Ted Cruz citizenship fiasco continues...

[Dot Com]

Yurt used to post such good threads What happened to the Yurt I used to know?

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh goody goody, the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves.

Dear Luddly:
It's not just physical birthplace in question
but the SPIRIT of whether people uphold their duty of office to
ENFORCE Constitutional laws and principles for ALL people and interests nationwide
NOT JUST THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution,
then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across
the same way, as putting political agenda above Constitutional inclusion of ALL views,
including the opposition.

If people are going to be SO BIASED as to NOT be able to include ALL PEOPLE OF ALL VIEWS EQUALLY under Constitutional representation and protection,
I don't believe such people should be in office imposing their biases on public policy.

At the very least, they should have facilitators or mediators assigned to resolve conflicts so that public policies truly reflect the PUBLIC CONSENSUS and not just a majority of one party "bullying over dissenters" by political force, majority vote, or media campaigns.

Shouldn't public policy be based on CONSENT of all the taxpaying public?

Have we gone so long with this trend of coercion and exclusion, that's all we rely on to make decisions anymore?

Luddly, if you were in a partnership with a person who made decisions this way, by "coercing you against your will or beliefs by force or by threat" instead of listening and including your objections and dissent/consent, wouldn't you COMPLAIN the relationship was ABUSIVE?

If the only way you could be heard and defended in such a relationship was to BULLY BACK wouldnt you consider such a relationship to be UNHEALTHY? wouldn't you seek counseling to fix the problems and make decisions in a more healthy and balanced way, instead of forcing decisions back and forth by ganging up on each other?

Really Luddly?

What does it take to explain how this bullying is unhealthy and obstructive to the democratic/due process? how long can we continue thinking this is the only way????

How can either you or I be supportive of stopping the bullying or abuse of women and children by these same tactics, yet condone the constant reliance on them in politics???

????

Please work with my Luddly, as a fellow prochoice liberal/progressive Democrat I really really need to understand this mindset so I can help stop bullying and abuse that I see is related to this same behavior. Please help me understand, can you please explain?

Let's recap this thread, shall we?

He wrote: "...the Hawaii BC was a fake..."

I wrote: "...the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves..."

And, Emily took that straightforward exchange and wandered off into cyberspace with it.

Sorry, but you're gonna be taking that trip without me.

Sorry Luddly

I guess I feel the same way when all the other "prochoice" friends I have went off on this ACA instead of supporting single payer.

And I am left at this fork in the road asking "what happened to prochoice?"

I feel completely left behind, and left out, with all the politics splitting left and right,
not solving the problems left behind unaddressed as well.

Sorry for the confusion which is mutual, apparently.

At least when Reagan felt the Democrat Party left him, he had some place to go.

I turn to my Occupy and Tea Party friends, my liberal and progressive
and Green Party friends, and they all seem to be equally asking WTF???

Whatever bandwagon you've jumped on to go along with this ride, Luddly,
I agree we are not on it together.

As a Constitutionalist, I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.

So I fail to see how any of this backbiting and pushing policies by backstabbing or discrediting/excluding members or leaders of other parties is "constitutional."

I believe it is political coersion and bullying and NOT PROCHOICE AND
NOT WHAT THE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE/DEMOCRATS or GREENS believe in,
in addition to being against the Libertarians, Republicans and conservatives.

So I still cannot figure out who is represented by all this mess
which you seem to feel represents you?

Sorry, you are right, that I do feel completely lost as to how this represents the public?

 

[Dot Com]

stay on topic

 

[Luddly Neddite]

stay on topic

I agree but feel I must address this one line. (Mostly because it was the only thing she wrote than made any sense.)

As a Constitutionalist, I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.

Not possible. Indeed, that would be the exact opposite of the Constitution.

Voting, by its very definition, disappoints and disagrees with some portion of the population.

Okay, back to trashing ....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Oh and in case anyone didn't get the reference, the point is that Cruz was using Green Eggs and Ham to knock ObamaCare when obviously, he didn't understand the point of the book.

Typical Cruz ...

Sen. Claire McCaskill Mocks Ted Cruz For Misunderstanding 'Green Eggs And Ham' (VIDEO) -

 

[Dot Com]

guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list

 

[Luddly Neddite]

guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list

And, there are some who would actually VOTE for him.

More of that strange phenomenon of knowingly and willingly voting against one's own self interest.

 

[Impenitent]

Cruz for president, eh.

O Canada! Our home and native land
Built on ice, snow, and shale oil sand
With a Molson Gold, Bigfoot walks aboot
And "Canuck Hoser" he shoots it oot
But to all our native sons, O Canada
If be they patriots, or be they froots
We take a dim view if they deny their roots
So if Cruz wants to be loose and free
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.

 

[emilynghiem]

stay on topic

I agree but feel I must address this one line. (Mostly because it was the only thing she wrote than made any sense.)

As a Constitutionalist, I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.

Not possible. Indeed, that would be the exact opposite of the Constitution.

Voting, by its very definition, disappoints and disagrees with some portion of the population.

Okay, back to trashing ....

THANKS LUDDLY

Here, we have hit on a MAJOR point.

Because YOU don't believe that consensus policies are possible
you are imposing your view politically on people like me who believe in
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED (ie. if people AGREE to majority rule to decide a policy,
then it is okay to use that, but if they do not, the conflicts need to be resolved first)

A. either agreeing on policy in order to pass laws that are well written,
Constitutionally sound and inclusive of all views
Example: the Code of Ethics for Govt Service Public Law 96-303
was passed in 1980 UNANIMOUSLY BY CONGRESS
(and not coincidentally is a WELL WRITTEN LAW)
ethics-commission.net

B. or agreeing to SEPARATE religiously and let each group have equal freedom to implement the policy or program of their choice

Luddly, since I posted an example of a federal law that was passed
unanimously by Congress (the Code of Ethics for Govt Service)
do you agree that this criteria is possible to meet?

If so, do you agree by reading the content and wording of the law,
that consensus might make for better policies since they carry
the consent of the public in unison?

Thanks, Luddly!

I think THIS is the issue at stake, whether or not people believe in "consent of the governed" as necessary criteria in laws as a social contract (and whether people can distinguish WHEN people CONSENT to majority rule, and when religious beliefs are involved where people DO NOT CONSENT to being overruled by opposition based on majority vote.)

My argument is when people do not consent, it is usually because inherent religiously held beliefs are involved, which govt is not authorized to exclude, prohibit, penalize or discriminate against. Instead the conflict should be resolved one way or another, either by arriving at a solution that does not impose conflicting conditions, or by separating policies.

I believe this is the basis of the prochoice stance, so that is why I am so curious as to the silence of fellow prochoice advocates on pointing out this contradiction in ACA mandates.
We ask prolife people to respect prochoice views and REFRAIN from any regulation WHATSOEVER infringing on free choice, yet when it comes to ACA, I see the opposite!

 

[emilynghiem]

guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list

re: cost of govt shutdown and other protests against ACA as unconstitutional overreaching of federal authority

If Cruz wants to blame Democrats for passing ACA, he must also blame Roberts on Supreme Court for that ruling as well.

I would equally blame both Congress and Supreme Court members who supported ACA with its obvious bias against and exclusion of constituents and taxpayers who believe that health care policies belong under states' rights and not under federal govt which is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate consumer contracts with a business industry such as insurance.

So I would fault those specific govt officials for the cost of the protest against this flawed ACA

 

[Yurt]

guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list

right, because obama and the dems had zero to do with it

yawn

 

[Yurt]

Yurt used to post such good threads What happened to the Yurt I used to know?

and once again a post of non substance and zero will to back up your claims. you're the one posting crap and pulling jakestarkey's all over the board by making claims and then when asked to back them up...all you do is ad hom.

poor form, very immature.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Emily, this is not Government Law 101 and I have no intention of spending any time explaining my opinions to you. Especially since you contradict* your own position from one post to the next and then tell me what I believe**. I'm sure you're a very nice person but you're barking up the wrong poster.

OTOH, you could the admin for your own forum where you can post these miles long lectures of yours. maybe someone else would be interested in reading them.

*

I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.

... followed by ...

if people AGREE to majority rule

*I want to be very clear that THIS is why I will not attempt any kind of conversation with you:

Because YOU don't believe that consensus policies are possible...

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Luddly:
THANK YOU again for spelling out where the conflicts are coming from.

This helps A LOT.

This is not a contradiction and sorry I wasn't clear:

It DOES represent ALL the people where WE ALL AGREE
A. WHEN to use majority rule to decide changes in law that are within govt jurisdiction
B. WHEN to keep issues OUT of govt jurisdiction that are religious or personal/private
C. when and how to write laws to AVOID religious conflicts and stick to central policies
D. when to relegate personal/religious decisions to the state or to the people / private sector (where we cannot agree on a federal or a state level due to personally held issues and differences of belief)

As long as we AGREE which case we are dealing with, and how to handle each, then it STILL includes/represents all people (TAKING INTO ACCOUNT our differences where we continue to disagree, ESPECIALLY personal religious or political differences that will not change, INSTEAD OF EXCLUDING OR DISCOUNTING the dissenting views as invalid).

Is this more clear?

Thanks Luddly! You are really helping to clarify the conflicts so these can be resolved!

Emily, this is not Government Law 101 and I have no intention of spending any time explaining my opinions to you. Especially since you contradict* your own position from one post to the next and then tell me what I believe**. I'm sure you're a very nice person but you're barking up the wrong poster.

OTOH, you could the admin for your own forum where you can post these miles long lectures of yours. maybe someone else would be interested in reading them.

*

I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.

... followed by ...

if people AGREE to majority rule

*I want to be very clear that THIS is why I will not attempt any kind of conversation with you:

Because YOU don't believe that consensus policies are possible...

 

[Dot Com]

REPRESENTATIVE democracy is just that. Representatives don't merely act as a rubber stamp, they're not supposed to, for SOCONs just because they happen to make up a majority of the populace. This country needed HC reform\move into the 21st century.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt used to post such good threads What happened to the Yurt I used to know?

and once again a post of non substance and zero will to back up your claims. you're the one posting crap and pulling jakestarkey's all over the board by making claims and then when asked to back them up...all you do is ad hom.

poor form, very immature.

Yes, you are extremely immature as well as dishonest, Yurt.

The Board has been laughing at you with merriment lately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution, then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across"

Immaterial if true, because BHO can't run again and is a lame duck.

The American people as an electorate will not give Cruz the same chance.

 

[HenryBHough]

Nothing more sadly pathetic than a liberal Democrat refusing self-confession. It would be painful to watch were it not so knee-slapping funny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing more than an Acorn Head pretending he is sentient.

Ted Cruz ended his chance for nomination last October and November.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wise closet liberals (OK, an oxymoron) carry little pieces of plastic wrap.

They cover their beer glasses so their tears don't dilute the drink.

Problem is, they also blow their noses on that plastic wrap.