Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party

[emilynghiem]

Okay to be more specific
I like how Allen West explains where the traditions came from historically.

* Classic Liberalism from Locke is the approach taken by today's Conservatives
who believe the point of the Constitution is to LIMIT govt and maximum the liberty and self-governance of the people.
So the idea that freedom comes from Nature and God as the default,
and we manage laws and govt to protect that FROM INFRINGEMENT by violations or by govt etc.

* Radical Liberalism from Rousseau is the approach taken by today's Liberals
who believe the "will of the people" or "greater good" is to be enforced by Govt
even if it means losing freedom. Govt is used to establish, regulate and protect these rights.

Booker T Washington and Black Conservatives have followed the path of independence of people
through free market, education and business development "entrepreneurship"
and minimalizing govt regulations because people manage their own affairs as effectively as possible.

WEB Du Bois and the current black leadership so prominent in the "liberal media"
keep pushing for depending on govt for political equality and power instead of getting this directly with or without govt.

One group understands that collective powers vested in govt tend to get corrupted and abused
and thus use the CONSTITUTION to check this.

The other sees people and free will as something to be regulated and use GOVT and LAWS to regulate this.
so they keep creating more and more laws to try to resolve the issues.

The other keeps trying to get back to the Constitution and quit giving so much power so you don't have to go back and regulate it.

And may I ADD that the GREENS have pointed out the checks and balances of just using the Constitution have been THROWN OFF due to corporate personhood, collective entities that enjoy both the advantages of "freedom and privileges as individual citizens" and the power
of large groups similar to govts that can bully, oppress and basically govern over large groups of people they control or influence financially, but have NO check under the Constitution and thus have liberals screaming for more laws to regulate these huge out of control Corporations.

Under the "limited govt" scenario, this is NOT enough to check Corporations that were given equal freedom of individuals not to be under govt directly, claiming free speech, free market rights, etc. WITHOUT checks as we have on govt as a "collective authority."

So what I propose is that if Corporations, even large religious organizations or political parties,
are licensed to operate by the govt, then they should follow the same Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as collective govts are required to follow to prevent from abusing individuals by collective influence/resources. That should be part of the agreement to accept greater responsibility in order to enjoy greater collective rights and freedoms as a collective entity.

The City of Houston is another example of an unchecked private entity run completely amok.

Some nonprofits that have abused donations and have no means of checking their solicitations for fraud are also out of control. And religious and political abuse by cults, don't even get me started on that, it breaks my heart this has happened even in America.

So there is a way to check the out of control business going on
WITHOUT overregulating and punishing the freedom of people who WEREN'T committing the crimes. Or this has Conservatives screaming by losing liberties due to the abuses of others.

We can ask citizens and corporations to be under the same Constitutional checks and balances as we hold govt to. And I believe this is where our country is heading. Equal Constitutional education and enforcement. not by force but by free choice because it will solve our problems and include all our views and agenda equally.

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

 

[RKMBrown]

Em, you are all over the frigging place. Now you are talking about the simple fact that our government, both parties, refuse to do their job of breaking up monopolies. Yeah well, duh! Your idea of changing tax exempt political parties into mega conglomerates with massive monopolies on every human need or desire, seems to be contrary to "breaking up monopolies." No?

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

 

[emilynghiem]

????

I'm not saying to turn them into that.

I'm saying to hold them responsible for their own agenda
instead of imposing that on everyone else.

If you haven't noticed, the Conservatives are ALREADY yelling
that the liberal Obama and Democrat supporters already have a media monopoly going on.

And there are as many saying Bush his cronies already have
the oil interests and other feudal lords paying into their coffers and campaigns.

The global warming crowd argues about Gore's carbon credit conflicts of interest.

There is already a mixing of legal and judicial professional interests and lobbies
into all three branches of govt.

I'm saying it is already happening.
So just keep that within one's own political networks,
and out of govt mandates and it can remain private.

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

Thanks RKMB you do make a great Libertarian.
And likewise I have been called a Confusionist since that is what I do best.

You remind me that it makes a difference
if someone is living by Abundance Mentality
or Scarcity Mentality/Victim Mentality.

If you think you have to undercut the next guy to get ahead, that's scarcity mentality.

If you believe in serving and defending the interests of others
better protects and serves you and all people, that's abundance mentality about
investing and paying off for everyone mutually.

My friend D2 who clings to the Democrats to be his pitbull attack dog against Christian Conservatives he considers rabidly after his freedom and rights uses that.

I tried to explain how anyone can invoke authority by the Constitution to CHECK these "rabid rightwing"
But since my friend D2 is NOT Christian and does NOT invoke laws by conscience as Christians and Constitutionalists do,
he stays dependent on people who can work the system for him.

Similar to people who fear the police, fear Corporations, fear the Media, etc.

Victim, victim, victim.

What I am interested in psychologically
is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law.
If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow.

What determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?

I have Christian friends who follow the leader, while Atheist friends who invoke natural laws and govern for themselves.
So it isn't by religious label or affiliation.

Another factor is forgiveness. My friend D2 cannot forgive certain groups, and that sets him off and makes
him feel victimized over and over.

My friend D1 cannot forgive and trust Gladys House so the community is divided,
and it will take the leadership of someone who CAN forgive all sides and CAN work with each person equally
to form and lead a consensus. But those two are out if they cannot work with each other or SJLee,
the authority will go to someone who can.

So if people were TAUGHT this, that forgiveness determines how far you can lead
and represent larger and larger groups or networks.
But if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range.

How would that affect people and public policy?

How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training.
And how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually,
what their range of duty or purpose is in life, so it isn't something we can change.

 

[depotoo]

Why not research emily? She is who she says she is and a very compassionate and passionate individual that has tried to take on and keep this project alive for a long time. Even putting her own finances on the line for it.

Unfortunately, she gets promises only to be disappointed every time. If only there were more people like her.

Angry Letter to three Democrat Friends: Ultimatum before I give up on the Democrat Party

I am a Democrat....I belong to the Democratic Party

Zackly. That's why I ask who's really transcribing this from radio writing this.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm confused. You want to hold the democrats responsible for their agenda of being irresponsible? Huh?

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

Thanks RKMB you do make a great Libertarian.
And likewise I have been called a Confusionist since that is what I do best.

You remind me that it makes a difference
if someone is living by Abundance Mentality
or Scarcity Mentality/Victim Mentality.

If you think you have to undercut the next guy to get ahead, that's scarcity mentality.

If you believe in serving and defending the interests of others
better protects and serves you and all people, that's abundance mentality about
investing and paying off for everyone mutually.

My friend D2 who clings to the Democrats to be his pitbull attack dog against Christian Conservatives he considers rabidly after his freedom and rights uses that.

I tried to explain how anyone can invoke authority by the Constitution to CHECK these "rabid rightwing"
But since my friend D2 is NOT Christian and does NOT invoke laws by conscience as Christians and Constitutionalists do,
he stays dependent on people who can work the system for him.

Similar to people who fear the police, fear Corporations, fear the Media, etc.

Victim, victim, victim.

What I am interested in psychologically
is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law.
If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow.

What determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?

I have Christian friends who follow the leader, while Atheist friends who invoke natural laws and govern for themselves.
So it isn't by religious label or affiliation.

Another factor is forgiveness. My friend D2 cannot forgive certain groups, and that sets him off and makes
him feel victimized over and over.

My friend D1 cannot forgive and trust Gladys House so the community is divided,
and it will take the leadership of someone who CAN forgive all sides and CAN work with each person equally
to form and lead a consensus. But those two are out if they cannot work with each other or SJLee,
the authority will go to someone who can.

So if people were TAUGHT this, that forgiveness determines how far you can lead
and represent larger and larger groups or networks.
But if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range.

How would that affect people and public policy?

How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training.
And how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually,
what their range of duty or purpose is in life, so it isn't something we can change.

You query... "What I am interested in psychologically is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law. If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow..."

I can answer that for you in one word, "fear." Fear is the mind killer. Fear of poverty. Fear of hunger. Fear of being alone. Fear of loosing what you have, your house, your kids, your wife, your parents.

Some people have learned to conquer their fears. Others, not so much.

You ask, "what determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?" Spiritual and social development are one in the same. A preacher can encourage one to let go of their fears every bit as easily as a football coach, or a good book. In many respects, giving in to fear is an addiction, like quitting.

Forgiveness is for those who wish to change and ask for it, not for those who wish to take your liberty away from you again and again and again.

You say, "forgiveness [may] determine how far you can lead and represent larger and larger groups or networks... but if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range."

I say I'd rather lead men to freedom than slavery, and if the majority want slavery then I will fight to the death for freedom, do you fight for the majority or freedom?

Caution... The what's in it for me crowd is expert at manipulating public policy to expand leadership, this is what got us here.

You ask, "How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training." Easy. All of it can be changes by education and training, but it has to be the right education and the right training.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually." Cowards don't really want to be cowards.. I believe this in my heart. They are just scared. They can be lifted up.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by ... what their range of duty or purpose is in life." I'm not a believer in personal limits, so I don't believe in the concept that people might have personal limits.

You then imply that someones spirituality and range of duty of purpose might be something we can't change. It's not just up to us to lift others, it's up to us to stop treating them like little children, to stop being their crutch.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's not irresponsible if you are willing to pay for your own beliefs.
We let people who believe in prolife pay for their own beliefs through their churches.
And prolife people can defend their rights not to PAY for other people's beliefs in prochoice.

so in other words if you believe in prochoice or prodrug legalization, but other people don't,
then don't make each other pay for the other group's beliefs.

Pay for your own consequences.

If you like to go out in the backyard and play paintball wars,
you pay for your own equipment and pay to clean up your own messes.

What a concept, right, RKMB? I know, for a Democrat like me to think this way,
please hold your horses and don't freak out too much.

It would be liberating, to have all parties and people separate and pay for
their own beliefs, and learn the difference: what constitutes a political belief.

We could all find ourselves liberated from the victim mentality of
fearing some person could take their agenda and implement it through party power.

Sorry, we don't let Hindus or Muslims do that. The Left raises all heck when
Christians threaten to do that. What's missing is we haven't recognized
political beliefs and distinguished these from regular secular laws.
Some people have run them together (the same way Christians do,
who do not naturally separate church and state, but have to be taught
where the secular lines are drawn. We have to do the same here with political beliefs
and agree where to draw those lines.)

New era. Long overdue. Political equality by free choice to
respect each other equally, ie without the bullying games to fake it or force it.

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

Thanks RKMB you do make a great Libertarian.
And likewise I have been called a Confusionist since that is what I do best.

You remind me that it makes a difference
if someone is living by Abundance Mentality
or Scarcity Mentality/Victim Mentality.

If you think you have to undercut the next guy to get ahead, that's scarcity mentality.

If you believe in serving and defending the interests of others
better protects and serves you and all people, that's abundance mentality about
investing and paying off for everyone mutually.

My friend D2 who clings to the Democrats to be his pitbull attack dog against Christian Conservatives he considers rabidly after his freedom and rights uses that.

I tried to explain how anyone can invoke authority by the Constitution to CHECK these "rabid rightwing"
But since my friend D2 is NOT Christian and does NOT invoke laws by conscience as Christians and Constitutionalists do,
he stays dependent on people who can work the system for him.

Similar to people who fear the police, fear Corporations, fear the Media, etc.

Victim, victim, victim.

What I am interested in psychologically
is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law.
If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow.

What determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?

I have Christian friends who follow the leader, while Atheist friends who invoke natural laws and govern for themselves.
So it isn't by religious label or affiliation.

Another factor is forgiveness. My friend D2 cannot forgive certain groups, and that sets him off and makes
him feel victimized over and over.

My friend D1 cannot forgive and trust Gladys House so the community is divided,
and it will take the leadership of someone who CAN forgive all sides and CAN work with each person equally
to form and lead a consensus. But those two are out if they cannot work with each other or SJLee,
the authority will go to someone who can.

So if people were TAUGHT this, that forgiveness determines how far you can lead
and represent larger and larger groups or networks.
But if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range.

How would that affect people and public policy?

How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training.
And how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually,
what their range of duty or purpose is in life, so it isn't something we can change.

You query... "What I am interested in psychologically is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law. If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow..."

I can answer that for you in one word, "fear." Fear is the mind killer. Fear of poverty. Fear of hunger. Fear of being alone. Fear of loosing what you have, your house, your kids, your wife, your parents.

Some people have learned to conquer their fears. Others, not so much.

You ask, "what determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?" Spiritual and social development are one in the same. A preacher can encourage one to let go of their fears every bit as easily as a football coach, or a good book. In many respects, giving in to fear is an addiction, like quitting.

Forgiveness is for those who wish to change and ask for it, not for those who wish to take your liberty away from you again and again and again.

You say, "forgiveness [may] determine how far you can lead and represent larger and larger groups or networks... but if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range."

I say I'd rather lead men to freedom than slavery, and if the majority want slavery then I will fight to the death for freedom, do you fight for the majority or freedom?

Caution... The what's in it for me crowd is expert at manipulating public policy to expand leadership, this is what got us here.

You ask, "How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training." Easy. All of it can be changes by education and training, but it has to be the right education and the right training.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually." Cowards don't really want to be cowards.. I believe this in my heart. They are just scared. They can be lifted up.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by ... what their range of duty or purpose is in life." I'm not a believer in personal limits, so I don't believe in the concept that people might have personal limits.

You then imply that someones spirituality and range of duty of purpose might be something we can't change. It's not just up to us to lift others, it's up to us to stop treating them like little children, to stop being their crutch.

Yes, what I'm saying is how can we better organize
how can we make sure that people in different stages of spiritual, social and political growth
do not impose on others not prepared to handle people in THOSE stages.

If people are spiritually like 2 year olds, or 6th graders, or teenagers,
in various stages of either learning independence
or pooping in their pants, banging on pans or getting into the gun closet,
we don't need them to get into trouble when they could be in supervised mentorships
while they learn to manage within their independence level.

That's why I propose to set up campus community programs in every district
so people CAN organize and not just judge, reject or punish people
like we do now -- warehousing them in prisons or mental health wards
if they fail to get help for their learning or disability stages or even criminal illnesses
and abusive behaviors and addictions.

Why not set up a system where we can make sure people
have access to what they need to succeed and stay out of trouble.

We could reform the prison system to have better mentorships.
It can be a mix of charity or business, public or private schools.
whatever ways that communities feel are best to represent
and manage their resources so the systems work for them.

Why not teach whole communities to take back their schools,
take back their prison populations. For the amount of money we
lose on prisons, on drug and human trafficking across the border,
couldn't we set up networks of school and work facilities to manage
these resources better.

We spend billions on political campaigns, my God, if parties
invested that much in their home precincts, organizing by community
and by issues, matching to civic and outreach or charity groups
and businesses, what problems could we NOT catch or NOT fix?

 

[Judicial review]

Ok, are we typing poems here or paragraphs?

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok, are we typing poems here or paragraphs?

Hi Judicial review: I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, for the purpose of petitioning to redress grievances as part of democratic due process. So however you feel you need to participate in problem solving, conflict resolution, sharing and supporting, to build a greater understanding and consensus, feel free to chime in, in any way you find is most effective!

Thanks for joining in. I will need support and input from all sides to resolve all the issues that came up.
The process may go all over the place, but if that's what it takes, I'm okay if it is helping someone resolve something.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: D2 Reply #A:"
It sounds very much to me as though you are the one screaming "victimization" and throwing around blame."

==============================================
Emily Reply #A:

You don't get it.
I am not only proposing SOLUTIONS
but funding them MYSELF
ie TAKING EQUAL responsibility.

I AM asking EVERYONE to take responsibility
for where public taxdollars go, and hold BOTH
parties responsible. We'd have more standing
if MORE people invested our OWN money
into solutions, like me and Gladys House,
so when we ask others to the same, it is
not any more than what WE are doing.

So we ARE taking responsibility instead of
just complaining about others, like you and "Moderate/M" do,
without putting your own money into SOLUTIONS.

Those complaints are DIFFERENT.

The mother cleaning up after the dog's messes,
complaining it's too much on her, is DIFFERENT
from the kids complaining that the mother is blaming them
for not helping when it's the family dog making the messes.

And yes the Democrats ARE responsible
for what happened in Freedmen's Town.
All the Mayors WERE DEMOCRATS elected BY DEMOCRATS.

The Plans I support are signed onto by DEMOCRATS.
D1, Precinct Chair
Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman.

Sorry if you can't see the difference
between investing in solutions
and complaining about problems.

Democrat Mayors were in charge of Freedmen's Town decisions. DEMOCRATS elected Sheila Jackson Lee who signed onto the CAMPUS PLANS. So that is the responsibility of DEMOCRATS.
=====================

Dear USMB: Please play Devil's Advocate and pick apart either #A or reply to #A.
Point by point. Can I please ask help to form a consensus on the difference between
just blaming and claiming victimization, and trying to solve the problem and compelling
people who caused the problem or enabled it to go on to get involved equally in addressing and fixing it.

What is the difference between blindly blaming and crying victim and victim.

And a person like me REALLY trying to fix things,
then I got blamed for cutting D1 off emotionally fighting about this
when my approach is different. I said we wouldn't have these fights
if we focused on SOLUTIONS. He feels he is being blamed for being yelled at when
he tries to say something positive about Obama. I said it's because he isn't doing
a DAMN THING to follow up on it. So that's different. I AM investing in microlending
so when I say that Obama and Ben Carson AGREE on that I don't get the negative
backbiting he gets when he tries to support Obama and HASN'T TAKEN FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Am I right or wrong?

Does the reaction to him as a Democrat trying to say something supportive of Obama
WEIGH DIFFERENTLY
than when I say something positive about solutions coming from Obama and Democrats
because I AM Paying for that and promoting it, not just saying Obama good, Sheila Jackson Lee good.
I am saying these PLANS are so good I have even worked two jobs and lent tens of thousands
to nonprofit groups I felt are capable of FULFILLING the plans.

so when I talk about Obama and what solutions Democrats believe in,
I get a DIFFERENT response than when he argues when he hasn't done a damn thing.
Only expected OTHER people to do this work!

And complain I sound like a victim blaming others?
How INSULTING!

[So I told him he and M are more alike by "not encouraging"
people to fix problems ourselves. Not helping push this idea
so it does just fall on Gladys House and me.
That IS part of the problem. See other Reply #B]
===================================

 

[emilynghiem]

D2 Reply #B "
And further, referring to my opening statement, ... I have never borrowed or taken a dime
from you , even when you have offered. .... I have never encouraged you to take on two
jobs or to support 5 or 6 non-profits .... I have never encouraged you to work like a slave
to accomplish anything ..... IN FACT .... quite the opposite ... I have been the one telling
you to slow down .... not to kill yourself helping people who are never going to pay you back.
I have continuously warned you of wearing yourself too thin both physically and financially.
and for you to blame me now for your having done so is ... silly at best.
================================

Emily Reply to #B:

BTW

For you and "Moderate M" NOT to support Democrats like me
fixing problems caused by Democrats is
part of the problem.

That is one area you are actually more like him than I am.
And another reason I am insulted, and you should be, too,
by comparing to him as you did to me! When I am trying
to fix things and both of you take this attitude.

The difference is he didn't support the Democrats
and you do. So why aren't Democrats held responsible?
That's what I practice, so that is different when I ask others to
take responsibility for the policies and leaders we vote and support!

Otherwise, by what you do by NOT encouraging it,
by default, it STILL dumps the costs and problems on
people like me and Gladys House taking on the costs
WITHOUT support of others afraid of going there.

THIS IS WHAT I AM SAYING!

To ignore and NOT encourage responsibility for costs
it is dumping the burden on others.

That IS part of the problem!

Doing what you are doing and AVOIDING it.
NOT encouraging anyone to do something.
=======================================

Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with these point?

1. If Democrats are trying to PROVE that supporting Democrat ideas instead of rejecting and blaming them as not working,
will SOLVE problems.

Shouldn't DEMOCRATS invest in the solutions to PROVE THEY WORK.

Shouldn't we take financial and media responsibility to develop and perfect these solutions we want adopted,
educate and promote them if we want our ideas to be implemented?

2. is it ENOUGH just to say DON'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY LET OTHERS DO IT NOT YOU.

How is it ever going to get done if everyone does that.

Takes the BYSTANDER attitude and let the project die
like ERIC GARNER lying on the sidewalk where everyone thought someone else
must be in charge and will handle "whatever is going on there."

3. I DO WANT to take this burden off me and get the project going.

So why aren't ALL DEMOCRATS asking for that help, joining in and
DEMANDING that Democrats TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY.

Could it be that because nobody else is taking responsibility,
then nobody else has standing to ask for help?

So that's why it keeps landing on Gladys and me?

So isn't the FIRST step to ask DEMOCRATS like
D2 to either ask help on my behalf, or to chip in themselves
if that's what it takes to leverage in asking for help.

If I can't do this by myself, what IS the proper step to
get it off my shoulders?

 

[emilynghiem]

D2 Reply #C: "
Next , a few of my concerns, your constant use of the word "abuse" .... you need
to be sure to use a qualifying adjective like "spiritual, emotional, or financial"
before you throw around phrases like "male abusive behavior" or the "abuse
you have suffered by males..." the word abuse, without these qualifying adjectives,
carries a physical implication"

============

Emily Reply to #C:

The abuse suffered from the political bullying and oppression in Freedmen's Town
is spiritual, emotional, financial and physical.

* irreplaceable physical history, recognized on all levels from state, city/county, and national,
as well as cultural and political was destroyed, and the community's equal rights and spiritual stability,
social and economic standing.

It is on the level of GENOCIDE to take apart a community this way.
But it is invisible compared to the violence we see on the news that gets all the attention.

* financially, spiritually, legally and socially
it is taking away the land and leverage the residents have asked to manage develop and preserve
under a land trust. Public tax money was GIVEN away to wealthy developers to seize land,
while the nonprofits asking for funding to buy historic houses was denied.

Examples; 3.4 million in city tax dollars (sourcing of this 3.4 million is still in question
because former Mayor Bob Lanier and other Mayors have easily shuffled costs to make
sure the money that could be traced came from other sources so they could argue legally
it didn't come from federal money) went Houston Renaissance a "nonprofit" headed by
developer La Guarta who was later removed after the conflict of interest was reported.

When the 'Nonprofit' went bankrupt, the property they had seized and destroyed historic houses on
was passed to another nonprofit controlled by City interests the Houston Housing Finance Corp.
So basically this pseudo nonprofit was set up to LAUNDER the houses through a private group
in order to demolish them without following federal laws, before passing it back to another entity.

Same with the demolition of the Jefferson Davis county hospital, bought by developer Marvin Finger
who is well respected in Houston for his historic charitable contributions to medicine through the Medical Center,
where it was sold at a loss to county taxpayers, then flipped to the Federal Reserve at a profit after
using this private citizen to demolish the building so the federal laws on preservation did not have to be followed.

The estimated profit is roughly 10 million on this deal.
And the Federal Reserve paid another 15 million in taxes in advance
(former Mayor Bill White and TIRZ/Garnet Coleman had control of where this went, both DEMOCRATS). White originally wanted to work with residents to buy up the last ten historic rowhouses as a land trust. But instead of appointing a point person from Freedmen's Town,
he appointed Project Rowhouse founder from Third Ward which has been divided from Fourth Ward due to conflicts over who is getting funding. When the person he appointed couldn't finish the process, the City gave up instead of listening to ministers and also Gladys House who had plans and wanted to continue. Garnet Coleman has been named as the contact with
Mayor Bill White who channeled money from the Fourth Ward TIRZ to his areas of Midtown and Third Ward away from the funding needs in Fourth Ward. Current Mayor Parker appointed Kevin Wade who stood up at the last public assembly I attended, and said the reason the City had no plans for preserving churches was "separation of church and state." [I noted they have no problem working with churches when the purpose is to demolish churches and/or seize land from them.]

Instead of having money to save the brick streets in Fourth Ward, the City prided themselves on spending millions to save the remains of a burned down church because the owners agreed to transfer the land to the City as a park. Same with saving the cemetery. Only if the landowners rescind property rights do they get help with preservation. If we ask for help to own the property to set up a land trust
and train the people to manage the district to become independent, of course, we get no help.

But the developer interests have gotten millions in handouts and favors to buy out and flip property.
Just not the local residents.

So D1 and I have argued this use of urban gentificiation is a form of GENOCIDE.

It is abusive financially, politically, spiritually, socially emotionally
and has caused endless grief and TRAUMA psychologically.

Over many many years, each time the City had a church demolished or gravesites dug up
AFTER residents joined with other members of the public, up to 300 signing petitions to preserve gravesites,
this caused a new GRIEF cycle, with anger denial depression etc. kicking in and costing us another 5 to 10 years to recover.

Each time, I used credit to bail out for evictions and other shortcoming during tiems of duress,
sometimes 2 years at a time of paying rent while nonprofits and volunteers recovered.

FROM ABUSES OF GOVT RESOURCES BY DEMOCRAT MAYORS.
We aren't supposed to have political parties or designations of Mayors
but all the Mayors have been Democrats since I started volunteering:
Mayor Lanier, Brown, White and now Parker.

Each time we made some progress where more was done to save some history.
But only after the destruction was done, and the developers can still get what they want first.

Because their financial tax interests came first
before the preservation interests of the residents and the nation I argued was at least EQUAL
this is where I argue that equal protection of the law was not enforced,
but monied interests had more weight than the longterm financial stability of the residents
and also the nation since their campus model could be used to end welfare for the entire govt.

So all taxpayers could benefit from owning this land as a campus
not just funding private developers to make private money off it.

But teaching Veterans on a rotating basis to own and manage
rental houses, businesses and apt complexes on that land.

Through microlending and business training, not handouts,
especially not handouts to wealthy developers. They already
have knowledge of how to make millions off real estate.
why not invest in a campus to teach Vets to become self-sufficient.
Especially disabled ones.

So that was th ecombined plans of Gladys House, D1 and Lenwood
Johnson and the APV resident council evicted in 1996 so that
developers could take over the land, money and contracts at public expense.

The sustainable campus plans to get poor families and communities off welfare
was censored, under Democrat Mayors elected largely by Democrats.

That's why I think it makes sense to ask Democrats to take responsibility
if these are the leaders we vote for.

And end the cycle of abuse, financially emotionally socially
politically and collectively psychologically killing an entire community
and the sustainable plans we had that have been censored for
political favors.

is that more clear.

Should the point of my ultimatum be to demand emancipation of Freedmen's Town from the City of Houston which should count as an abusive relationship. If a woman was in a relationship with a man who kept cutting off her ability to support herself, to demolish and destroy her ability to develop a career in education so he can use her body to make money. To tear out her natural breasts and build bigger ones so she can dance on tables and make more money than she could using her breasts to nurse her own children and grow a family. To make decisions purely on what makes more money: artificial breasts that mean a career as a model to make millions, or being a stay at home mom, who works at the same time she raises her kids.
Why couldn't she be a model and manage that herself instead of being pimped by him?

Wouldn't you tell that woman to get away from that man and get a life of her own?

What abuses have to be proven before she has the right to divorce him.

 

[emilynghiem]

Judicial Review: You said you had a good lawyer.

The City of Houston has been decimating a national historic district with maybe 8 historic Christian churches left of the 100's that used to be there. They have been harassing a poor widow to give up her church land after they demolished it.
The church wants to rebuild and set up a prayer garden on the site in the meantime.

Please see post above, where a well respected developer profited around 10 million off a deal to buy land in the same historic district (the entire 40 blocks was registered nationally but it was originally 80)
where sacred gravesites were removed to build a Federal Reserve bank there.

Can you research and find out is it better to ASK the developer to lend 10 million to the church to buy out the land to rebuild and create a campus, until this can be paid back. Or should we sue/petition to refund taxpayer money, proportionate to the amount given to developers under LOOSE conflicts of interest (the direct contacts are not always traceable because these are all lawyers and they know how to avoid leaving a trail, so they shuffle and make it harder to prove it is a conflict by the letter, though by the spirit it is clearly favoring developer interests over the church interests in preserving national history) and use that to shame or legally compel the wrongdoers to pay back money to the community equally as was given to others.

 

[RKMBrown]

Like they said.. you are at stage 2. Unfortunately, it is easy for people on the left to identify people who have entered stage 2. Once in stage 2 there is no going back. You have been "de-programmed." Sorry. Oh and welcome to the group of folks who believe the solution to our economic ills is a return to some semblance of personal responsibility for our economic needs and desires.

FYI I'm certain most if not all people on the far left also know their ideas and policies are akin to spoiling children rotten to win favor. The bulk of the democrats will just call you names like racist or accuse you of wanting to starve children or kick grandma to the curb when you start talking about personal responsibility.

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

Thanks RKMB you do make a great Libertarian.
And likewise I have been called a Confusionist since that is what I do best.

You remind me that it makes a difference
if someone is living by Abundance Mentality
or Scarcity Mentality/Victim Mentality.

If you think you have to undercut the next guy to get ahead, that's scarcity mentality.

If you believe in serving and defending the interests of others
better protects and serves you and all people, that's abundance mentality about
investing and paying off for everyone mutually.

My friend D2 who clings to the Democrats to be his pitbull attack dog against Christian Conservatives he considers rabidly after his freedom and rights uses that.

I tried to explain how anyone can invoke authority by the Constitution to CHECK these "rabid rightwing"
But since my friend D2 is NOT Christian and does NOT invoke laws by conscience as Christians and Constitutionalists do,
he stays dependent on people who can work the system for him.

Similar to people who fear the police, fear Corporations, fear the Media, etc.

Victim, victim, victim.

What I am interested in psychologically
is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law.
If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow.

What determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?

I have Christian friends who follow the leader, while Atheist friends who invoke natural laws and govern for themselves.
So it isn't by religious label or affiliation.

Another factor is forgiveness. My friend D2 cannot forgive certain groups, and that sets him off and makes
him feel victimized over and over.

My friend D1 cannot forgive and trust Gladys House so the community is divided,
and it will take the leadership of someone who CAN forgive all sides and CAN work with each person equally
to form and lead a consensus. But those two are out if they cannot work with each other or SJLee,
the authority will go to someone who can.

So if people were TAUGHT this, that forgiveness determines how far you can lead
and represent larger and larger groups or networks.
But if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range.

How would that affect people and public policy?

How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training.
And how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually,
what their range of duty or purpose is in life, so it isn't something we can change.

You query... "What I am interested in psychologically is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law. If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow..."

I can answer that for you in one word, "fear." Fear is the mind killer. Fear of poverty. Fear of hunger. Fear of being alone. Fear of loosing what you have, your house, your kids, your wife, your parents.

Some people have learned to conquer their fears. Others, not so much.

You ask, "what determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?" Spiritual and social development are one in the same. A preacher can encourage one to let go of their fears every bit as easily as a football coach, or a good book. In many respects, giving in to fear is an addiction, like quitting.

Forgiveness is for those who wish to change and ask for it, not for those who wish to take your liberty away from you again and again and again.

You say, "forgiveness [may] determine how far you can lead and represent larger and larger groups or networks... but if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range."

I say I'd rather lead men to freedom than slavery, and if the majority want slavery then I will fight to the death for freedom, do you fight for the majority or freedom?

Caution... The what's in it for me crowd is expert at manipulating public policy to expand leadership, this is what got us here.

You ask, "How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training." Easy. All of it can be changes by education and training, but it has to be the right education and the right training.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually." Cowards don't really want to be cowards.. I believe this in my heart. They are just scared. They can be lifted up.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by ... what their range of duty or purpose is in life." I'm not a believer in personal limits, so I don't believe in the concept that people might have personal limits.

You then imply that someones spirituality and range of duty of purpose might be something we can't change. It's not just up to us to lift others, it's up to us to stop treating them like little children, to stop being their crutch.

Yes, what I'm saying is how can we better organize
how can we make sure that people in different stages of spiritual, social and political growth
do not impose on others not prepared to handle people in THOSE stages.

If people are spiritually like 2 year olds, or 6th graders, or teenagers,
in various stages of either learning independence
or pooping in their pants, banging on pans or getting into the gun closet,
we don't need them to get into trouble when they could be in supervised mentorships
while they learn to manage within their independence level.

That's why I propose to set up campus community programs in every district
so people CAN organize and not just judge, reject or punish people
like we do now -- warehousing them in prisons or mental health wards
if they fail to get help for their learning or disability stages or even criminal illnesses
and abusive behaviors and addictions.

Why not set up a system where we can make sure people
have access to what they need to succeed and stay out of trouble.

We could reform the prison system to have better mentorships.
It can be a mix of charity or business, public or private schools.
whatever ways that communities feel are best to represent
and manage their resources so the systems work for them.

Why not teach whole communities to take back their schools,
take back their prison populations. For the amount of money we
lose on prisons, on drug and human trafficking across the border,
couldn't we set up networks of school and work facilities to manage
these resources better.

We spend billions on political campaigns, my God, if parties
invested that much in their home precincts, organizing by community
and by issues, matching to civic and outreach or charity groups
and businesses, what problems could we NOT catch or NOT fix?

What's wrong with existing systems that do this? Say like big brother / big sister programs? Why do we have to create a hundred different systems to do the same dang thing in this country? Why do people feel like they are not being successful unless they are creating new programs and new systems that do the same things? Is it because people want to be leaders and there's not enough room to lead the existing programs? Or is it because they don't like the people associated with certain programs in their area?

IOW why do you think we need a political focus on things like mentoring that are not political? Is it because you want the mentoring to be from a democrat POV? For example, for further indoctrination or for replacing big brother program with a democrat one, or having the democrat party take pseudo ownership of a branch of big brother?

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, before I became involved in the actual activities with Democrats,
I had already written out my beliefs in Isocracy and what was wrong with imposing biases through govt.

The process I went through is what it takes to implement the needed reforms,
and the first step is to influence change in beliefs and raise standards among people.
Not the "manufactured consent" we have now by propaganda drilled in, but REAL
consent, by what we REALLY want and REALLY believe inside that has been beaten out of us.

We need to return to where we work together NATURALLY, our natural free will and free choice
and make decisions by consensus on that level, not by coercion and political compromise for fear. After we find our true connections and trust, restore good faith relations, then we can write laws in that spirit that reflect true consent and consensus, not this manufactured stuff.

So I went INTO it knowing I was not the same kind of prochoice person as the next Democrat.

And I have gone through worse stages of depression and disillusionment on how to handle this.

What the circumstances have grown to now, is I have more friends who can help me
SHAPE how I SAY the same things, IN CONTEXT and with REFERENCE to the Obamacare mandates
and SPECIFIC points.

I didn't have that before.

So it's like going into it, privately and personally,
but now coming out with all these things PUBLICLY.

Had I started writing a journal going into this whole process,
you would have seen more fights about the same concepts and conflicts,
but without the specific language pointing to solutions.

My solutions were vague going into this mess,
compared to more specific points and ideas for solutions at this time.

My views on isocracy when I first started, I think around 1990ish,
are posted here http www.houstonprogressive.org

You can see the concepts are there, but more vague.
And now I am arguing point by point in context with people to spell out specifically
what needs to change or be agreed upon.

I was already arguing that marriage, abortion and death penalty, and immigration laws crossed the line
with separation of church and state for people of other beliefs. Now add to that drug legalization
and health care laws.

Instead of just arguing vaguely for free will and consent of the governed,
I narrowed it down to addressing political beliefs that majority rule is not enough to justify imposing.

So I'm in a better position now, than the state of angst
and grief I was in before, when I had worse blow-ups at people.

When I first realized how FU the system was I didn't want to get
involved AT ALL in either church or state or anything. I never wanted
to get into religion and politics in the first place.
And once I realized how far off base they both were, compared to where they needed to be,
I REALLY did not want to be involved in FIXING the messes.

I was 1,000 times a bigger mess than what you see here.

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

Thanks RKMB you do make a great Libertarian.
And likewise I have been called a Confusionist since that is what I do best.

You remind me that it makes a difference
if someone is living by Abundance Mentality
or Scarcity Mentality/Victim Mentality.

If you think you have to undercut the next guy to get ahead, that's scarcity mentality.

If you believe in serving and defending the interests of others
better protects and serves you and all people, that's abundance mentality about
investing and paying off for everyone mutually.

My friend D2 who clings to the Democrats to be his pitbull attack dog against Christian Conservatives he considers rabidly after his freedom and rights uses that.

I tried to explain how anyone can invoke authority by the Constitution to CHECK these "rabid rightwing"
But since my friend D2 is NOT Christian and does NOT invoke laws by conscience as Christians and Constitutionalists do,
he stays dependent on people who can work the system for him.

Similar to people who fear the police, fear Corporations, fear the Media, etc.

Victim, victim, victim.

What I am interested in psychologically
is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law.
If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow.

What determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?

I have Christian friends who follow the leader, while Atheist friends who invoke natural laws and govern for themselves.
So it isn't by religious label or affiliation.

Another factor is forgiveness. My friend D2 cannot forgive certain groups, and that sets him off and makes
him feel victimized over and over.

My friend D1 cannot forgive and trust Gladys House so the community is divided,
and it will take the leadership of someone who CAN forgive all sides and CAN work with each person equally
to form and lead a consensus. But those two are out if they cannot work with each other or SJLee,
the authority will go to someone who can.

So if people were TAUGHT this, that forgiveness determines how far you can lead
and represent larger and larger groups or networks.
But if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range.

How would that affect people and public policy?

How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training.
And how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually,
what their range of duty or purpose is in life, so it isn't something we can change.

You query... "What I am interested in psychologically is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law. If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow..."

I can answer that for you in one word, "fear." Fear is the mind killer. Fear of poverty. Fear of hunger. Fear of being alone. Fear of loosing what you have, your house, your kids, your wife, your parents.

Some people have learned to conquer their fears. Others, not so much.

You ask, "what determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?" Spiritual and social development are one in the same. A preacher can encourage one to let go of their fears every bit as easily as a football coach, or a good book. In many respects, giving in to fear is an addiction, like quitting.

Forgiveness is for those who wish to change and ask for it, not for those who wish to take your liberty away from you again and again and again.

You say, "forgiveness [may] determine how far you can lead and represent larger and larger groups or networks... but if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range."

I say I'd rather lead men to freedom than slavery, and if the majority want slavery then I will fight to the death for freedom, do you fight for the majority or freedom?

Caution... The what's in it for me crowd is expert at manipulating public policy to expand leadership, this is what got us here.

You ask, "How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training." Easy. All of it can be changes by education and training, but it has to be the right education and the right training.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually." Cowards don't really want to be cowards.. I believe this in my heart. They are just scared. They can be lifted up.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by ... what their range of duty or purpose is in life." I'm not a believer in personal limits, so I don't believe in the concept that people might have personal limits.

You then imply that someones spirituality and range of duty of purpose might be something we can't change. It's not just up to us to lift others, it's up to us to stop treating them like little children, to stop being their crutch.

Yes, what I'm saying is how can we better organize
how can we make sure that people in different stages of spiritual, social and political growth
do not impose on others not prepared to handle people in THOSE stages.

If people are spiritually like 2 year olds, or 6th graders, or teenagers,
in various stages of either learning independence
or pooping in their pants, banging on pans or getting into the gun closet,
we don't need them to get into trouble when they could be in supervised mentorships
while they learn to manage within their independence level.

That's why I propose to set up campus community programs in every district
so people CAN organize and not just judge, reject or punish people
like we do now -- warehousing them in prisons or mental health wards
if they fail to get help for their learning or disability stages or even criminal illnesses
and abusive behaviors and addictions.

Why not set up a system where we can make sure people
have access to what they need to succeed and stay out of trouble.

We could reform the prison system to have better mentorships.
It can be a mix of charity or business, public or private schools.
whatever ways that communities feel are best to represent
and manage their resources so the systems work for them.

Why not teach whole communities to take back their schools,
take back their prison populations. For the amount of money we
lose on prisons, on drug and human trafficking across the border,
couldn't we set up networks of school and work facilities to manage
these resources better.

We spend billions on political campaigns, my God, if parties
invested that much in their home precincts, organizing by community
and by issues, matching to civic and outreach or charity groups
and businesses, what problems could we NOT catch or NOT fix?

What's wrong with existing systems that do this? Say like big brother / big sister programs? Why do we have to create a hundred different systems to do the same dang thing in this country? Why do people feel like they are not being successful unless they are creating new programs and new systems that do the same things? Is it because people want to be leaders and there's not enough room to lead the existing programs? Or is it because they don't like the people associated with certain programs in their area?

IOW why do you think we need a political focus on things like mentoring that are not political? Is it because you want the mentoring to be from a democrat POV? For example, for further indoctrination or for replacing big brother program with a democrat one, or having the democrat party take pseudo ownership of a branch of big brother?

Yes, so if we take the same programs we have now, and organize to cover all communities.
then we don't have to depend on govt to try to manage the resources,
which has made a bureaucratic wasteful mess of our public housing, public schools,
prisons, mental health, etc. that cannot handle the ONE-on-ONE, case by case care required to be effective.

RKMB what I am proposing DIFFERENT from all the above,
is to set up means to train and mentor people HOW to buy back and manage
their OWN districts, schools, hospitals and programs themselves.

NOT going through the City and depending on voting other people to decide tax laws.

But taking all this back and learning from the ground up how to be in charge.

If people have a track to follow and a goal to go as far up as they want,
even owning their own city where the taxes go where they manage directly,
THAT IS A DIFFERENT level of "ownership" and "equality"

I feel the reason people act like whiny victims wanting govt or party leaders to change things
is no matter what we do, "other people" can change the laws and charge us taxes
and take our houses and property. So why bother investing?

The level it takes to break this cycle of victim mentality
is to buy back the land and incorporate cities.

So if you have a political rift and grow in different directions,
you form your own group or own city and you don't have to fight other people for turf.

WE need to grow up as a nation and quit fighting to
tell on each other, getting Mommy or Daddy, the Church or the State,
this party or that party, or the Media to bully to get our way.

We need to set up separate households and teach people how
to teach their kids to run their own houses and businesses.

We need to do this with whole communities, cities and states
and we will stop this nonsense of fighting for power when
we can share it. We can own land and rotate management
training by generations and keep it going sustainably.

So yes, we use the SAME models as Big Brothers and Big Sisters
but we set higher goals. Not just learning to vote by party.

But learning how to invest to own land and businesses in a coop,
how to manage govt where we participate as directly as we want.
And don't have to be the victim of other people's politics.

That's what it takes before people will invest.
Otherwise they give up and play this game of
house slave vs. field slave trying to get in good with the Master in charge.

Disgusting.

 

[RKMBrown]

Interesting.

On every political issue my main measure for how to address the issue is "liberty."

The key to liberty is to remember that liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. More particularly, liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over a minority / force people to bend to your will. Most authoritarians will redefine issues of liberty as the ability to apply force to screw people over. So it's key to really understand what liberty means and what liberty does not mean.

Thus, for me every proposed solution to every political issue is a simple discussion. How does the solution affect liberty of each and every citizen.

*** HAVING such a simple measure will bring sanity to your life.

For others, their simple measure is usually what's in it for me.

Thanks RKMB you do make a great Libertarian.
And likewise I have been called a Confusionist since that is what I do best.

You remind me that it makes a difference
if someone is living by Abundance Mentality
or Scarcity Mentality/Victim Mentality.

If you think you have to undercut the next guy to get ahead, that's scarcity mentality.

If you believe in serving and defending the interests of others
better protects and serves you and all people, that's abundance mentality about
investing and paying off for everyone mutually.

My friend D2 who clings to the Democrats to be his pitbull attack dog against Christian Conservatives he considers rabidly after his freedom and rights uses that.

I tried to explain how anyone can invoke authority by the Constitution to CHECK these "rabid rightwing"
But since my friend D2 is NOT Christian and does NOT invoke laws by conscience as Christians and Constitutionalists do,
he stays dependent on people who can work the system for him.

Similar to people who fear the police, fear Corporations, fear the Media, etc.

Victim, victim, victim.

What I am interested in psychologically
is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law.
If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow.

What determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?

I have Christian friends who follow the leader, while Atheist friends who invoke natural laws and govern for themselves.
So it isn't by religious label or affiliation.

Another factor is forgiveness. My friend D2 cannot forgive certain groups, and that sets him off and makes
him feel victimized over and over.

My friend D1 cannot forgive and trust Gladys House so the community is divided,
and it will take the leadership of someone who CAN forgive all sides and CAN work with each person equally
to form and lead a consensus. But those two are out if they cannot work with each other or SJLee,
the authority will go to someone who can.

So if people were TAUGHT this, that forgiveness determines how far you can lead
and represent larger and larger groups or networks.
But if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range.

How would that affect people and public policy?

How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training.
And how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually,
what their range of duty or purpose is in life, so it isn't something we can change.

You query... "What I am interested in psychologically is if some people CANNOT invoke this same level of self-empowerment and equality under law. If some people will ALWAYS be dependent on a Pastor or Leader to issue decisions they can follow..."

I can answer that for you in one word, "fear." Fear is the mind killer. Fear of poverty. Fear of hunger. Fear of being alone. Fear of loosing what you have, your house, your kids, your wife, your parents.

Some people have learned to conquer their fears. Others, not so much.

You ask, "what determines this, is it spiritual or just social development?" Spiritual and social development are one in the same. A preacher can encourage one to let go of their fears every bit as easily as a football coach, or a good book. In many respects, giving in to fear is an addiction, like quitting.

Forgiveness is for those who wish to change and ask for it, not for those who wish to take your liberty away from you again and again and again.

You say, "forgiveness [may] determine how far you can lead and represent larger and larger groups or networks... but if you REFUSE to work with person X or group Y that LIMITS your leadership range."

I say I'd rather lead men to freedom than slavery, and if the majority want slavery then I will fight to the death for freedom, do you fight for the majority or freedom?

Caution... The what's in it for me crowd is expert at manipulating public policy to expand leadership, this is what got us here.

You ask, "How much of this social psychology can be changed by education and training." Easy. All of it can be changes by education and training, but it has to be the right education and the right training.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by what someone is spiritually." Cowards don't really want to be cowards.. I believe this in my heart. They are just scared. They can be lifted up.

You ask, "how much is going to be determined by ... what their range of duty or purpose is in life." I'm not a believer in personal limits, so I don't believe in the concept that people might have personal limits.

You then imply that someones spirituality and range of duty of purpose might be something we can't change. It's not just up to us to lift others, it's up to us to stop treating them like little children, to stop being their crutch.

Yes, what I'm saying is how can we better organize
how can we make sure that people in different stages of spiritual, social and political growth
do not impose on others not prepared to handle people in THOSE stages.

If people are spiritually like 2 year olds, or 6th graders, or teenagers,
in various stages of either learning independence
or pooping in their pants, banging on pans or getting into the gun closet,
we don't need them to get into trouble when they could be in supervised mentorships
while they learn to manage within their independence level.

That's why I propose to set up campus community programs in every district
so people CAN organize and not just judge, reject or punish people
like we do now -- warehousing them in prisons or mental health wards
if they fail to get help for their learning or disability stages or even criminal illnesses
and abusive behaviors and addictions.

Why not set up a system where we can make sure people
have access to what they need to succeed and stay out of trouble.

We could reform the prison system to have better mentorships.
It can be a mix of charity or business, public or private schools.
whatever ways that communities feel are best to represent
and manage their resources so the systems work for them.

Why not teach whole communities to take back their schools,
take back their prison populations. For the amount of money we
lose on prisons, on drug and human trafficking across the border,
couldn't we set up networks of school and work facilities to manage
these resources better.

We spend billions on political campaigns, my God, if parties
invested that much in their home precincts, organizing by community
and by issues, matching to civic and outreach or charity groups
and businesses, what problems could we NOT catch or NOT fix?

What's wrong with existing systems that do this? Say like big brother / big sister programs? Why do we have to create a hundred different systems to do the same dang thing in this country? Why do people feel like they are not being successful unless they are creating new programs and new systems that do the same things? Is it because people want to be leaders and there's not enough room to lead the existing programs? Or is it because they don't like the people associated with certain programs in their area?

IOW why do you think we need a political focus on things like mentoring that are not political? Is it because you want the mentoring to be from a democrat POV? For example, for further indoctrination or for replacing big brother program with a democrat one, or having the democrat party take pseudo ownership of a branch of big brother?

Yes, so if we take the same programs we have now, and organize to cover all communities.
then we don't have to depend on govt to try to manage the resources,
which has made a bureaucratic wasteful mess of our public housing, public schools,
prisons, mental health, etc. that cannot handle the ONE-on-ONE, case by case care required to be effective.

RKMB what I am proposing DIFFERENT from all the above,
is to set up means to train and mentor people HOW to buy back and manage
their OWN districts, schools, hospitals and programs themselves.

NOT going through the City and depending on voting other people to decide tax laws.

But taking all this back and learning from the ground up how to be in charge.

If people have a track to follow and a goal to go as far up as they want,
even owning their own city where the taxes go where they manage directly,
THAT IS A DIFFERENT level of "ownership" and "equality"

I feel the reason people act like whiny victims wanting govt or party leaders to change things
is no matter what we do, "other people" can change the laws and charge us taxes
and take our houses and property. So why bother investing?

The level it takes to break this cycle of victim mentality
is to buy back the land and incorporate cities.

So if you have a political rift and grow in different directions,
you form your own group or own city and you don't have to fight other people for turf.

WE need to grow up as a nation and quit fighting to
tell on each other, getting Mommy or Daddy, the Church or the State,
this party or that party, or the Media to bully to get our way.

We need to set up separate households and teach people how
to teach their kids to run their own houses and businesses.

We need to do this with whole communities, cities and states
and we will stop this nonsense of fighting for power when
we can share it. We can own land and rotate management
training by generations and keep it going sustainably.

So yes, we use the SAME models as Big Brothers and Big Sisters
but we set higher goals. Not just learning to vote by party.

But learning how to invest to own land and businesses in a coop,
how to manage govt where we participate as directly as we want.
And don't have to be the victim of other people's politics.

That's what it takes before people will invest.
Otherwise they give up and play this game of
house slave vs. field slave trying to get in good with the Master in charge.

Disgusting.

Dang Em, you are all over the place. First you are talking about mentoring kids, now you are talking about mentoring city leaders and managers into becoming self sustaining organizations that do not need district, county, state, or federal assistance and guidance.

But in that endeavor there are thousands of separate topics most of which do not apply to any one city. For example, some cities are quite literally too small to have funds enough to support having every function of a city that has millions of people.

What makes you think you are the person to mentor city leaders in how to go about their day to day business? What makes you think they want your help?

 

[Siete]

like I said, the OP is FOS.

long winded too ..

 

[Michelle420]

like I said, the OP is FOS.

long winded too ..

No she's not, she is involved in non profit offline and I have talked to her over the phone and also been privy to her projects she is working on.

She is just overwhelmed and it is showing in her posts.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Dante and drifter
I am trying to pinpoint what I was really trying to pinpoint with my friend D2.

I think it's something like this:
A. He was arguing that everytime he brings up something supportive about Obama
people blow up and accuse him and/or accuse Obama of being the worst/most dangerous president
we've had

B. I said it was because a combination of these points
1. Yes, I agree that Obama's division and going against the spirit of the Constitution,
such as the perceived overreaching of presidential influence in pushing ACA mandates through Congress
and Courts that violated the beliefs about limited govt restricted to only specific powers given in the Constitution,
WAS dangerous and IS weakening America from within by demonizing and making the "enemy"
out of political opponents for political interests ABOVE the duty to enforce the spirit and laws in the Constitution.

D2 believes the ACA becomes part of teh law of the land by passing it through Congress and Courts.
I said it becomes law, but it can still be argued and proven to be Unconstitutional.

So until then, it puts a BURDEN on the people oppressed by this.
And people like my friend D2 are NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT BURDEN
so when D2 CLAIMS to support Obama of COURSE he's going to get jumped on.

Because he is NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT VOTE AND FOR THAT SUPPORT OF OBAMA.

2. I told D2 if he did what I did and was INVESTING in solutions,
and when I bring up GOOD IDEAS such as MICROLENDING and say Obama supports that,
then SOLUTIONS that do work do NOT invoke "negative reactions"

So he thought I was saying his experience was invalid.

I said it wouldn't happen if he were supporting SOLUTIONS to show he's taking RESPONSIBILITY

3. I was insulted that he would group me with an opponent of liberals,
when my objections and criticisms of FELLOW DEMOCRATS are DIFFERENT.

I said the reason I blow up is I AM TIRED OF BEARING THIS BURDEN
while other DEMOCRATS who vote for these leaders DO NOT DO ANYTHING to follow through
and share responsibility.

So first D2 doesn't get involved, then he complains when opponents complain about that,
and then when I HAVE tried to take on this responsibility to set an example and leverage more people to
help, then I get blamed for complaining when my reasons are different.

drifter and Dante
What and how do I have to say it
to ask or push to change this policy
where DEMOCRATS chip in and take responsibility for Obama's policies and the costs
and damages and debts incurred by the decisions and policies of DEMOCRATs in office.

How do I ask this

Do I explain what I've been doing and ask them to please chip in and show these plans can work

Do I threaten to sue, that if this abuse continues and nobody chips in and helps,
then I believe the party or the party system should be shut down? Or should it
be CHANGED where depending on the money raised and the leaders elected by party,
the party is responsible for INSURING and backing that much money in costs to reimburse
for costs of unresolved conflicts that lead to bad decisions (such as unconstitutional policies
later revised or revoked because they weren't written by consensus and objections were overridden politically)

HOW DO I PUT THIS PROBLEM IN WORDS

WHAT DO THE PARTY AND ITS VOTING MEMBERS OR LEADERS NEED TO DO
SO WE THE TAXPAYERS DON'T GET STUCK WITH HUGE BURDENS AND DEBTS
FROM ABUSIVE LAWS OR DECISIONS MADE BY POLITICAL LEADERS ELECTED BY THAT PARTY