Supporting and Defending Our Constitution

[Skull]

One group is the Epoch Times, here is what they are doing:

Defending America

 

[deannalw]

One group is the Epoch Times, here is what they are doing:

Defending America

Looks very interesting. And it seems to me... it might be the perfect time to refresh our memories on what it says and what it means.

 

[danielpalos]

Essay 1: The Left Is Wrong: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women

It is the right-wing who prefer to discriminate the most with their right-wing bigotry. It was not the left who came up with extra-Constitutional, black codes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Essay 1: The Left Is Wrong: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women

It is the right-wing who prefer to discriminate the most with their right-wing bigotry. It was not the left who came up with extra-Constitutional, black codes.

Then are you calling the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights for Blacks, enforced Jim Crow laws and segregation in the South part of the "rightwing"?

What about the liberal Democrats who created yet another city entity to control Black Historic Freedmen's Town?

The only Black Republican leader and descendant still defending local ownership is AGAINST the Democrats and liberals pushing the City to take over management of funding.

So is she the "leftwing" standing for Black ownership instead of govt control?

And you are calling the Black Democrats "rightwing" who want city govt to be in charge so they can control the funds?

Which way is it danielpalos?

 

[Pellinore]

The Epoch Times is run by a Chinese psychic-healing movement that have fully embraced conspiracy theories and far-right extremism, and that sound an awful lot like a cult. They are not an objective or reliable news source, by any stretch.

 

[emilynghiem]

Skull danielpalos: One key point I came across that is preventing a unified presence and statement in the media is division and arguments over "socialism/marxism/communism" which defects and derails the real issues. The problem is NOT "socialism" -- Until we all unite and argue the problem is STATISM, this isn't established in the media. The media runs the "socialism/Marxism" narratives because it sells more bait and hype, keeping peope stuck arguing in circles and denial. The REAL issue is that the DEMOCRATS believe in CENTRALIZED federal govt issuing mandates for the people collectively. That isn't "socialism" that is STATISM. I have been trying to talk to more Libertarians, Conservatives/Republicans, and independent Constitutionalists and Greens, about uniting and signing a joint complaint to the Democrats against them establishing their STATIST political beliefs through fed govt that violate religious freedom of people of other beliefs and creeds, and deny equal public accommodations to others in the representation and democratic process. If the PARTY members continue to solicit donations, votes, support and media statements to promote and misrepresent such unconstitutional policies as lobbying govt legislation, this is conspiring to commit fraud (by deceptively advertising this as lawful when it in fact violates Constitutional laws, limits, beliefs, ethics and equal protections of civil rights liberties and due process of individuals). And such party activities as an organized group constitute "conspiracy to violate civil rights", again by violating First Amendment rules as well as denying public accommodations by discriminating by creed against people of other beliefs, (including decentralization, inclusion of diversity by direct democracy and/or proportional representation by party, no taxation without representation by consent of the governed, limited govt, no coercion but all rules and enforcement based on voluntary participation, etc.) Then I would propose a petition (directed at STATE govt leaders) to recognize and divide Parties as two types and require all lobbying organizations to register as one or the other: 1. Political Religious Organizations that espouse and impose biased political beliefs (such as Statism, socialism, corporate personhood, Constitutionalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Communism, Liberalism, etc) to the EXCLUSION of others, where these Religious Organizations with the right to discriminate cannot lobby or legislate through govt. 2. Nonreligious Constitutionally inclusive Political lobbying, legislative or party organizations that will be required to sign agreements to uphold, enforce and include Constitutional limits rights laws ethics and equal protections for all other parties and creeds in order to participate in lobbying or legislation. 3. And forming an independent Constitutional Council of citizens for bringing and redressing complaints to be resolved by consensus, assessing and reimbursing taxpayers for debts and damages caused by unconstitutional abuses of govt, and formulating agreed solutions for investing restitution and credits to reduce or replace taxes with programs and reforms implemented by mutual consent. www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Skull]

emilynghiem All true enough Emily, but I found that ignoring definitional arguments over what any "ism" really is - is better. Word games are favored by the over educated. It is simpler to look at the practical effects of implementation in a Controlled society. The are generally bad. So if the fruit is poisonous, never plant those seeds.

 

[woodwork201]

Essay 1: The Left Is Wrong: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women

It is the right-wing who prefer to discriminate the most with their right-wing bigotry. It was not the left who came up with extra-Constitutional, black codes.

These weren't passed by Republicans; they were passed by Democrats.

Jim Crow laws

ballotpedia.org

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem All true enough Emily, but I found that ignoring definitional arguments over what any "ism" really is - is better. Word games are favored by the over educated. It is simpler to look at the practical effects of implementation in a Controlled society. The are generally bad. So if the fruit is poisonous, never plant those seeds.

Dear Skull
When trying to write out a contract, yes it makes a HUGE difference to make sure all parties to the agreement personally connect heart to heart, and with a meeting of the minds, that the same terms mean the same things. In order to have a solid, unified agreement by conscience that is both enforceable and sustainable.

I find that even in the Preliminary process of connecting and communicating between people, it HELPS to talk out all points of differences and biases so we get to know each other's perspectives and how we perceive problems and spell out terms of solutions.

In order to have fully informed consent and solid binding comtracts, there cannot be gaping holes or conflicts in expectations and conditions.

The mess we have right now in govt and public policies is the lack of real consensus. Too much compromise just to get something in place. And too hard to reform policies by just pushing politically to force one hand or another.

We need to connect on real solutions and reforms that solve the problems, and then take those agreed proposals and solutions to govt and party leaders to implement.

Language and terms make all the difference in whether people are represented in policies and included in the democratic process.

We need to hear each other out in full, not just project what we mean regardless of how this is received or perceived by others. It is not a one way process. We need to make sure we are on the same page and pushing in coordination with each other,not in competition or at odds. Otherwise, with both sides competing to impose overrule or exclude opposition, both are missing the real target and just preaching to ourselves. The same narrative goes back and forth, blaming the other, and the dynamic stays deadlocked causing compromised bills and rulings with unresolved issues and objections that still have to be addressed.

Why not resolve more conflicts up front before trying to legislate or vote on policies and reforms?

Why not iron out issues in advance?

 

[Skull]

Why not resolve more conflicts up front before trying to legislate or vote on policies and reforms?

Why not iron out issues in advance?

You are assuming that honest conversation, where both or all parties truly seek to resolve conflicts, is possible. I wish you the best in your endeavors.
In my present dotage I do not think, on big social problems, that such efforts will take place or be successful.
Nowadays one side will win & the other lose. In the distant future there may be a harmonious humanity.

 

[Pellinore]

Essay 1: The Left Is Wrong: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women

It is the right-wing who prefer to discriminate the most with their right-wing bigotry. It was not the left who came up with extra-Constitutional, black codes.

These weren't passed by Republicans; they were passed by Democrats.

Jim Crow laws

ballotpedia.org

Yep. Democrats who, at the time, represented the conservative Right.

 

[woodwork201]

Essay 1: The Left Is Wrong: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women

It is the right-wing who prefer to discriminate the most with their right-wing bigotry. It was not the left who came up with extra-Constitutional, black codes.

These weren't passed by Republicans; they were passed by Democrats.

Jim Crow laws

ballotpedia.org

Yep. Democrats who, at the time, represented the conservative Right.

No, there was no flip of the political poles. It was Democrats who hated the Union and wanted to break it up - just like Democrats today. There's no change.

 

[danielpalos]

Then are you calling the Democrats who opposed Civil Rights for Blacks, enforced Jim Crow laws and segregation in the South part of the "rightwing"?

What about the liberal Democrats who created yet another city entity to control Black Historic Freedmen's Town?

The only Black Republican leader and descendant still defending local ownership is AGAINST the Democrats and liberals pushing the City to take over management of funding.

So is she the "leftwing" standing for Black ownership instead of govt control?

And you are calling the Black Democrats "rightwing" who want city govt to be in charge so they can control the funds?

Which way is it danielpalos?

You are simply being disingenuous like usual for the right-wing.

Right-wingers used to vote democrat not Lincoln Republican.

 

[Pellinore]

No, there was no flip of the political poles. It was Democrats who hated the Union and wanted to break it up - just like Democrats today. There's no change.

If you cling to the idea that the parties are the same now as they were in the 1860s, then you simply don't know American history as well as you think you do.

I mean, I won't be able to change your mind—to you, I'm just an icon on the Internet—but I think you should know anyway.