Why do Progressives Hate Religion?

[koshergrl]

It's all one and the same.

 

[sealybobo]

Wrong. We are putting so much man made pollution in the air is is destroying the planet.

So, what you're saying is that our sins have angered the volcano god who will destroy the village unless we submit to the priests and sacrifice to appease the gods?

Damn - how original your story is....

Luckily while you right wing liars and your media continue to deny it, countries like China are moving forward because they aren't ruled by greedy corporate pollutors who tell them to keep denying the facts.

Yes, China is the model of ecological responsibility, sploogy.\

{
Chinese scientists have warned that the country's toxic air pollution is now so bad that it resembles a nuclear winter, slowing photosynthesis in plants – and potentially wreaking havoc on the country's food supply.

Beijing and broad swaths of six northern provinces have spent the past week blanketed in a dense pea-soup smog that is not expected to abate until Thursday. Beijing's concentration of PM 2.5 particles – those small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream – hit 505 micrograms per cubic metre on Tuesday night. The World Health Organisation recommends a safe level of 25.}

China s toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter say scientists Environment theguardian.com


We better rush to follow their lead, eh shit fer brains?

I can't stand you people. Christians, conservatives, stupid Americans. You all make me sick to my stomach.

No doubt if you could get your dictatorship, death camps would quickly follow - they always do with your type.

I'm just trying to explain to you dumb fucking Americans who've been brainwashed by a corporate media that other countries INCLUDING China are going green while we here at home are listening to corporate liars who deny man made global warming even exists because they don't want to pay for the clean up.

Just like how corporations here at home are destroying unions and acting like they aren't necessary anymore but then they ship our jobs overseas and come to find out while they are destroying unions here at home unions around the world are doing just fine. Which is why their wages are going up and ours are going down. No coincidence.

 

[koshergrl]

boob just gets nuttier and nuttier. Has anybody else noticed?

 

[sealybobo]

Religion, particularly Christianity, censures their proposed lifestyle of sexual depravity, survival of the fittest, and insitutionalized murder.

Dumbest right wing post ever.

Survival of the Fittest is the Libertarian way. Darwin may be our boy when it comes to evolution but you guys applied his theories to your economics and dog eat dog every man for himself is the GOP way, not ours.

Institutionalized murder? You mean abortion? How many right wing christians do you think get abortions every year? I'd say half of the abortions performed this year were given to Christian whores.

But you are right about one thing. I'd like to have butt sex with you and it be ok.

 

[sealybobo]

Meet The ALEC Staffers Who Help Corporations Write Our Laws

Do you even know what ALEC is?

How about the Heritage Foundation?

• It takes credit for much of President Bush's policy, both domestic and foreign, referring to Bush's policies as "straight out of the Heritage play book."

• Heritage supports faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, ban on abortion, overturning affirmative action programs.

- See more at: Heritage Foundation Right Wing Watch

You just go to the hate sites and copy and paste whatever is handy, doncha?

You're too ignorant to even find talking points on the hate sites to support a conversation. Random idiocy that jumps from topic to topic is all anyone can expect from you, isn't it?

You ever look up the market revolution, you illiterate git?

Yes automation has cost some low skilled workers their jobs but what about the ones who lost jobs because the company went overseas or decided to hire illegals?

Don't bother answering. I don't give a fuck what you think. This is why I stopped talking politics with you right wing tools. I figured if I can't convince you your invisible man isn't real, how am I going to convince you that your economic policies suck?

 

[sealybobo]

boob just gets nuttier and nuttier. Has anybody else noticed?

This is why I try not to talk politics with right wing fuckers. It isn't an easy explanation explaining to them why they are so dead wrong about everything. Even when you do explain it well to them, they'll just move on to another talking point and then ultimately they will circle back to the same god damn argument you initially debunked.

So it's pointless.

Do you believe in god? See? If you believe that nonsense, I guess you'll believe anything they tell you like abortion is murder, global warming and evolution are myths and Iraq had wmd's.

 

[emilynghiem]

boob just gets nuttier and nuttier. Has anybody else noticed?

This is why I try not to talk politics with right wing fuckers. It isn't an easy explanation explaining to them why they are so dead wrong about everything. Even when you do explain it well to them, they'll just move on to another talking point and then ultimately they will circle back to the same god damn argument you initially debunked.

So it's pointless.

Do you believe in god? See? If you believe that nonsense, I guess you'll believe anything they tell you like
1. abortion is murder,
2-3. global warming and evolution are myths and
4. Iraq had wmd's.

And in the meantime
1. There are people on both prochoice and prolife sides who are okay with the understanding that SOME abortions can be murder, SOME may not be, and the govt cannot make policy either way; so why not focus on helping rape victims and stopping trafficking and forced abortions.

ie there doesn't have to be a fight just because people approach the issue from two different angles

2. The same solutions we need to prevent the problems associated with "global warming"
can be addressed and resolved by addressing POLLUTION CONSERVATION RESTORATION
and Sustainable solutions WITHOUT arguing over whether God/Global Warming/Creation/Evolution is this or that

3. Evolution and creation both depend on faith in the proof.
Instead of arguing in circles over that, people can study and prove
Spiritual Healing is natural and scientific, and prove the same points
that both religion is right and science is right, which is why they are really arguing.
They can resolve this by proving spiritual things still follow natural laws of science.

4. The issue with Iraq, terrorism, Jihadists, Islam Shariah etc.
can be RESOLVED by bringing together Jewish Christian Muslim and Constitutional
scholars to agree these laws are all sent by God or represent universal truths from the same source.
You don't have to agree on religion or God to AGREE that laws are consistent or resolve where there is conflict.

Sealybobo All the above issues can be resolved by
NOT polarizing them as opposites: either/or them vs. us.

So there is another approach besides trying to make each other WRONG.
And that it to focus on making things RIGHT, sharing in the process as equal contributors.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no, By the Government if you mean Enforcing Constitutional principles,
which would check Corporations and religious and political organizations equally if applied to all collective authority,
maybe Conservatives would AGREE with you.

There is a HUGE difference between
* checking against gun rights, corporate free enterprise, etc. USING the Constitution to hold people
to the same principles they are using to INVOKE their rights and freedoms "under equal protection of the laws for all"
and
* bypassing the Constitution to create whatever micromanaging regulation fits this case or that case,
instead of holding people and corporations to the laws in ALL CASES.

That would mean less government, by regulating directly:
If corporations register to be licensed under the govt to practice business locally or globally,
they have to abide by the same checks and "due process"/right to redress grievances
as Government has to respect for individuals to prevent oppression by collective authority.

There IS a way to regulate large groups using the Constitution, similar to how it is supposed to check Govt.
Nothing wrong with that, and it aligns with Conservative beliefs about the Constitution checking against abuse of power.

Why not hold Corporations, nonprofit and business entities, religious or political, any large organization
that by its construct runs the risk of oppressing individual rights and equal protections should agree to
follow the same standards that prevent Govt from being abused. And just make it consistent across the board.

And quit trying to pass more and more legislation to micromanage every application or change to operations
of every business or group in every sector or field. Why not just require that any reform or grievance that comes
up, any conflict or complaint should be addressed until resolved so nobody's rights get violated.

If you want rights and freedom under law, then respect the same for others.
No obstruction of justice, denial of due process and equal representation, etc.
but agree to protect and enforce the rights equally of all people and groups, IF you want
to operate as a US corporation or want rights, privileges, freedom and protection/security as a US citizen.

AGREE to follow basic laws, and we don't need to micromanage every little exception and application of every instance....

When I say they use religion to control the dumb masses, this is the perfect post illustrating that stupidity I'm talking about. Look, for example, at how they assume we want to worship government when we just want a government that represents all of it's citizens, not just the rich.

Oh but they even have a word for that! If the government protects all of us, is that communism or socialism or class warfare?

See how they prey on the ignorant theists and lie to them? The GOP is the party of God because without God the GOP would have nothing else to offer middle class and poor Americans.

IMPORTANT:
Specifically where this concept comes from about the Left wanting to depend on Government in place of God:

Liberals like Dante and others on here have made it CLEAR they do not share, believe in or respect
the concept that "natural rights including one's life and health come from God,"
but BELIEVE that health care as a natural right comes from Government.

The DEFAULT for the Constitutionalists and Christians who believe people have Rights by Nature
given by God, ie inalienable as a human being, such as free will, liberty or free choice
is to trust these are Naturally existent, and the point of government is to DEFEND this, not dictate how
it should be managed.

The DEFAULT for the Liberals who do not believe in natural laws or rights coming from God
is to see laws as being made by the democratic process only.

that is why Dante insisted that only the Courts or Congress make decisions that decide Federal Law.

So that's where that comes from.

If the Liberals treated these natural rights equally, which they see as "religious beliefs or myths."
then we could get along under separate systems, similar to churches or nonprofits working nationally
and helping all people they can cover, but completely by voluntary participation and contributions.

But since too many Liberals REJECT this belief, of natural rights coming from God, and the right to follow it,
that's why they keep pushing policies written from the perspective that there is no such thing or choice.
This isn't fair to half the nation who believe it is the other way:
that all these wonderful rights include health and life, are already inherently ours for the asking,
and it's just a matter of getting RID of the obstacles preventing the free flow of life and resources to reach all people.

The liberals do NOT TRUST people to set up systems to serve all people,
even though churches and charities have been doing a MORE EFFICIENT job than government.

So I understand that is why liberals push to make Government the default system.

That doesn't have to be the only choice, but
since you do not trust Corporations or people running nonprofit medical programs and schools,
if you trust Government more, then that is where you will push to set up a central system for everyone.

The most telling factor is liberals don't even trust their own Party to set it up.
Otherwise we would already have singlepayer system for members who manage their own.
We'd be done by now.

Instead the liberals who want to push through Govt seem to have no concept
that people who believe in other more efficient and sustainable means of health care
have EQUAL RIGHT to representation in public policies on health care.

That is what I do not get.

They assume their way is the right way, the only way, and don't consider other choices to be valid
or protected by law.

Sealybobo, how is that any different from Christians who assume "believing in Jesus is the ONLY way to
salvation for all people," so the Atheist or other views don't even count as valid and should be wiped out as choices.

Even if it WERE the only or the best solution, it was have to be chosen by FREE WILL not imposed by Govt.
The same with health care and with prolife views of abortion.
Even if a solution that is prohealth or prolife DOES turn out to be the best for all people,
such as Spiritual Healing I have found to be most critical to equal access to sustainable health care,
it must be CHOSEN freely, not imposed by Govt.

Sorry if you can only see one side of this.
I can see both sides, so it is twice as irritating to me that each side only blames the other.

We would love it if charity solved the poverty, jobless, hunger and homeless problems and we didn't need government to step in unfortunately charities can't/aren't solving these problems so our government steps in.

For example, you may think we should do away with unemployment benefits. If you lose your job and don't have any money to last while you look for another job, either ask your family for the $ or your church.

But they can't or won't help everyone. So, our liberal progressive government came up with unemployment insurance. I'm sure conservatives think it is unconstitutional but so what? If they're going to meet me in the middle on this one they have to drop that position. Right?

 

[emilynghiem]

You can have Govt step in but it has to be everyone agreeing to the process since it's public.
If people don't agree, either resolve the conflicts or separate and delegate to other groups and ways, also by agreement.

No fair for one group to claim to represent the people, and override dissenters claiming they don't count.
That's not equal representation or protection of interests beliefs or creeds.

Just because both parties do this, doesn't make it right.
We need to quit doing that, abusing bullying and justifying policy made by coercion.

the best, most effective and sustainable solutions I have seen to economic, political and religious issues
are all done by voluntary participation and free choice.

When I say they use religion to control the dumb masses, this is the perfect post illustrating that stupidity I'm talking about. Look, for example, at how they assume we want to worship government when we just want a government that represents all of it's citizens, not just the rich.

Oh but they even have a word for that! If the government protects all of us, is that communism or socialism or class warfare?

See how they prey on the ignorant theists and lie to them? The GOP is the party of God because without God the GOP would have nothing else to offer middle class and poor Americans.

IMPORTANT:
Specifically where this concept comes from about the Left wanting to depend on Government in place of God:

Liberals like Dante and others on here have made it CLEAR they do not share, believe in or respect
the concept that "natural rights including one's life and health come from God,"
but BELIEVE that health care as a natural right comes from Government.

The DEFAULT for the Constitutionalists and Christians who believe people have Rights by Nature
given by God, ie inalienable as a human being, such as free will, liberty or free choice
is to trust these are Naturally existent, and the point of government is to DEFEND this, not dictate how
it should be managed.

The DEFAULT for the Liberals who do not believe in natural laws or rights coming from God
is to see laws as being made by the democratic process only.

that is why Dante insisted that only the Courts or Congress make decisions that decide Federal Law.

So that's where that comes from.

If the Liberals treated these natural rights equally, which they see as "religious beliefs or myths."
then we could get along under separate systems, similar to churches or nonprofits working nationally
and helping all people they can cover, but completely by voluntary participation and contributions.

But since too many Liberals REJECT this belief, of natural rights coming from God, and the right to follow it,
that's why they keep pushing policies written from the perspective that there is no such thing or choice.
This isn't fair to half the nation who believe it is the other way:
that all these wonderful rights include health and life, are already inherently ours for the asking,
and it's just a matter of getting RID of the obstacles preventing the free flow of life and resources to reach all people.

The liberals do NOT TRUST people to set up systems to serve all people,
even though churches and charities have been doing a MORE EFFICIENT job than government.

So I understand that is why liberals push to make Government the default system.

That doesn't have to be the only choice, but
since you do not trust Corporations or people running nonprofit medical programs and schools,
if you trust Government more, then that is where you will push to set up a central system for everyone.

The most telling factor is liberals don't even trust their own Party to set it up.
Otherwise we would already have singlepayer system for members who manage their own.
We'd be done by now.

Instead the liberals who want to push through Govt seem to have no concept
that people who believe in other more efficient and sustainable means of health care
have EQUAL RIGHT to representation in public policies on health care.

That is what I do not get.

They assume their way is the right way, the only way, and don't consider other choices to be valid
or protected by law.

Sealybobo, how is that any different from Christians who assume "believing in Jesus is the ONLY way to
salvation for all people," so the Atheist or other views don't even count as valid and should be wiped out as choices.

Even if it WERE the only or the best solution, it was have to be chosen by FREE WILL not imposed by Govt.
The same with health care and with prolife views of abortion.
Even if a solution that is prohealth or prolife DOES turn out to be the best for all people,
such as Spiritual Healing I have found to be most critical to equal access to sustainable health care,
it must be CHOSEN freely, not imposed by Govt.

Sorry if you can only see one side of this.
I can see both sides, so it is twice as irritating to me that each side only blames the other.

We would love it if charity solved the poverty, jobless, hunger and homeless problems and we didn't need government to step in unfortunately charities can't/aren't solving these problems so our government steps in.

For example, you may think we should do away with unemployment benefits. If you lose your job and don't have any money to last while you look for another job, either ask your family for the $ or your church.

But they can't or won't help everyone. So, our liberal progressive government came up with unemployment insurance. I'm sure conservatives think it is unconstitutional but so what? If they're going to meet me in the middle on this one they have to drop that position. Right?

 

[haissem123]

Thread after thread after thread started by USMB Libs and their socks has made me ask Why do Progressives Hate Religion?

maybe they hate it because it's totally full of crap. the republicans claim christianity and go against everything he died for. the only ones truly standing for God are those forced to be strung up for him by all us heathens that kill those we don't agree with, in the name of our God, ourselves, money or power or all of the above.

 

[sealybobo]

You can have Govt step in but it has to be everyone agreeing to the process since it's public.
If people don't agree, either resolve the conflicts or separate and delegate to other groups and ways, also by agreement.

No fair for one group to claim to represent the people, and override dissenters claiming they don't count.
That's not equal representation or protection of interests beliefs or creeds.

Just because both parties do this, doesn't make it right.
We need to quit doing that, abusing bullying and justifying policy made by coercion.

the best, most effective and sustainable solutions I have seen to economic, political and religious issues
are all done by voluntary participation and free choice.

When I say they use religion to control the dumb masses, this is the perfect post illustrating that stupidity I'm talking about. Look, for example, at how they assume we want to worship government when we just want a government that represents all of it's citizens, not just the rich.

Oh but they even have a word for that! If the government protects all of us, is that communism or socialism or class warfare?

See how they prey on the ignorant theists and lie to them? The GOP is the party of God because without God the GOP would have nothing else to offer middle class and poor Americans.

IMPORTANT:
Specifically where this concept comes from about the Left wanting to depend on Government in place of God:

Liberals like Dante and others on here have made it CLEAR they do not share, believe in or respect
the concept that "natural rights including one's life and health come from God,"
but BELIEVE that health care as a natural right comes from Government.

The DEFAULT for the Constitutionalists and Christians who believe people have Rights by Nature
given by God, ie inalienable as a human being, such as free will, liberty or free choice
is to trust these are Naturally existent, and the point of government is to DEFEND this, not dictate how
it should be managed.

The DEFAULT for the Liberals who do not believe in natural laws or rights coming from God
is to see laws as being made by the democratic process only.

that is why Dante insisted that only the Courts or Congress make decisions that decide Federal Law.

So that's where that comes from.

If the Liberals treated these natural rights equally, which they see as "religious beliefs or myths."
then we could get along under separate systems, similar to churches or nonprofits working nationally
and helping all people they can cover, but completely by voluntary participation and contributions.

But since too many Liberals REJECT this belief, of natural rights coming from God, and the right to follow it,
that's why they keep pushing policies written from the perspective that there is no such thing or choice.
This isn't fair to half the nation who believe it is the other way:
that all these wonderful rights include health and life, are already inherently ours for the asking,
and it's just a matter of getting RID of the obstacles preventing the free flow of life and resources to reach all people.

The liberals do NOT TRUST people to set up systems to serve all people,
even though churches and charities have been doing a MORE EFFICIENT job than government.

So I understand that is why liberals push to make Government the default system.

That doesn't have to be the only choice, but
since you do not trust Corporations or people running nonprofit medical programs and schools,
if you trust Government more, then that is where you will push to set up a central system for everyone.

The most telling factor is liberals don't even trust their own Party to set it up.
Otherwise we would already have singlepayer system for members who manage their own.
We'd be done by now.

Instead the liberals who want to push through Govt seem to have no concept
that people who believe in other more efficient and sustainable means of health care
have EQUAL RIGHT to representation in public policies on health care.

That is what I do not get.

They assume their way is the right way, the only way, and don't consider other choices to be valid
or protected by law.

Sealybobo, how is that any different from Christians who assume "believing in Jesus is the ONLY way to
salvation for all people," so the Atheist or other views don't even count as valid and should be wiped out as choices.

Even if it WERE the only or the best solution, it was have to be chosen by FREE WILL not imposed by Govt.
The same with health care and with prolife views of abortion.
Even if a solution that is prohealth or prolife DOES turn out to be the best for all people,
such as Spiritual Healing I have found to be most critical to equal access to sustainable health care,
it must be CHOSEN freely, not imposed by Govt.

Sorry if you can only see one side of this.
I can see both sides, so it is twice as irritating to me that each side only blames the other.

We would love it if charity solved the poverty, jobless, hunger and homeless problems and we didn't need government to step in unfortunately charities can't/aren't solving these problems so our government steps in.

For example, you may think we should do away with unemployment benefits. If you lose your job and don't have any money to last while you look for another job, either ask your family for the $ or your church.

But they can't or won't help everyone. So, our liberal progressive government came up with unemployment insurance. I'm sure conservatives think it is unconstitutional but so what? If they're going to meet me in the middle on this one they have to drop that position. Right?

No we don't have to have EVERYONE agree.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Sealybobo: You bring up a good point, and my answer is to let EACH person and party address
THEIR issues biased or not, and demand resolution and correction. So ALL would be addressed.

My approach is to include EVERYONE'S grievances equally, BECAUSE they are all biased this way and that.
so include them all.

Quit trying to negate and excuse one by pointing the finger in the other direction.
Take ALL the grievances that EACH party has researched:
Greens on corporate and environmental destruction
Democrats on the corruption by Republicans
Republicans on corruption by Democrats
etc.
And fix THEM ALL.

So Sealybobo I was CITING Solyndra as an exmaple of a grievance the rightwing bring up but not the left. Benghazi also.

And Equally I bring up war issues with corrupt contracts that the LEFTWING brings up but the RIGHT won't discuss.

Why not demand taxpayers get PAID BACK for anything we didn't ALL AGREE to authorize?
WE'd have enough credits to get the Fed to finance all kinds of reforms of health care and immigration solutions.

If we'd FU quit fighting and start demanding that Govt stick to Constitutional policies
and pay back taxpayers for any policy coloring outside the lines.

So we would need ALL parties: Greens checking Democrats, Libertarians checking Republicans, etc.
to cover all the cases of govt abuse/waste of taxpayer money to create debts that need to be reimbursed or credited back.--

Whatever cases I may be biased toward*, the point is to include ALL grievances and resolve ALL of them with workable solutions.

* mostly environmental and historic restoration to create jobs and education for vets and others; microlending and businss training to break the cycle of poverty and get taxpayers paid back; and restitution for trafficking and other crimes/corruption to be invested in building sustainable community campuses to support such services.

You may take ONE thing I say out of context and say I am proconservative just because I support people who want to redress those grievances, but I equally support prochoice and prolife, and members of all parties to redress grievances
which I believe is a Fundamental inalienable RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY of govt.

Whoever takes that responsibility for redressing grievances, that's where authority of govt lies -- with those people.

You try to act neutral but then you bring up things like Solyndra and it exposes your conservative bias.

So you were opposed to the government investing in an alternative energy company? Why? The oil companies were dragging their feet and we need to stop all the corporate pollution.

Anyways, I'm not going to go into explaining it to you. My hunch is you just want to play devils advocate no matter what I say.

One last thing. Did Solyndra fail? Maybe that's why corporations wouldn't invest in it. This happens a lot whether it be curing diseases or coming up with new inventions like the internet. If corporations don't see an immediate ROI, they won't invest. So, we need to come up with green energy solutions. The planet is being destroyed. So, like many times in the past, when our government sees corporations refusing to take the lead, our government leads.

Our government is the referee in the game of economics. There is no such thing as free markets.

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class

Sorry I can't find an article where Rush or Bill O agree's with Thom Hartmann. No such article exists because they would never admit this stuff.

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class

 

[emilynghiem]

No we don't have to have EVERYONE agree.

it depends sealybobo:
For issues involving RELIGIOIUSLY held beliefs, yes technically there should be consensus before
making federal policy so there is not discrimination or exclusion by creed.

if everyone AGREED to allow prayer by the First Amendment, and not consider it imposing or establishing religion,
this could take place without suing over it, as long as everyone agrees it is within the law and not violating it.

Some things CAN be left to majority rule, such as whether to budget 5 or 10 milliion for a project.

Issues like prolife and prochoice obviously are NOT okay to leave to majority rule because of
religious beliefs involved that not all people share and shouldn't be mandated through govt.

Again, just because peopl ehave put up with an imperfect process,
such as marriage laws that excluded gays, but these were not seen as violating church-state separation
as long as no one contested the marriage laws,
doesn't mean it is constitutional to impose a bias on religious issues without consent of the people.

technically by the spirit of the law, excluding someone by creed is unconstitutional
but we haven't had the means of resolving conflicts until now. So this didn't come up before.

People let prayer and marriage laws slide, but now they ahve come into question.

So now we should take the effort to resolve these conflicts and quit trying to push a blanket policy as a shortcut.

Sealybobo, if you notice, this is what causes dissent and uprising/movements.

if things like marriage laws are imposed without consent bu texcluding progay marriage
then it is unconstitutionally by discriminating by creed. Likewise marriage laws cannot be imposed
the other way either.

So either the groups need to agree, or agree to separate out.

But it is technically unequal protection of the laws to favor one group's beliefs over the other.

If we cannot agree, fine, then separate it from govt and keep it private.

Once something is going to be public policy, technically it should represent ALL the public
or at least agree to concede some points for convenience, but NOT override clear dissent based on religious views.

Sealybobo don't you agree it is UNFAIR for govt policy to reflect ONLY the beliefs whose members have majority rule?
Isn't that discriminating by creed if your beliefs don't count because of your affiliation with a minority population?

legally it becomes necessary to resolve religious conflicts to prevent imposition either way.
maybe now we have the resources and institutions set up to mediate through all these conflicts
one by one and resolve them instead of political games.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes and no, By the Government if you mean Enforcing Constitutional principles,
which would check Corporations and religious and political organizations equally if applied to all collective authority,
maybe Conservatives would AGREE with you.

There is a HUGE difference between
* checking against gun rights, corporate free enterprise, etc. USING the Constitution to hold people
to the same principles they are using to INVOKE their rights and freedoms "under equal protection of the laws for all"
and
* bypassing the Constitution to create whatever micromanaging regulation fits this case or that case,
instead of holding people and corporations to the laws in ALL CASES.

That would mean less government, by regulating directly:
If corporations register to be licensed under the govt to practice business locally or globally,
they have to abide by the same checks and "due process"/right to redress grievances
as Government has to respect for individuals to prevent oppression by collective authority.

There IS a way to regulate large groups using the Constitution, similar to how it is supposed to check Govt.
Nothing wrong with that, and it aligns with Conservative beliefs about the Constitution checking against abuse of power.

Why not hold Corporations, nonprofit and business entities, religious or political, any large organization
that by its construct runs the risk of oppressing individual rights and equal protections should agree to
follow the same standards that prevent Govt from being abused. And just make it consistent across the board.

And quit trying to pass more and more legislation to micromanage every application or change to operations
of every business or group in every sector or field. Why not just require that any reform or grievance that comes
up, any conflict or complaint should be addressed until resolved so nobody's rights get violated.

If you want rights and freedom under law, then respect the same for others.
No obstruction of justice, denial of due process and equal representation, etc.
but agree to protect and enforce the rights equally of all people and groups, IF you want
to operate as a US corporation or want rights, privileges, freedom and protection/security as a US citizen.

AGREE to follow basic laws, and we don't need to micromanage every little exception and application of every instance....

When I say they use religion to control the dumb masses, this is the perfect post illustrating that stupidity I'm talking about. Look, for example, at how they assume we want to worship government when we just want a government that represents all of it's citizens, not just the rich.

Oh but they even have a word for that! If the government protects all of us, is that communism or socialism or class warfare?

See how they prey on the ignorant theists and lie to them? The GOP is the party of God because without God the GOP would have nothing else to offer middle class and poor Americans.

IMPORTANT:
Specifically where this concept comes from about the Left wanting to depend on Government in place of God:

Liberals like Dante and others on here have made it CLEAR they do not share, believe in or respect
the concept that "natural rights including one's life and health come from God,"
but BELIEVE that health care as a natural right comes from Government.

The DEFAULT for the Constitutionalists and Christians who believe people have Rights by Nature
given by God, ie inalienable as a human being, such as free will, liberty or free choice
is to trust these are Naturally existent, and the point of government is to DEFEND this, not dictate how
it should be managed.

The DEFAULT for the Liberals who do not believe in natural laws or rights coming from God
is to see laws as being made by the democratic process only.

that is why Dante insisted that only the Courts or Congress make decisions that decide Federal Law.

So that's where that comes from.

If the Liberals treated these natural rights equally, which they see as "religious beliefs or myths."
then we could get along under separate systems, similar to churches or nonprofits working nationally
and helping all people they can cover, but completely by voluntary participation and contributions.

But since too many Liberals REJECT this belief, of natural rights coming from God, and the right to follow it,
that's why they keep pushing policies written from the perspective that there is no such thing or choice.
This isn't fair to half the nation who believe it is the other way:
that all these wonderful rights include health and life, are already inherently ours for the asking,
and it's just a matter of getting RID of the obstacles preventing the free flow of life and resources to reach all people.

The liberals do NOT TRUST people to set up systems to serve all people,
even though churches and charities have been doing a MORE EFFICIENT job than government.

So I understand that is why liberals push to make Government the default system.

That doesn't have to be the only choice, but
since you do not trust Corporations or people running nonprofit medical programs and schools,
if you trust Government more, then that is where you will push to set up a central system for everyone.

The most telling factor is liberals don't even trust their own Party to set it up.
Otherwise we would already have singlepayer system for members who manage their own.
We'd be done by now.

Instead the liberals who want to push through Govt seem to have no concept
that people who believe in other more efficient and sustainable means of health care
have EQUAL RIGHT to representation in public policies on health care.

That is what I do not get.

They assume their way is the right way, the only way, and don't consider other choices to be valid
or protected by law.

Sealybobo, how is that any different from Christians who assume "believing in Jesus is the ONLY way to
salvation for all people," so the Atheist or other views don't even count as valid and should be wiped out as choices.

Even if it WERE the only or the best solution, it was have to be chosen by FREE WILL not imposed by Govt.
The same with health care and with prolife views of abortion.
Even if a solution that is prohealth or prolife DOES turn out to be the best for all people,
such as Spiritual Healing I have found to be most critical to equal access to sustainable health care,
it must be CHOSEN freely, not imposed by Govt.

Sorry if you can only see one side of this.
I can see both sides, so it is twice as irritating to me that each side only blames the other.

We would love it if charity solved the poverty, jobless, hunger and homeless problems and we didn't need government to step in unfortunately charities can't/aren't solving these problems so our government steps in.

For example, you may think we should do away with unemployment benefits. If you lose your job and don't have any money to last while you look for another job, either ask your family for the $ or your church.

But they can't or won't help everyone. So, our liberal progressive government came up with unemployment insurance. I'm sure conservatives think it is unconstitutional but so what? If they're going to meet me in the middle on this one they have to drop that position. Right?

I don't know what you are talking about. But based on what I think you said, these corporations are getting legislation passed that THEY like but you and I would probably not agree with, because they have lobbyists who write the legislation and hand it over to their politicians and then those politicians pass those bills WITHOUT EVEN READING THEM.

Can you do that? Can you write legislation and give it to your Senator? Will he do anything with it other than wipe his ass?

So then you see your entire post is hogwash.

Especially where you wrote "
If corporations register to be licensed under the govt to practice business locally or globally, they have to abide by the same checks and "due process"/right to redress grievances" Really? Not if we deregulate and turn a blind eye to their illegal activities. Just look at how in 1999 we prosecuted hundreds of companies for hiring illegals and after Bush got in we hardly prosecuted any. So the laws can be on the books all the want. It's up to our government to enforce the laws and when our government is working against the people,

I don't trust my own party because it too has been taken over by the rich. The only thing we have is the vote. So they listen to us A LITTLE only in election years. The rest of the time they ignore us and serve their rich masters. In fact, they don't even have to listen to us in midterms because we are dumb as a bag of rocks. Look at how we went along with the obstructionist gop in 2010 and will vote for them this year too. Why? Because we don't vote every 2 years. Stupid Americans only vote every 4 years. It's the GOP's secret weapon.

Anyways, I don't agree with you and I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity or intelligence. Are you by chance a Libertarian? Is this just libertarian spin coming from you?

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know what you are talking about. But based on what I think you said, these corporations are getting legislation passed that THEY like but you and I would probably not agree with, because they have lobbyists who write the legislation and hand it over to their politicians and then those politicians pass those bills WITHOUT EVEN READING THEM.

Can you do that? Can you write legislation and give it to your Senator? Will he do anything with it other than wipe his ass?

Hi SB I think it's coming to the point where the People NEED to be the Government and write out our own agreements just like the Founding Fathers had conventions and did that.

what will give us greater authority than special interest Corporations is when we represent
DIVERSE sides coming together in agreement, which bears weight of the public. The corporate politicians
are basically "taking advantage" of our divided numbers so they can pass what they want.

But if "we the people" organize consensus policies on specific issues, then we reclaim authority
to give them marching orders to them as the hired help who is supposed to pass laws that represent the people,
not onesided interests.

So then you see your entire post is hogwash.

Especially where you wrote "
If corporations register to be licensed under the govt to practice business locally or globally, they have to abide by the same checks and "due process"/right to redress grievances" Really? Not if we deregulate and turn a blind eye to their illegal activities. Just look at how in 1999 we prosecuted hundreds of companies for hiring illegals and after Bush got in we hardly prosecuted any. So the laws can be on the books all the want. It's up to our government to enforce the laws and when our government is working against the people,

I don't trust my own party because it too has been taken over by the rich. The only thing we have is the vote. So they listen to us A LITTLE only in election years. The rest of the time they ignore us and serve their rich masters. In fact, they don't even have to listen to us in midterms because we are dumb as a bag of rocks. Look at how we went along with the obstructionist gop in 2010 and will vote for them this year too. Why? Because we don't vote every 2 years. Stupid Americans only vote every 4 years. It's the GOP's secret weapon.

Anyways, I don't agree with you and I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity or intelligence. Are you by chance a Libertarian? Is this just libertarian spin coming from you?

I'm more Green than Libertarian. I'm a Constitutionalist, so I have principles in common with other Constitutionalists from Republican to Conservative even some Anarchist level natural law types completely independent who can't stand Parties any more than I can.

I don't agree with Libertarians on legalization but do believe in pushing for alternatives by decriminalizing and reforming the drug policies to focus on investing restitution into long term solutions to the failed justice, prison, mental health and immigration systems.

I believe each party, not just Democrats or Republicans, but also Greens Tea Party Occupy and any other people or groups, affiliated formally or not, should participate in Constitutional Conventions to hash agreements on solutions OR set up their own systems through their party and quit imposing policies or funding requirements on anyone except as voluntarily chosen.

If Democrats WANT To require all their members pay into a Singlepayer system, why not do that directly.
If Republicans WANT a free market system of health care savings and group discounts, why not set that up on that principle of free choice of consumer participation.

I think my beliefs are called Isocracy or Isonomy, so they all all groups to govern themselves equally,
even though I may borrow ideas or solutions from different groups and promote those as examples to use as models
for reforms. if people agree, then they can fund and implement those themselves by replicating the models locally.

So I believe the best reforms will come from working freely by educated choice and voluntary participation,
and then govt policies will follow from what proves to work most effectively and sustainably.

Instead of fighting politically, let's focus on proving what works first before we promote that solution for others to follow.

So my views are a mix of
* prochoice and inclusion of diversity from the Democrats
* "rule of law" holding not just Govt, but citizens and corporations to Constitutional principles,
from the Republicans and Libertarians, so that we all agree to respect and enforce equal protections for all
* independent currency, fair trade and labor reforms, microlending and sustainable business education,
conflict resolution and representation by party for consensus decisions, from the Greens
* responsibility/restitution for correcting, healing and preventing abuses, crime and corruption to establish Restorative Justice, from a mix of Buddhist, Christian, and Constitutional principles about ending suffering, receiving healing of mind body and relationships, and redressing grievances by democratic due process to resolve conflicts and create lasting peace and justice

If there's anything GOOD to be found in a religious or political group, I will likely support it or a variation of it.
If there's anything BAD going on, I will oppose that and seek corrections to the problems associated with it.

It's not just by group, it's what solutions that each offers which I am interesting in assimilating together.
If joint proposals can be made, using the best contributions (either solutions or objections to solve problems)
then all people and groups should be equally valued in the process and be supported and rewarded for working together.

It hasn't happened yet, because we are not yet organized.
that's why I want to get past the fighting and freaking out over differences
and start looking at what we have here, why are there different chess pieces on the board,
how does each move, and how can we work as a team to achieve common goals given our different approaches?

 

[dblack]

I haven't really noticed progressives hating religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Dumbest right wing post ever.

Says the monkey who thinks that China is a model of environmentalism....

Survival of the Fittest is the Libertarian way. Darwin may be our boy when it comes to evolution but you guys applied his theories to your economics and dog eat dog every man for himself is the GOP way, not ours.

Survival of the fittest is reality. You seek of offer needs in exchange for goods, and don't grasp why others have contempt for you...

Institutionalized murder? You mean abortion? How many right wing christians do you think get abortions every year? I'd say half of the abortions performed this year were given to Christian whores.

But you are right about one thing. I'd like to have butt sex with you and it be ok.

You're a strange little troll - I take it that no human has ever consented to sex with you, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I haven't really noticed progressives hating religion.

You might want to start paying a little attention, then,,,

The progressive wing of the democratic party is a little bit more harsh in their desires for Christians than the Nazis were about Jews. IF we fail to heed the vile rhetoric, the demagoguery of the DNC, then we cannot expect any outcome other than that which happened under the Reich and Khmer Rouge.

Yes, I do realize that the violent and radical faction of leftists are giving the other, more moderate 1% a bad name...

 

[emilynghiem]

I haven't really noticed progressives hating religion.

I guess it depends on the company you keep?

Sure, I have liberal friends blaming the Conservative Christians for being in "denial" about everything and saying this or that group is more intelligent or enlightened and the other is blinded by bias.

I've heard of Christians being blamed for everything from destruction of the planet because man is above the animals, to pushing the persecution complex of being blessed in the next life so the rich can justify keep the poor enslaved, thinking their reward will come later.

It's just a matter of who you want to blame what on.

Pick an issue, take a side.
Pick a group you want to blame. Voila.
Instant "self-gratification" -- in keeping with the
link that Delta posted!

Satire or not, this is tragic that humanity
is so close to coming to realization, and
still we think the solution is to blame the
other group that needs to change, not us!

 

[sealybobo]

[
Dumbest right wing post ever.

Says the monkey who thinks that China is a model of environmentalism....

Survival of the Fittest is the Libertarian way. Darwin may be our boy when it comes to evolution but you guys applied his theories to your economics and dog eat dog every man for himself is the GOP way, not ours.

Survival of the fittest is reality. You seek of offer needs in exchange for goods, and don't grasp why others have contempt for you...

You having a selfish greedy nature is why you have contempt for me.

Does the powerful Paul Ryan feel empathy Thom Hartmann - News info from the 1 progressive radio show

The Labor Games Time for An American Comeback Thom Hartmann - News info from the 1 progressive radio show