and reject the other?


I think what you might be trying to get at here is a question of inconsistency of reasoning by drawing comparisons between two issues that come to opposite conclusions on the same reasoning basis. Such as a (hypothetical) person who thinks the govt should ban abortion as murder, yet wants the same govt to exercise a death penalty.

If that's what you're reaching for it's a valid and worthy exercise. But let's not lump them all together into a single label.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

Obama the president you support is doing all he can to abolish the second amendment.

I'm a gun owner and my second amendment isn't being infringed.

Keep voting democrat and that will change. Hillary says if she becomes president, she will get as many guns off the street as she can. Also Obama's pick for sc is about anti gun as you can be.

Hillary couldn't even be honest about how many people cannot afford the costs, deductibles, premiums and out of pocket expenses under the current ACA.
She wants to revise it. But how long does that take and how can AVERAGE people afford it while the process takes so long?
The Congresspeople and govt officials all have their top insurance paid for remember so they aren't as affected.

At least the liberals responding here are HONEST intellectually and hitting right on target that they don't believe or push those problems as posted.
Thanks Londoner and frigidweirdo Pogo and others.
Please continue posting, it is refreshing and much needed to discuss how to correct
these problems with fellow Liberals as you who are at least intellectually honest.
How do we take back the party from the commercialized politicized rhetoric?
From your answers you seem to have the integrity and sense of ethics that is being buried.
Please help, please continue and help me work these issues out
and present statements to the party and public of what we need to correct ! thank you all!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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???

Not the case. Most liberals support keeping the government from having any influence on choices over personal health issues. That includes pregnancy and end of life decision. To that end, most liberals support trying to make as many options available to as many people as possible. The best path to doing that is probably the single payer healthcare system. The US system is broke, and has been broke for at least 25+ years. There's a reason that the Clintons ran on, and won, with a platform that included healthcare reforms. There's also a reason that the Conservative alternative to a single payer system in the 90's was an individual mandate, a plan they now oppose because "reasons."

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?

Gun control isn't about banning all guns. That genie is out of the bottle. It's about restricting access to weapons that are used every single day by criminals for the express purpose of attacking police and victims. Restricting the access wouldn't solve the problem overnight, but saying there should be no restrictions is like trying to stop the broken pipe from flooding your house by refusing to shut off the water. It makes no sense.

As for police, most folks want greater police oversight and responsibility. I've yet to meet a person who isn't sympathetic to the fact that every time a police officer makes a traffic stop they take their life in their hands (see the easy availability of guns above). But at the same time there's a no way to deny there are bad cops who have lied on reports to justify arrests or who have killed people with little consequences. That's not serving and protecting.

3. Related: Why do Liberals demand that Govt regulate and control people's access to guns, but not to drugs.

That's a bipartisan problem. The legalize Marijuana cuts across ideological lines. I personally see this as a health and personal responsibility issue related to #1 above. If you want to smoke, drink, use drugs, etc, I don't really care unless and until it becomes my problem. I'm anti-smoking entirely because of second hand smoke and it's effect on children. Eliminate that issue and you can smoke till you die from lung cancer. Be my guest.

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."

This is actually a fairly tough line that I think we cross in both directions often. The state should not be endorsing religion, so I am not in favor of praying in the classroom. On the other hand, I think students should be free to organize for bible studies, etc, as they see fit just as an LBGT club is something that students should be allowed to support or form as they see fit. As far as parades or pride days go, if you do the necessary paperwork with the city I don't see a reason to deny anyone to celebrate as long as the opportunity is there for others to have their beliefs present too. So if you want to protest gay rights have a blast. Do that paperwork though. If you want to have a gay pride parade, do so. Do that paperwork though.

 

[Syriusly]

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???.

Why do you ask such stupid questions?

I support a woman's right to control her own body- why do you believe that the government- essentially old white guys- should tell a woman what to do with her own body?

I don't even understand what you are trying to say in the second part of your statement.