Disagree with 'liberals' on anything any you are thrown out

[emilynghiem]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.

Progressives are scum.

Interesting westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.

I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.

I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.

Look at this Disir 1. you said *I* am a liberal
2. and *you guys* keep trying to divide us

Well, if SuperDemocrat and I are both liberals/progressives
but we point out this difference where you SEPARATE US for this difference
as "YOU GUYS" that already shows you see there is a difference.

I am trying to include everyone in a process.
You and SD both acknowledge there is a difference in approach.

Now JakeStarkey calls out this regressive/reactionary rejection only on the rightwing side.

How is it not also on the leftwing side?
SD and I recognize it is going on with the leftwing.

What do you and JakeStarkey call this thing dividing
the liberals who say it isn't going on with the Left
with the liberals who say yes it is.

 

[emilynghiem]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Oh please. Enough.

Someone is having a sad about being kicked out of some clique.

I notice that 'liberals' employ an isolation tactic against anyone they don't agree with. I don't know if this is done on purpose or just the way their thinking is. It is just something I notice especially when they get into large groups.

"Employ an isolation tactic".......So you have abandonment issues you blame on liberals. Too precious!

Okay bodecea and JakeStarkey
so this divide and conquer "tactic" is to blame for
this division on the left.

What about the right? Can't the same root
cause explain why the right get divided as well?

BTW with the rightwing I see two levels this is going on
The far right gets divided and rejects the people trying to be tolerant for the right reasons
like including prochoice is Constitutional and imposing prolife would be unconstitutional.
Including Muslim Americans who are law abiding is constitutional and denying them religious freedom is unconstitutional.

Now we have another division going on where the Constitutionalists who stand up and draw the line
against overreaching by the left such as the ACA being unconstitutional and the bathroom/school policy
being overreaching, are being labeled along with the rightwing reactionaries
when actually this is a Constitutional issue of federal vs state jurisdiction.

And then over Trump both of these divisions are coming out. there are people leaning
both right and left who either distance themselves from him or embrace him as going against the
faction they blame more for messing up the country and govt.

The problem I see with Trump is he is like the liberals who won't use the Constitution
to determine and justify either support or objection to laws so it all seems arbitrary based on what
people believe. What I believe will sort these issues out is holding all people and arguments
to Constitutional standards and agreeing what is justifiable by law and what has holes in it being filled
in by people pushing beliefs to justify support.

Before Trump came along even the Tea Party showed where the division was happening over
Constitutional enforcement. Anybody who enforced that was labeled the rightwing regressive types,
instead of distinguishing when the Constitution was used to check both the far right and the far left
from coloring outside the lines. Now Trump is coming from an independent nonconstitutional approach,
and is offending people on both left and right by pushing things that can't even be done that way because
they would be unconstitutional.

Either way, whatever is causing division on left or right, inside or between the parties,
the solution is based on agreeing to enforce principles and process in the Constitution
instead of pushing agenda that is outside the bounds of law and limits on govt. Then we can tell
who is standing for what when we stick to what we agree is lawful anyway for govt to enforce.

 

[my2¢]

Thinking more on the OP premise it hit me how much more often I've heard and read "RINO" in this political season which is counter to the argument about Republicans being more accepting. For years-upon-years it has seemed Republicans are inclined to eat-their-own. Not making an argument one way or other, I only find it curious.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thinking more on the OP premise it hit me how much more often I've heard and read "RINO" in this political season which is counter to the argument about Republicans being more accepting. For years-upon-years it has seemed Republicans are inclined to eat-their-own. Not making an argument one way or other, I only find it curious.

Dear my2¢ I find most Conservatives and Christians even far right
to be more amenable to discussion as long as we stick to common language using Constitutional or Biblical laws.
When the left opposition doesnt use these but fights to exclude them, that causes the mutual rejection.Now we see division on the right from both the Tea Party and Trump over what is unconstitutional or what doesn't matter.

Trump's unconstitutional declarations that go too far
are like Obama's health care mandates that the left lets slide.
The difference is that the rightwing are more vocal in denouncing their own
but not until Sanders did the left do the same with Clinton which has been silenced by the party
as much as they could twist the rules. The Democrats sat in silence even though ACA
totally corrupted and hijacked the concept of universal care and fulfilled the worst fears of socialist abuse of govt.

The weakness on the liberal/Democrat side is they are not following the Constitution anyway,
so they have no standing to rebuke each other's policies if nobody is following the rules.

With the conservatives at least there is a chance of correcting the overreaches
by sticking with the Constitution. Trump is the first to push agenda without relying on the Constitution,
similar to the Democrats he used to support with this method of just relying on imagein the media.

 

[Disir]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.

Progressives are scum.

Interesting westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.

I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.

I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.

Look at this Disir 1. you said *I* am a liberal
2. and *you guys* keep trying to divide us

Well, if SuperDemocrat and I are both liberals/progressives
but we point out this difference where you SEPARATE US for this difference
as "YOU GUYS" that already shows you see there is a difference.

I am trying to include everyone in a process.
You and SD both acknowledge there is a difference in approach.

Now JakeStarkey calls out this regressive/reactionary rejection only on the rightwing side.

How is it not also on the leftwing side?
SD and I recognize it is going on with the leftwing.

What do you and JakeStarkey call this thing dividing
the liberals who say it isn't going on with the Left
with the liberals who say yes it is.

I am a liberal. Don't like it? Bite me.

I'm telling you point blank this shit is tedious. Deal with the issues. If you can't handle dealing with the issues, carry on. You are all about the division.

 

[emilynghiem]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.

Progressives are scum.

Interesting westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.

I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.

I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.

Look at this Disir 1. you said *I* am a liberal
2. and *you guys* keep trying to divide us

Well, if SuperDemocrat and I are both liberals/progressives
but we point out this difference where you SEPARATE US for this difference
as "YOU GUYS" that already shows you see there is a difference.

I am trying to include everyone in a process.
You and SD both acknowledge there is a difference in approach.

Now JakeStarkey calls out this regressive/reactionary rejection only on the rightwing side.

How is it not also on the leftwing side?
SD and I recognize it is going on with the leftwing.

What do you and JakeStarkey call this thing dividing
the liberals who say it isn't going on with the Left
with the liberals who say yes it is.

I am a liberal. Don't like it? Bite me.

I'm telling you point blank this shit is tedious. Deal with the issues. If you can't handle dealing with the issues, carry on. You are all about the division.

I'm trying to identify what is causing the problem Disir. You misunderstand me and are reading this backwards as the opposite if what i mean and intend. I did NOT say all "liberals" are doing this negative rejection, I was trying to distinguish three approaches 1. One that divides and rejects as you think I'm doing so you do that back to me, you respond to the conflict on terms of rejection 2. One that tries to include conflicting sides as equals and RESOLVE the issue not blame divide and reject over the differences 3. And some that just follow along the lead of other ppl

I am trying to focus on approach #2.
If you are trying to do the same and be Inclusive, then you and I agree that is the goal.

Can we start from there and then address how do we resolve the problems with #1 approach. Thanks Disir sorry I thought the labels would help but if you think they divide we don't have to use them. Do you agree with the 3 approaches listed above without using labels for them thank you

 

[JBond]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

No idea who this cat is, but smooth talking gains a following.

 

[MarathonMike]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.

Progressives are scum.

Unfortunately, the line between Liberal and Progressive has become quite blurred.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.....liberals are advocates of inclusion and practice tolerance, unlike most on the right.

I'm still waiting for my request to the forum moderators have all the people who have me on ignore available for review on my profile page.....

...But I'm pretty sure they're all liberals.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[bripat9643]

Mac1958, keep tossing those misdefined softballs, and, yes, they will keep going over the fence.

You have a right to your opinion.

You have no right to your own definitions, terms, and facts.

Isn't that the crux of the whole bathroom argument?

Yup, and the far right haters have lost it. They don't get to redefine anything.

Turds like you have redefined words like "male, female and gender."

 

[1stRambo]

This started many years ago and I considered myself quite liberal when I compared myself to many conservatives but the minute I happen to defend anything that sounded remotely conservative for even the slightest reason I was immediately thrown out of the group. They didn't hold a vote or anything but more just started labeling me as 'conservative' simply because I had no issue with creationist themselves. I didn't agree with them but I didn't care if they believed what they believed. I came to the conclusion that 'liberals' only care about one thing and that is the socialist agenda in this country and the more they did the less tolerant they became. I don't know if anyone else has had this experience of being expelled from the democratic party simply because you disagreed with them on anything at all.

Oh please. Enough.

Someone is having a sad about being kicked out of some clique.

I notice that 'liberals' employ an isolation tactic against anyone they don't agree with. I don't know if this is done on purpose or just the way their thinking is. It is just something I notice especially when they get into large groups.

"Employ an isolation tactic".......So you have abandonment issues you blame on liberals. Too precious!

Okay bodecea and JakeStarkey
so this divide and conquer "tactic" is to blame for
this division on the left.

What about the right? Can't the same root
cause explain why the right get divided as well?

BTW with the rightwing I see two levels this is going on
The far right gets divided and rejects the people trying to be tolerant for the right reasons
like including prochoice is Constitutional and imposing prolife would be unconstitutional.
Including Muslim Americans who are law abiding is constitutional and denying them religious freedom is unconstitutional.

Now we have another division going on where the Constitutionalists who stand up and draw the line
against overreaching by the left such as the ACA being unconstitutional and the bathroom/school policy
being overreaching, are being labeled along with the rightwing reactionaries
when actually this is a Constitutional issue of federal vs state jurisdiction.

And then over Trump both of these divisions are coming out. there are people leaning
both right and left who either distance themselves from him or embrace him as going against the
faction they blame more for messing up the country and govt.

The problem I see with Trump is he is like the liberals who won't use the Constitution
to determine and justify either support or objection to laws so it all seems arbitrary based on what
people believe. What I believe will sort these issues out is holding all people and arguments
to Constitutional standards and agreeing what is justifiable by law and what has holes in it being filled
in by people pushing beliefs to justify support.

Before Trump came along even the Tea Party showed where the division was happening over
Constitutional enforcement. Anybody who enforced that was labeled the rightwing regressive types,
instead of distinguishing when the Constitution was used to check both the far right and the far left
from coloring outside the lines. Now Trump is coming from an independent nonconstitutional approach,
and is offending people on both left and right by pushing things that can't even be done that way because
they would be unconstitutional.

Either way, whatever is causing division on left or right, inside or between the parties,
the solution is based on agreeing to enforce principles and process in the Constitution
instead of pushing agenda that is outside the bounds of law and limits on govt. Then we can tell
who is standing for what when we stick to what we agree is lawful anyway for govt to enforce.

Yo, the division on the Left is about the Constitution and the Right of the Jewish Nation! You have full-blooded Socialist, and almost half-blooded Socialist, who are falling behind the True Socialist! Most have no Religious belief, they are Atheist! These are the type of people you don`t, and can`t be around, they make you sick to your stomach!!!

Yo, the division on the Right, is nothing more than Elected Officials getting to comfortable in the Power Structure, like Paul Ryan! The Tea Party types, they are Elected Officials who believe in the Constitution, the Law of The Land, and the True Conservative in Washington! You notice the Power hungry Republicans can`t stand The Tea Party, because they are for the People, and not Special Interest, who buy Votes for favors, and they can`t Stand True Americans in The Tea Party! You see how they can`t stand Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is a True American People Representative, Paul Ryan is the Typical, me, me, me Representative!

The me, me, me, Reps. stick together, to fight The Tea Party Reps., only because there are not enough Reps. in The Tea Party in Office, hopefully, that will change in coming Elections! Mitch McConnell is another Power Hungry Rep. in the Senate, he is one that needs to be Voted out, period! He fights against The Tea Party Members running for Office, only to keep his Power in the Senate, that is really sad, for an Elected Official going after his own Party, giving money to help a Puppet win, Sick!!!

Hope this helps some?

"GTP"
Did I Mention The Left Is Hypocrites:

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh please. Enough.

Someone is having a sad about being kicked out of some clique.

I notice that 'liberals' employ an isolation tactic against anyone they don't agree with. I don't know if this is done on purpose or just the way their thinking is. It is just something I notice especially when they get into large groups.

"Employ an isolation tactic".......So you have abandonment issues you blame on liberals. Too precious!

Okay bodecea and JakeStarkey
so this divide and conquer "tactic" is to blame for
this division on the left.

What about the right? Can't the same root
cause explain why the right get divided as well?

BTW with the rightwing I see two levels this is going on
The far right gets divided and rejects the people trying to be tolerant for the right reasons
like including prochoice is Constitutional and imposing prolife would be unconstitutional.
Including Muslim Americans who are law abiding is constitutional and denying them religious freedom is unconstitutional.

Now we have another division going on where the Constitutionalists who stand up and draw the line
against overreaching by the left such as the ACA being unconstitutional and the bathroom/school policy
being overreaching, are being labeled along with the rightwing reactionaries
when actually this is a Constitutional issue of federal vs state jurisdiction.

And then over Trump both of these divisions are coming out. there are people leaning
both right and left who either distance themselves from him or embrace him as going against the
faction they blame more for messing up the country and govt.

The problem I see with Trump is he is like the liberals who won't use the Constitution
to determine and justify either support or objection to laws so it all seems arbitrary based on what
people believe. What I believe will sort these issues out is holding all people and arguments
to Constitutional standards and agreeing what is justifiable by law and what has holes in it being filled
in by people pushing beliefs to justify support.

Before Trump came along even the Tea Party showed where the division was happening over
Constitutional enforcement. Anybody who enforced that was labeled the rightwing regressive types,
instead of distinguishing when the Constitution was used to check both the far right and the far left
from coloring outside the lines. Now Trump is coming from an independent nonconstitutional approach,
and is offending people on both left and right by pushing things that can't even be done that way because
they would be unconstitutional.

Either way, whatever is causing division on left or right, inside or between the parties,
the solution is based on agreeing to enforce principles and process in the Constitution
instead of pushing agenda that is outside the bounds of law and limits on govt. Then we can tell
who is standing for what when we stick to what we agree is lawful anyway for govt to enforce.

Yo, the division on the Left is about the Constitution and the Right of the Jewish Nation! You have full-blooded Socialist, and almost half-blooded Socialist, who are falling behind the True Socialist! Most have no Religious belief, they are Atheist! These are the type of people you don`t, and can`t be around, they make you sick to your stomach!!!

Yo, the division on the Right, is nothing more than Elected Officials getting to comfortable in the Power Structure, like Paul Ryan! The Tea Party types, they are Elected Officials who believe in the Constitution, the Law of The Land, and the True Conservative in Washington! You notice the Power hungry Republicans can`t stand The Tea Party, because they are for the People, and not Special Interest, who buy Votes for favors, and they can`t Stand True Americans in The Tea Party! You see how they can`t stand Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is a True American People Representative, Paul Ryan is the Typical, me, me, me Representative!

The me, me, me, Reps. stick together, to fight The Tea Party Reps., only because there are not enough Reps. in The Tea Party in Office, hopefully, that will change in coming Elections! Mitch McConnell is another Power Hungry Rep. in the Senate, he is one that needs to be Voted out, period! He fights against The Tea Party Members running for Office, only to keep his Power in the Senate, that is really sad, for an Elected Official going after his own Party, giving money to help a Puppet win, Sick!!!

Hope this helps some?

"GTP"
Did I Mention The Left Is Hypocrites:
View attachment 78754

Okay Sir 1stRambo so why are so many Trump supporters believing the media hype that Cruz is bad news. Curiously Trump pushes the idea Cruz has sold out to corporate globalist buying Congress like the Leftwing cronies do, while the left fears him as enforcing Constitutional standards seen as far rightwing. Why isn't Trump supporting Cruz as policing against the sellouts who go along with unconstitutional Leftwing legislation.

How do we address that division

 

[1stRambo]

Someone is having a sad about being kicked out of some clique.

I notice that 'liberals' employ an isolation tactic against anyone they don't agree with. I don't know if this is done on purpose or just the way their thinking is. It is just something I notice especially when they get into large groups.

"Employ an isolation tactic".......So you have abandonment issues you blame on liberals. Too precious!

Okay bodecea and JakeStarkey
so this divide and conquer "tactic" is to blame for
this division on the left.

What about the right? Can't the same root
cause explain why the right get divided as well?

BTW with the rightwing I see two levels this is going on
The far right gets divided and rejects the people trying to be tolerant for the right reasons
like including prochoice is Constitutional and imposing prolife would be unconstitutional.
Including Muslim Americans who are law abiding is constitutional and denying them religious freedom is unconstitutional.

Now we have another division going on where the Constitutionalists who stand up and draw the line
against overreaching by the left such as the ACA being unconstitutional and the bathroom/school policy
being overreaching, are being labeled along with the rightwing reactionaries
when actually this is a Constitutional issue of federal vs state jurisdiction.

And then over Trump both of these divisions are coming out. there are people leaning
both right and left who either distance themselves from him or embrace him as going against the
faction they blame more for messing up the country and govt.

The problem I see with Trump is he is like the liberals who won't use the Constitution
to determine and justify either support or objection to laws so it all seems arbitrary based on what
people believe. What I believe will sort these issues out is holding all people and arguments
to Constitutional standards and agreeing what is justifiable by law and what has holes in it being filled
in by people pushing beliefs to justify support.

Before Trump came along even the Tea Party showed where the division was happening over
Constitutional enforcement. Anybody who enforced that was labeled the rightwing regressive types,
instead of distinguishing when the Constitution was used to check both the far right and the far left
from coloring outside the lines. Now Trump is coming from an independent nonconstitutional approach,
and is offending people on both left and right by pushing things that can't even be done that way because
they would be unconstitutional.

Either way, whatever is causing division on left or right, inside or between the parties,
the solution is based on agreeing to enforce principles and process in the Constitution
instead of pushing agenda that is outside the bounds of law and limits on govt. Then we can tell
who is standing for what when we stick to what we agree is lawful anyway for govt to enforce.

Yo, the division on the Left is about the Constitution and the Right of the Jewish Nation! You have full-blooded Socialist, and almost half-blooded Socialist, who are falling behind the True Socialist! Most have no Religious belief, they are Atheist! These are the type of people you don`t, and can`t be around, they make you sick to your stomach!!!

Yo, the division on the Right, is nothing more than Elected Officials getting to comfortable in the Power Structure, like Paul Ryan! The Tea Party types, they are Elected Officials who believe in the Constitution, the Law of The Land, and the True Conservative in Washington! You notice the Power hungry Republicans can`t stand The Tea Party, because they are for the People, and not Special Interest, who buy Votes for favors, and they can`t Stand True Americans in The Tea Party! You see how they can`t stand Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is a True American People Representative, Paul Ryan is the Typical, me, me, me Representative!

The me, me, me, Reps. stick together, to fight The Tea Party Reps., only because there are not enough Reps. in The Tea Party in Office, hopefully, that will change in coming Elections! Mitch McConnell is another Power Hungry Rep. in the Senate, he is one that needs to be Voted out, period! He fights against The Tea Party Members running for Office, only to keep his Power in the Senate, that is really sad, for an Elected Official going after his own Party, giving money to help a Puppet win, Sick!!!

Hope this helps some?

"GTP"
Did I Mention The Left Is Hypocrites:
View attachment 78754

Okay Sir 1stRambo so why are so many Trump supporters believing the media hype that Cruz is bad news. Curiously Trump pushes the idea Cruz has sold out to corporate globalist buying Congress like the Leftwing cronies do, while the left fears him as enforcing Constitutional standards seen as far rightwing. Why isn't Trump supporting Cruz as policing against the sellouts who go along with unconstitutional Leftwing legislation.

How do we address that division

Yo, emilynghiem dear, Trump did everything he could to win, you notice he had a name for each Candidate? Well, the Media helped him along the way to push all of them out, especially with the lying Ted name! Who gave Trump a run for his money? Ted Cruz, so he had to try and knock him off, which he did, with the help of the Media!

If you think about it, Ted Cruz would be the Winner if Trump and his mouth was not in the race! The only way Trump can make amends with Ted Cruz Voters? Ask for forgiveness for his nasty ways, and offer him a job as Attorney General of the United States, and let him go after all of the Crooks in the Obama Socialist Democrat Party, there are plenty to Prosecute, then maybe, Ted Cruz Conservative Voters will get on board!!!

"GTP"

 

[Disir]

Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.

Progressives are scum.

Interesting westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.

I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.

I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.

Look at this Disir 1. you said *I* am a liberal
2. and *you guys* keep trying to divide us

Well, if SuperDemocrat and I are both liberals/progressives
but we point out this difference where you SEPARATE US for this difference
as "YOU GUYS" that already shows you see there is a difference.

I am trying to include everyone in a process.
You and SD both acknowledge there is a difference in approach.

Now JakeStarkey calls out this regressive/reactionary rejection only on the rightwing side.

How is it not also on the leftwing side?
SD and I recognize it is going on with the leftwing.

What do you and JakeStarkey call this thing dividing
the liberals who say it isn't going on with the Left
with the liberals who say yes it is.

I am a liberal. Don't like it? Bite me.

I'm telling you point blank this shit is tedious. Deal with the issues. If you can't handle dealing with the issues, carry on. You are all about the division.

I'm trying to identify what is causing the problem Disir. You misunderstand me and are reading this backwards as the opposite if what i mean and intend. I did NOT say all "liberals" are doing this negative rejection, I was trying to distinguish three approaches 1. One that divides and rejects as you think I'm doing so you do that back to me, you respond to the conflict on terms of rejection 2. One that tries to include conflicting sides as equals and RESOLVE the issue not blame divide and reject over the differences 3. And some that just follow along the lead of other ppl

I am trying to focus on approach #2.
If you are trying to do the same and be Inclusive, then you and I agree that is the goal.

Can we start from there and then address how do we resolve the problems with #1 approach. Thanks Disir sorry I thought the labels would help but if you think they divide we don't have to use them. Do you agree with the 3 approaches listed above without using labels for them thank you

The cause is still propaganda.

I am not misunderstanding anything.

It's called the divide and rule strategy. It's used by the political elite. They are neither liberal nor conservative and you are aware of this.
Either you are willfully and consciously using this strategy or you are unwittingly mimicking it. Then there is the confusion principle.
You can find that here:

A drowning person will clutch at a straw. So push them under water then offer a straw.
Confusion principle

And that makes it easier to pinpoint an enemy which is a very effective political propaganda tool.

Now, what to do about what to do...........focus on the issue. Otherwise, there is talking about talking and focusing on an approach rather than the issue is a diversionary tactic. You can keep people going for hours with the confusion principle.

People find solutions off line, daily and hourly and sometimes within a matter of seconds and I guarantee they aren't thinking about the other individual's labels.

 

[emilynghiem]

Interesting westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.

I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.

I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.

Look at this Disir 1. you said *I* am a liberal
2. and *you guys* keep trying to divide us

Well, if SuperDemocrat and I are both liberals/progressives
but we point out this difference where you SEPARATE US for this difference
as "YOU GUYS" that already shows you see there is a difference.

I am trying to include everyone in a process.
You and SD both acknowledge there is a difference in approach.

Now JakeStarkey calls out this regressive/reactionary rejection only on the rightwing side.

How is it not also on the leftwing side?
SD and I recognize it is going on with the leftwing.

What do you and JakeStarkey call this thing dividing
the liberals who say it isn't going on with the Left
with the liberals who say yes it is.

I am a liberal. Don't like it? Bite me.

I'm telling you point blank this shit is tedious. Deal with the issues. If you can't handle dealing with the issues, carry on. You are all about the division.

I'm trying to identify what is causing the problem Disir. You misunderstand me and are reading this backwards as the opposite if what i mean and intend. I did NOT say all "liberals" are doing this negative rejection, I was trying to distinguish three approaches 1. One that divides and rejects as you think I'm doing so you do that back to me, you respond to the conflict on terms of rejection 2. One that tries to include conflicting sides as equals and RESOLVE the issue not blame divide and reject over the differences 3. And some that just follow along the lead of other ppl

I am trying to focus on approach #2.
If you are trying to do the same and be Inclusive, then you and I agree that is the goal.

Can we start from there and then address how do we resolve the problems with #1 approach. Thanks Disir sorry I thought the labels would help but if you think they divide we don't have to use them. Do you agree with the 3 approaches listed above without using labels for them thank you

The cause is still propaganda.

I am not misunderstanding anything.

It's called the divide and rule strategy. It's used by the political elite. They are neither liberal nor conservative and you are aware of this.
Either you are willfully and consciously using this strategy or you are unwittingly mimicking it. Then there is the confusion principle.
You can find that here:

A drowning person will clutch at a straw. So push them under water then offer a straw.
Confusion principle

And that makes it easier to pinpoint an enemy which is a very effective political propaganda tool.

Now, what to do about what to do...........focus on the issue. Otherwise, there is talking about talking and focusing on an approach rather than the issue is a diversionary tactic. You can keep people going for hours with the confusion principle.

People find solutions off line, daily and hourly and sometimes within a matter of seconds and I guarantee they aren't thinking about the other individual's labels.

Dear Disir it's more than propaganda
1. the ACA mandates are PASSED as law and ENFORCED
these PENALIZE the free choice of health care, where the options for exemptions are all REGULATED BY FEDERAL GOVT
both the
a. rightwing against "socialized health care through federal govt" are against this as unconstitutional
b. leftwing for universal care are AGAINST this as corporate insurance injected as the middle man for money
But the Democrats who cut deals with corporate insurance to pass these mandates
have not revoked or offered to correct this bill but keep justifying it.
How is that not REAL opposition to universal care and free market health care?
How can you call this "propaganda" when it is REAL legislation that has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars?

I have lots of liberal friends who are AGAINST the ACA because it is corporatized
and isn't about universal care. But it's ENFORCED as laws, affecting taxes
and businesses, and that's not just "propaganda"

2. the LGBT marriage laws and bathroom policies are NOT just PROPOSALS or Propaganda.

The bathroom/HERO ordinance in Houston cost thousands if not millions of dollars
on campaigns and legal action because it was really passed as a policy against the will of half the citizens affected, and got successfully challenged in court and changed by popular ballot.

The marriage equality ruling has been established by court. There are REAL lawsuits
where people have been forced to pay fines for not photographing or attending gay weddings in order to provide services.

That's not just propaganda but affecting the freedom of other people who don't believe
in same sex marriage being equal or endorsed through govt.

My position on these, as a liberal who believes in inclusion,
I recognize the beliefs on both sides of these conflicts, and include them as equally valid options by religious freedom.

I am LEFT OUT of these rulings and laws that endorse ONE SIDE's beliefs and penalize the other beliefs. I would have had these cases and policies resolved by consensus, so that all sides and all beliefs are respected equally by Constitutional standards.
But that's not what happened legally. And "other liberals" support those rulings
while I argue they are unconstitutional. The beliefs are valid and protected, but can't be enforced by govt in ways that go too far and exclude or penalize equal beliefs of other people.

Do you see this isn't just propaganda dividing people,
but REAL legislation and rulings that DON'T allow for equal beliefs on both sides of these conflicts as I believe as a liberal who supports INCLUSION of diversity including Political beliefs.

My views of constitutionalism, that would allow equal choice of believing or not
believing in same sex marriage only or traditional marriage, is excluded from these laws.

Do you see the difference in approach?

I believe these liberal views can be exercised without endorsing them through govt
in ways that violate the religious, political and constitutional beliefs of others.

so I still believe in liberal values, just not to the point o fimposing them through
govt in ways that violate the Constitution.

Party leaders and officials like Obama willing to push things through govt
past the point of Constitutional inclusion
ARE actually enforcing REAL legislation.

This isn't just propaganda, there is a REAL split between
Democrats like Obama and Pelosi who would push political
beliefs through govt such as beliefs in the right to health care
and right to marriage as needing to go through govt (which I do not)
and Democrats like me who put the CONSTITUTION first
and limit the laws we can pass because these affect other people equally.

Do you understand the difference here I am talking about?
Do you understand it is affecting REAL legislation, ruling and tax laws enforced today
and isn't just propaganda in the media?

 

[Disir]

Dear Disir it's more than propaganda
1. the ACA mandates are PASSED as law and ENFORCED
these PENALIZE the free choice of health care, where the options for exemptions are all REGULATED BY FEDERAL GOVT
both the
a. rightwing against "socialized health care through federal govt" are against this as unconstitutional
b. leftwing for universal care are against this as corporate insurance injected as the middle man for money
The Democrats have not revoked or offered to correct this bill
but keep justifying it. How is that not REAL opposition to universal care and free market health care?
How can you call this propaganda when it is REAL legislation that has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars?

The ACA was and is about insurance. Not about health care. The fact that you are calling it health care demonstrates the effects of propaganda. Do you Muckety? That's how that works.
If you or anyone else really gave a shit about health care then there would be a focus on mergers and acquisitions and quality of care.

2. the LGBT marriage laws and bathroom policies are not
just PROPOSALS or Propaganda.
The marriage equality ruling has been established by court.

That's not just propaganda but affecting the freedom of other people who don't believe
in same sex marriage being equal or endorsed through govt.

My position on these is that as a liberal who believes in inclusion,
I recognize the beliefs on both sides of these conflicts, and include them as equally valid options by religious freedom.

I am LEFT OUT of these rulings and laws that endorse ONE SIDE's beliefs and penalize the other beliefs.

Same sex marriage does not effect anyone but the couple marrying and you are still free to believe and not believe as you wish. The bathroom policies are political propaganda distraction techniques. Usually when this happens something is being passed in congress they don't want anyone else to pay attention to. This being an election year it also serves the purpose of implying the Democrats are all about "rights" to distract attention away from all of the crap they have no intention of changing. Propaganda.

Knowing full well that this is the same argument you attempted to use before and didn't meet the criteria under the religion clause of the first amendment. The shift focused to "artistic" to circumvent the laws in place.

do you see this isn't just propaganda dividing people,
but REAL legislation and rulings that DON'T allow for equal beliefs on both sides of these conflicts
as I believe as a liberal who supports INCLUSION of diversity including Political beliefs.

My views of constitutionalism, that would allow equal choice of believing or not
believing in same sex marriage only or traditional marriage, is excluded from these laws.

Do you see the difference in approach?

I believe these liberal views can be exercised without endorsing them through govt
in ways that violate the religious, political and constitutional beliefs of others.

so I still believe in liberal values, just not to the point o fimposing them through
govt in ways that violate the Constitution.

Propaganda influences legislation? Legislation has consequences? Say it ain't so. You are still free to believe as you wish. Your emotion is driven by propaganda to influence how you "feel". By division of people those groups can be controlled.

Party leaders and officials like Obama willing to push things through govt
past the point of Constitutional inclusion
ARE actually enforcing REAL legislation.

This isn't just propaganda, there is a REAL split between
Democrats like Obama and Pelosi who would push political
beliefs through govt such as beliefs in the right to health care
and right to marriage as needing to go through govt (which I do not)
and Democrats like me who put the CONSTITUTION first
and limit the laws we can pass because these affect other people equally.

Do you understand the difference here I am talking about?
Do you understand it is affecting REAL legislation, ruling and tax laws enforced today
and isn't just propaganda in the media?

See the above. Principle of Confusion at work again.

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

Too bad that shit didn't make it onto the list of inclusion of belief list and as you well know, corporations are people, too.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Disir it's more than propaganda
1. the ACA mandates are PASSED as law and ENFORCED
these PENALIZE the free choice of health care, where the options for exemptions are all REGULATED BY FEDERAL GOVT
both the
a. rightwing against "socialized health care through federal govt" are against this as unconstitutional
b. leftwing for universal care are against this as corporate insurance injected as the middle man for money
The Democrats have not revoked or offered to correct this bill
but keep justifying it. How is that not REAL opposition to universal care and free market health care?
How can you call this propaganda when it is REAL legislation that has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars?

The ACA was and is about insurance. Not about health care. The fact that you are calling it health care demonstrates the effects of propaganda. Do you Muckety? That's how that works.
If you or anyone else really gave a shit about health care then there would be a focus on mergers and acquisitions and quality of care.

2. the LGBT marriage laws and bathroom policies are not
just PROPOSALS or Propaganda.
The marriage equality ruling has been established by court.

That's not just propaganda but affecting the freedom of other people who don't believe
in same sex marriage being equal or endorsed through govt.

My position on these is that as a liberal who believes in inclusion,
I recognize the beliefs on both sides of these conflicts, and include them as equally valid options by religious freedom.

I am LEFT OUT of these rulings and laws that endorse ONE SIDE's beliefs and penalize the other beliefs.

Same sex marriage does not effect anyone but the couple marrying and you are still free to believe and not believe as you wish. The bathroom policies are political propaganda distraction techniques. Usually when this happens something is being passed in congress they don't want anyone else to pay attention to. This being an election year it also serves the purpose of implying the Democrats are all about "rights" to distract attention away from all of the crap they have no intention of changing. Propaganda.

Knowing full well that this is the same argument you attempted to use before and didn't meet the criteria under the religion clause of the first amendment. The shift focused to "artistic" to circumvent the laws in place.

do you see this isn't just propaganda dividing people,
but REAL legislation and rulings that DON'T allow for equal beliefs on both sides of these conflicts
as I believe as a liberal who supports INCLUSION of diversity including Political beliefs.

My views of constitutionalism, that would allow equal choice of believing or not
believing in same sex marriage only or traditional marriage, is excluded from these laws.

Do you see the difference in approach?

I believe these liberal views can be exercised without endorsing them through govt
in ways that violate the religious, political and constitutional beliefs of others.

so I still believe in liberal values, just not to the point o fimposing them through
govt in ways that violate the Constitution.

Propaganda influences legislation? Legislation has consequences? Say it ain't so. You are still free to believe as you wish. Your emotion is driven by propaganda to influence how you "feel". By division of people those groups can be controlled.

Party leaders and officials like Obama willing to push things through govt
past the point of Constitutional inclusion
ARE actually enforcing REAL legislation.

This isn't just propaganda, there is a REAL split between
Democrats like Obama and Pelosi who would push political
beliefs through govt such as beliefs in the right to health care
and right to marriage as needing to go through govt (which I do not)
and Democrats like me who put the CONSTITUTION first
and limit the laws we can pass because these affect other people equally.

Do you understand the difference here I am talking about?
Do you understand it is affecting REAL legislation, ruling and tax laws enforced today
and isn't just propaganda in the media?

See the above. Principle of Confusion at work again.

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

Too bad that shit didn't make it onto the list of inclusion of belief list and as you well know, corporations are people, too.

Dear Disir
1. You and I agree the Aca mandates are about insurance. I don't have to use the words health care if that confuses you into thinking we don't agree. And yes I do care about building the actual facilities and programs that can provide sustainable services for the public. My proposal is to reform the prison and mental health system into medical programs that serve the broader public using the same resources we are already spending on prisons. So I do care and do have a plan where to get the budget and resources from. Do you agree this plan has potential. Or do you have better ideas.
2. Currently the mandates DO affect me and my friends. I am penalized and forced to pay for policies i cant afford when my plan was to invest in building local campuses that would provide health care directly. But i do not have this choice which doesnt count as an exemption. It also violates my beliefs, which is like asking a Muslim to eat pork or to fund a policy that exempts people who agree with the choice of pork but fines ppl who want a different choice. Sure the Muslim CAN choose a nonpork option but has to pay a fine. So that is what this mandate does to ppl like me and forces us to pay fines or costs that take AWAY from our right to invest our labor and income in health care programs we do believe in.

3. Youre wrong to say we are still free as if the LGBT policies don't add biases restrictions. I agree no business can discriminate against serving a customer on site, but it is OVERREACHING to make business owners Attend a gay wedding off site in private that violates their beliefs about marriage, or make a photographer go to a private event off site and film a gay wedding or couple they don't want to. That's going too far.

It's also going too far to impose a bathroom policy that other ppl don't consent to.

So Disir that is why I believe in either consensus on laws where beliefs are at stake on both sides, or separating policies where both sides are protected from discrimination.

Until we reach agreement on this, Disir, my rights are violated every day these biased policies are endorsed or enforced unconstitutionally by govt.

For you to tell me my beliefs are not violated is very insulting, like telling a rape victim my consent doesn't count. I'm better off going along with rape rather than voicing my dissent. No Disir I really mean NO this is against my beliefs to force things through govt instead of keeping beliefs a free choice.

You remind me of Christians who don't think it affects anyones freedom to push prolife bans or bans on same sex marriage through govt. Yes it does, and that's why we have to agree to keep such policies out of the hands of govt. Same with LGBT beliefs that should remain private unless we agree on policy and then it could be a public law.

Disir the fact that you and I disagree shows there IS a HUGE difference between liberals like me who respect Constitutional limits on govt that protect everyone, and liberals like you who don't see a problem with overreaching by govt when it benefits your beliefs.

I believe in consensus by free choice and ppl consenting not being coerced.
So my standards of consensus when it comes to faith based policies is constantly violated by bullying and abusing majority rule to coerce exclude silence or override the opposition. Again this is like you saying so what if the Muslim has to pay an extra fine, their belief in not eating pork isn't illegal it's just not exempt from a tax penalty they have to pay now. You are like saying so what if other ppl don't agree with the policy of adults with penises in the same bathroom with young girls, that doesn't really happen but if you refuse to let govt dictate private policy you will get financial repercussions. This is punishing ppl for not agreeing with faith based beliefs MANDATED or endorsed by govt. If we allow atheists to sue to remove crosses "that don't affect or impose on them" based on Principle alone, the same principle should apply to LGBT beliefs as Christian beliefs, and keep all beliefs out of govt regardless if they affect us or not. They should be treated equally or its discrimination.

Sorry Disir if you think all the opposition is only propaganda, you remind me of ppl who think the same of LGBT thinking it is all behavior and agenda and don't consider cases where banning gay marriage does affects ppl equal rights. You make the same mistake here by assuming it's all propaganda and not real, two wrongs don't make a right. It makes both sides equally wrong to impose their beliefs through govt.

I am asking to treat beliefs equally, so that's the difference between you and me. We just proved that point.

 

[Disir]

Dear Disir
1. You and I agree the Aca mandates are about insurance. I don't have to use the words health care if that confuses you into thinking we don't agree. And yes I do care about building the actual facilities and programs that can provide sustainable services for the public. My proposal is to reform the prison and mental health system into medical programs that serve the broader public using the same resources we are already spending on prisons. So I do care and do have a plan where to get the budget and resources from. Do you agree this plan has potential. Or do you have better ideas.
2. Currently the mandates DO affect me and my friends. I am penalized and forced to pay for policies i cant afford when my plan was to invest in building local campuses that would provide health care directly. But i do not have this choice which doesnt count as an exemption. It also violates my beliefs, which is like asking a Muslim to eat pork or to fund a policy that exempts people who agree with the choice of pork but fines ppl who want a different choice. Sure the Muslim CAN choose a nonpork option but has to pay a fine. So that is what this mandate does to ppl like me and forces us to pay fines or costs that take AWAY from our right to invest our labor and income in health care programs we do believe in.

1. Last time I checked your proposal made an attempt to regurgitate your version of restorative justice and included elements of spiritual healing allegedly having never been tried.


2. ACA effects everyone. You are penalized and forced to pay for policies, which is costly to everyone and prevents access to health care, just like everyone else, and you just don't like it. Nobody likes it but the insurance companies and the hospitals that were going under. Tacking on "beliefs" is neither here nor there. It's nonsensical specifically because you are dealing with law. It isn't that I don't sympathize with how you "feel".

3. Youre wrong to say we are still free as if the LGBT policies don't add biases restrictions. I agree no business can discriminate against serving a customer on site, but it is OVERREACHING to make business owners Attend a gay wedding off site in private that violates their beliefs about marriage, or make a photographer go to a private event off site and film a gay wedding or couple they don't want to. That's going too far.

It's also going too far to impose a bathroom policy that other ppl don't consent to.

No. It isn't overreaching. But let me tell you how "I feel". Running down to sue someone because they don't want to do what you want them to do doesn't really prove anything other than ............you're an asshole looking for your 15 minutes of fame. Still doesn't make it overreaching.

The restroom policy via the education department wasn't mandatory. It's making it's way to the Court.

So Disir that is why I believe in either consensus on laws where beliefs are at stake on both sides, or separating policies where both sides are protected from discrimination.

Until we reach agreement on this, Disir, my rights are violated every day these biased policies are endorsed or enforced unconstitutionally by govt.

For you to tell me my beliefs are not violated is very insulting, like telling a rape victim my consent doesn't count. I'm better off going along with rape rather than voicing my dissent. No Disir I really mean NO this is against my beliefs to force things through govt instead of keeping beliefs a free choice.

You remind me of Christians who don't think it affects anyones freedom to push prolife bans or bans on same sex marriage through govt. Yes it does, and that's why we have to agree to keep such policies out of the hands of govt. Same with LGBT beliefs that should remain private unless we agree on policy and then it could be a public law.




Disir the fact that you and I disagree shows there IS a HUGE difference between liberals like me who respect Constitutional limits on govt that protect everyone, and liberals like you who don't see a problem with overreaching by govt when it benefits your beliefs.

I believe in consensus by free choice and ppl consenting not being coerced.
So my standards of consensus when it comes to faith based policies is constantly violated by bullying and abusing majority rule to coerce exclude silence or override the opposition. Again this is like you saying so what if the Muslim has to pay an extra fine, their belief in not eating pork isn't illegal it's just not exempt from a tax penalty they have to pay now. You are like saying so what if other ppl don't agree with the policy of adults with penises in the same bathroom with young girls, that doesn't really happen but if you refuse to let govt dictate private policy you will get financial repercussions. This is punishing ppl for not agreeing with faith based beliefs MANDATED or endorsed by govt. If we allow atheists to sue to remove crosses "that don't affect or impose on them" based on Principle alone, the same principle should apply to LGBT beliefs as Christian beliefs, and keep all beliefs out of govt regardless if they affect us or not. They should be treated equally or its discrimination.

Sorry Disir if you think all the opposition is only propaganda, you remind me of ppl who think the same of LGBT thinking it is all behavior and agenda and don't consider cases where banning gay marriage does affects ppl equal rights. You make the same mistake here by assuming it's all propaganda and not real, two wrongs don't make a right. It makes both sides equally wrong to impose their beliefs through govt.

I am asking to treat beliefs equally, so that's the difference between you and me. We just proved that point.

Your beliefs are not your rights. These are your rights:
Incorporation Doctrine

And this? It's the Constitution. You should read it.
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

It's not some wingding shit you make up based on how you feel.

Opposition has nothing to do with propaganda. The money behind politics does unless your promoting the same like.............creating walls of shit and using the confusion principle. You asked. I told. Propaganda is still the cause.

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, Mac equates liberals holding bigots accountable for their bigotry to be an example of intolerance.

I have never made an attempt to shut anyone up or avoid hearing the other side of an argument. I have, however, told people who are bigots that I think they are bigots.

To Mac, that act is "shutting them up". Telling someone that they are a bigot is "intimidation" and "consequences". In fact, the very fear that they will be called a bigot is enough to send a nutbag into a coma. All the while whining about how their freedom of speech is going to be shut down if they say the bigoted thing that is on their mind.

On the other hand, Mac had me on iggy for a couple of years. I suppose that is because he would never "shut anyone up". He really demonstrated a willingness to hear me and try to understand where I was coming from. Classic.

I ask Mac to name names all the time. Who are the people who speak for "regressive lefties"? Obama? Clinton? Sanders? Warren? Biden? Maddow? Oprah? Reiner?

Yes...this is boring as we've covered it literally hundreds of times in the past year.

Hi LoneLaugher Mac1958
1. About the regressive right and left, why not focus on each issue
and pinpoint where either side goes too far and gets "unconstitutional" with their agenda.
that is focusing on the principles, and trying to pinpoint where the lines are
drawn, what is crossing them, and what might correct the overreach.
so it's like focusing on the unconstitutional left where they think they are
within bounds but ignoring the cries of foul from the right,
or the unconstitutional right where they also think they are doing right
but are excluding beliefs on the left that makes it unconstitutional

People can be as regressive, progressive, Christian or secular as they
want in their own beliefs.
What makes it unlawful is passing laws through govt or rulings through court
that push contested beliefs onto others. And what is unethical is mouthing
off in the media, blaming the opposition if they are merely defending constitutional bounds that are crossed.

2. on that point LL,
there is a HUGE difference between
* criticizing a remark as biased or coming across as bigoted
* calling out or assuming a PERSON as a bigot

* one is a constructive criticism that, as you said you mean to do,
keeps the dialogue open regardless of disagreement
* the other seeks to shut or put down the other person
which damages the sharing communication and relationship

I would strongly disagree with you that calling someone a bigot
isn't damaging or hindering the dialogue, because this comes
across as a Personal attack.

If it hurts, it's ABUSE -- that's the slogan of the Houston
Area Women's Center

The liberals into nonviolent communication would
say that namecalling is NOT "nonviolent" and is a form of
bullying and abuse

You may not think it makes a difference,
but I find it makes all the difference in the world.

personal attacks and namecalling shut down the dialogue
and the best way to keep it flowing is to stay focused
on the content and corrections, not blaming or judging the Person.

Do you get what I mean by the difference this makes?
Don't you respond better to constructive criticism
and emotionally react if someone judges you by calling you a label?