Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

[JakeStarkey]

Stop diverting and reinventing, Emily. You write a lot and say nothing. Political system means how our government is run. You changed it to me saying "party". I did not.

You beliefs are valid for you, but not for the country until you can get a majority. If you don't like our system, I don't care.

If you can change the law, I will obey it. Just as I expect you to obey it now. Don't even suggest that these issues arise to the CR level.

 

[emilynghiem]

Stop diverting and reinventing, Emily. You write a lot and say nothing. Political system means how our government is run. You changed it to me saying "party". I did not.

You beliefs are valid for you, but not for the country until you can get a majority. If you don't like our system, I don't care.

If you can change the law, I will obey it. Just as I expect you to obey it now. Don't even suggest that these issues arise to the CR level.

There were people who opposed slavery before it was recognized by law
and didn't wait for it to be abolished to know it was not equal.

I feel sorry for you if to respect your neighbor equally
you have to wait for govt to spell it out for you.

As if you don't have a free choice to respect people's beliefs
without relying on govt?

Again that is very strange.

But it fits with this idea that liberals who depend
on Govt as their God do need things to be passed as law
before they can "choose" to follow it.

So this explains why liberals who believe in health care
depend on Govt to pass laws on that before they can act.

People like you do not have freedom to set this up on your own.
So if it is not set up by federal govt you lose your ability to have health care.

By your beliefs that you do not have freedom outside govt controls.
Very very strange. But if that is your beliefs,
I have to respect and protect that and try to explain this to people
who get their freedom to act from Nature/God and not from govt laws.

Mindboggling!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't respect the peoples' right to hold free elections, make choices, and be bound by it. I knew you would throw in the red herring of CR, which does not apply. SCOTUS has opined on it.

This is the only issue here. You disagree with the law.

Tough. Work to change it. But don't think anyone is going to Balkanize the nation for you.

 

[emilynghiem]

You don't respect the peoples' right to hold free elections, make choices, and be bound by it. I knew you would throw in the red herring of CR, which does not apply. SCOTUS has opined on it.

This is the only issue here. You disagree with the law.

Tough. Work to change it. But don't think anyone is going to Balkanize the nation for you.

What? Wrong on at least two counts

Yes I do respect the processes you mentioned
and moreover recognize the Constitution puts LIMITS on federal laws
such as Amendment ONE not establishing religiously biased laws that violate religious freedom
and Amendment 14 not discriminating by creed but enforcing EQUAL protections of the law

I am arguing the law that passed had elements
that WEREN'T fully constitutional because they violated equal beliefs
and punished them by tax fines while other beliefs were exempted.

Further I EXPLAINED that even IF laws have such religious biases
THEY CAN BE PASSED IF PEOPLE CONSENT TO THEM
So I AGREED that "majority rule" and "court rulings" DO
apply, even in cases of religious beliefs, if people CONSENT.
where it causes violations if people have DIFFERING beliefs
and DON'T consent, then the govt shouldn't be abused to violate or discriminate against those beliefs

You can't claim to following laws and process
while VIOLATING other laws that govern government.

I have NO PROBLEM where people CONSENT
to laws limiting religious freedom such as when
the public agrees that sacrificing animals violates other laws.

Here people did NOT consent which is dangerous
in areas where inherent beliefs are involved.

Some people don't recognize gay marriage as losing any
kind of "human rights" either. You remind me of that.

People should already have the religious freedom to marry
and should NEVER have to overturn "legislation banning
even private churches from conducting such marriages"
if such laws were UNCONSTITUTIONAL to begin with.

I understand that even when an unconstitutional law
is passed such as those bans then it requires fixes to correct it.

What I'm saying is that it is still wrong to have passed
it in the first place, and the people who incurred the costs
should owe to the people who suffered the burden for it.

Slavery was wrong before laws corrected it, and restitution was owed.

Rape is wrong before a conviction goes through in court,
and I believe restitution is owed both for the rape and any further
trauma on victims caused by the rapists' actions and/or denials
and obstructions during the legal proceedings that could have been prevented.

So if people don't start recognizing that the violations and abuses
are wrong to begin with, we don't have equal protection of the laws.

The people suffering the violations end up with a greater burden
due to the misconduct and abuses of others.

ACA is another case where the unconstitutional impositions and
burdens created are not accepted by the people pushing the bill,
but are DUMPED as the burden on the people OBJECTING to it so that is wrong, too.

This can be corrected by ACKNOWLEDGING the imposition it creates.
and PREVENTING it in the future.

So JakeStarkey the entire democratic process will work
even BETTER if we negotiate and resolve such conflicts IN ADVANCE.

it will take less time, energy and resources to create and reform
legislation if people RECOGNIZE and INCLUDE beliefs equally
during the ENTIRE process and not play political games to override the other.

So it will allow the system to be used correctly
instead of abused to obstruct due process of laws
and to deny equal protection of beliefs as in Amendments 1 and 14.

I am asking for the system to be used correctly
by AVOIDING and RESOLVING conflicts
that would otherwise TIE UP THE SYSTEM
over 1st and 14 Amendment issues that could have been resolved in ADVANCE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you do not.

You want to be respected as a constitutional authority, which you are not.

You are bound by the law, whether you agree.

You have the right to try to change it as we all do.

You don't get extra rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, you do not.

You want to be respected as a constitutional authority, which you are not.

You are bound by the law, whether you agree.

You have the right to try to change it as we all do.

You don't get extra rights.

What? OMG!
People have natural rights that's all I am talking about.
YES the Constitution helps define what these are.

When people AGREE to respect each other, that is our choice
and within our freedom to act as human beings.

That does not require Constitutional authority
to respect the equal freedom and consent of others.

What are you talking about?

I'm not trying to "override" something
I'm trying to build a consensus so we CAN
write out amendments, reforms and revisions that respect and include people equally.

I'm working on the one on one individual level,
and then people can work through whatever parties or leaders
as necessary to settle solutions and fix the laws that are causing problems.

If we are going to write better laws, we need to have inclusive
agreements among the people first, so we can work together to
write reform and pass laws that REFLECT our consent and
INCLUDE all our beliefs equally instead of imposing and objecting over conflicts.

You don't need "Constitutional authority" to mediate
to solve your own conflicts between you BEFORE you go write laws.

What are you TALKING ABOUT??? OMG!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about your unwillingness to follow the Constitution's electoral process and how our government runs.

Believe as you wish.

You have every right to try to change the government legally to get at those programs.

Any other type of dissent, particularly the undermining of how the system, is wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am talking about your unwillingness to follow the Constitution's electoral process and how our government runs.

Believe as you wish.

You have every right to try to change the government legally to get at those programs.

Any other type of dissent, particularly the undermining of how the system, is wrong.

1. That's NOT what I am saying or doing.

I am building a consensus among the people on what
is constitutional or what went overboard
and so we CAN use the given system to fix it.

If we cannot even see something is wrong
we are stuck on step one.

The FIRST step is to agree something is wrong
such as laws on slavery or laws banning churches from performing gay marriages.

And then we agree how to go about changing that.

I am still stuck on step one or step zero
where people don't even see that a bill has unconstitutional mandates
and that's why peole are objecting on Constitutional grounds.

2. As for influencing legislation and govt outside the given system
A. we already have MEDIA
B. we already have POLITICAL PARTIES

What I am saying is to recognize political beliefs equally
so we can MEDIATE and set up teams to write
laws by CONSENSUS that DON'T impose too far
one way or the other.

We already have A and B above going on; I am saying
we can use A and B to promote collaboration on solutions that INCLUDE
and RESPECT beliefs EQUALLY
instead of abusing A and B to slam and fight over conflicts.

If you balance the tires on a car and do the alignment
BEFORE you drive it, you don't find out later by
tearing up or blowing tires that it was off. DUH.
You fix it in ADVANCE so you drive smoother and more
safely and you save money from not driving with the
balance or alignment off.

There is no law banning you from driving a car with
bad alignment, but it is wiser safer and less costly
in terms of damage if you fix this in ADVANCE.

So I am just PROMOTING the idea of resolving
conflicts IN ADVANCE before writing or passing
laws, especially if political or religious beliefs are
involved that will otherwise disrupt the process with bullying
and coercion to impose one or exclude the other, etc.

I am saying that is NOT consistent with Constitutional
values of "equal protection of the laws"
of religious freedom and preventing discrimination.

JakeStarkey wherever you got this idea of
"voiding" the electoral or other process is FALSE.

I am seeking to form a consensus among the people
first and then the solutions and changes will come
from the people by AGREEMENT not by forcing or fighting.

I don't even have all the solutions, other people do.
And they can't get them out there because all the
media and money is going into FIGHTING instead
of forming solutions by consent among the parties.

 

[Michelle420]

Emily you are always quoting the constitution I am not sure where Jake is seeing an overthrow.

People who follow the constitution religiously sometimes get blinded to the fact that it was drawn up by people influenced by the bias of their time.

What's great is lawyers can argue rights grounded on how they interpret the laws are based on it.

Amendment's show us that as the times change society changes and what was once thought fair or ok later is seen as totally wrong.

Such as slavery for one example.

I think you are communicating your points clearly, Jake just doesn't agree.

 

[Michelle420]

Agreement was reached. Consensus means 50% plus one and a ratification of the courts if challenged. Not everyone in America, particularly Emily. Guess what? Marriage equality and ACA are part of the fabric of America.

ACA was not voted on by the people.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily you are always quoting the constitution I am not sure where Jake is seeing an overthrow.

People who follow the constitution religiously sometimes get blinded to the fact that it was drawn up by people influenced by the bias of their time.

What's great is lawyers can argue rights based on how they interpret the laws based on it.

Amendment's show us that as the times change society changes and what was once thought fair or ok larter is seen as totally wrong.

Such as slavery for one example.

I think you are communicating your points clearly, Jake just doesn't agree.

Thanks drifter
Jake is usually better at explaining and clarifying what specific objections he has.
Here, he started "saying" things that may relate to other people's objections
but NOT what I am saying or what I am pursuing to try to fix this GIVEN the given system.

I think the later msgs, Jake is spelling out where the wrong impressions came from.
If we can eliminate all the things Jake is objecting to that I am NOT promoting either,
maybe we can pick apart the real issue I hoped to address. This other stuff is additional layers
but not the root issue.

Thanks JakeStarkey and drifter
for bearing with me to dig past the nonissues
where I don't disagree with you
and get to the points that there IS conflict to be addressed
to resolve this matter properly, GIVEN the given systems we have.

 

[Michelle420]

Emily you are always quoting the constitution I am not sure where Jake is seeing an overthrow.

People who follow the constitution religiously sometimes get blinded to the fact that it was drawn up by people influenced by the bias of their time.

What's great is lawyers can argue rights based on how they interpret the laws based on it.

Amendment's show us that as the times change society changes and what was once thought fair or ok larter is seen as totally wrong.

Such as slavery for one example.

I think you are communicating your points clearly, Jake just doesn't agree.

Thanks drifter
Jake is usually better at explaining and clarifying what specific objections he has.
Here, he started "saying" things that may relate to other people's objections
but NOT what I am saying or what I am pursuing to try to fix this GIVEN the given system.

I think the later msgs, Jake is spelling out where the wrong impressions came from.
If we can eliminate all the things Jake is objecting to that I am NOT promoting either,
maybe we can pick apart the real issue I hoped to address. This other stuff is additional layers
but not the root issue.

Thanks JakeStarkey and drifter
for bearing with me to dig past the nonissues
where I don't disagree with you
and get to the points that there IS conflict to be addressed
to resolve this matter properly, GIVEN the given systems we have.

Here's a suggestion pick one topic as an example of what you do not agree the government has a right to force on the people.

If ACA is your topic, then use the constitution examples to back up your argument. If you feel the constitution does not address this issue then start with that.

I won't be able to argue constitutionally because I feel that it was written a long time ago just like the bible and I don't see it as infallible, but per I am citizen I do follow the laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily you are always quoting the constitution I am not sure where Jake is seeing an overthrow.

People who follow the constitution religiously sometimes get blinded to the fact that it was drawn up by people influenced by the bias of their time.

What's great is lawyers can argue rights based on how they interpret the laws based on it.

Amendment's show us that as the times change society changes and what was once thought fair or ok larter is seen as totally wrong.

Such as slavery for one example.

I think you are communicating your points clearly, Jake just doesn't agree.

Thanks drifter
Jake is usually better at explaining and clarifying what specific objections he has.
Here, he started "saying" things that may relate to other people's objections
but NOT what I am saying or what I am pursuing to try to fix this GIVEN the given system.

I think the later msgs, Jake is spelling out where the wrong impressions came from.
If we can eliminate all the things Jake is objecting to that I am NOT promoting either,
maybe we can pick apart the real issue I hoped to address. This other stuff is additional layers
but not the root issue.

Thanks JakeStarkey and drifter
for bearing with me to dig past the nonissues
where I don't disagree with you
and get to the points that there IS conflict to be addressed
to resolve this matter properly, GIVEN the given systems we have.

Here's a suggestion pick one topic as an example of what you do not agree the government has a right to force on the people.

If ACA is your topic, then use the constitution examples to back up your argument. If you feel the constitution does not address this issue then start with that.

I won't be able to argue constitutionally because I feel that it was written a long time ago just like the bible and I don't see it as infallible, but per I am citizen I do follow the laws.

Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Here is one place I spelled it out ^

I think where Jake was misunderstanding
is that I was trying to point out and reach agreement between
people FIRST that there are differing beliefs being imposed on.

I think from his posts he thought I was trying to substitute this
for going through a formal process of correcting whatever this is.

And what I can't seem to explain
is that in order NOT to violate consent
the point IS to form AN AGREEMENT first among the people
and THEN work on laws or revisions AFTERWARDS.

You dont take your beliefs and run them through votes and courts
to IMPOSE on others, or that is committing the SAME fault I was objecting to in
the first place, BECAUSE beliefs are involved. It is just as wrongful to
take MY view/belief and impose it on others by law/govt/courts, so I can't
well go do the same thing I am complaining violated Constitutional equality.

The 1st and 14th Amendments have limits on laws that can't discriminate by creed or violate religious freedom.

Yet if we fail to recognize each other's POLITICAL BELIEFS
this keeps getting infringed upon.

What I seem to be getting from Jake is that "he would need GOVT to
spell out what is a political belief" before being able to interpret and enforce
Amendments 1 and 14 to include "political beliefs."

This isn't a choice for him to interpret that way UNTIL the govt makes it a law, or something.

That is really weird.

To have your free will and brain so connected to govt
that you cannot choose to interpret "religious freedom" and "creed"
to mean political beliefs, unless the govt passes a law saying this is okay?

okay....I learn something new everyday about
this political religion. Where some Constitutionalists have this automatically
and other people rely on Govt to dictate before they can choose believe or act on something. wild!
=====================
link above copied below:
RE: "majority vote ratifies consent"

I would agree for issues that do not involve changing the Constitution or involve BELIEFS
that the First Amendment (and Fourteenth) prohibit Congress from establishing bias over.

This ACA mandate dispute involves BOTH.

Constitutional issues of amendment (and/or political beliefs about them)
issues of state vs federal jurisdiction (and/or political beliefs about them)
beliefs about health care and if these are natural rights or not

Anyone who does not want to be found of either
negligently or deliberately violating the equal beliefs of others
should at least acknowledge that there are conflicting beliefs in play here.

And ONE of the issues is whether the vote of Congress
and approval of courts is enough to justify overriding these beliefs.

I am saying by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
all these levels of BELIEFS must be treated equally
in order to mediate a solution that respects all the beliefs involved here.

To place one belief above others is already
skewing the process to DISCRIMINATE, exclude or demean the
equal beliefs of others with equal right to participate.

The process is SKEWED unless it is facilitated by
neutral parties that can at least ACKNOWLEDGE
different but equal beliefs are in conflict here. The parties
don't have to AGREE with the beliefs to acknowledge
they should be treated as equal by govt and in the democratic process.

Any trained mediator should be able to see the structure
of this conflict, and understand that the mediation has to
be all inclusive or OF COURSE it will fail.

There are clashing beliefs here, so just like Hindus vs. Muslims,
the govt cannot be abused to legislate one view over the other.
That is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
and what is so curious to me is that people with these views
are SO BIASED they cannot even see the other views are
EQUALLY valid and protected by law. they only see their
view as right and the other as wrong. So they are both in trouble
unless they open up the process and solution to include BOTH beliefs.

Any mediator knows that you need to start at neutral.
And that's not happening here.

 

[Michelle420]

Emily you are always quoting the constitution I am not sure where Jake is seeing an overthrow.

People who follow the constitution religiously sometimes get blinded to the fact that it was drawn up by people influenced by the bias of their time.

What's great is lawyers can argue rights based on how they interpret the laws based on it.

Amendment's show us that as the times change society changes and what was once thought fair or ok larter is seen as totally wrong.

Such as slavery for one example.

I think you are communicating your points clearly, Jake just doesn't agree.

Thanks drifter
Jake is usually better at explaining and clarifying what specific objections he has.
Here, he started "saying" things that may relate to other people's objections
but NOT what I am saying or what I am pursuing to try to fix this GIVEN the given system.

I think the later msgs, Jake is spelling out where the wrong impressions came from.
If we can eliminate all the things Jake is objecting to that I am NOT promoting either,
maybe we can pick apart the real issue I hoped to address. This other stuff is additional layers
but not the root issue.

Thanks JakeStarkey and drifter
for bearing with me to dig past the nonissues
where I don't disagree with you
and get to the points that there IS conflict to be addressed
to resolve this matter properly, GIVEN the given systems we have.

Here's a suggestion pick one topic as an example of what you do not agree the government has a right to force on the people.

If ACA is your topic, then use the constitution examples to back up your argument. If you feel the constitution does not address this issue then start with that.

I won't be able to argue constitutionally because I feel that it was written a long time ago just like the bible and I don't see it as infallible, but per I am citizen I do follow the laws.

Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Here is one place I spelled it out ^

I think where Jake was misunderstanding
is that I was trying to point out and reach agreement between
people FIRST that there are differing beliefs being imposed on.

I think from his posts he thought I was trying to substitute this
for going through a formal process of correcting whatever this is.

And what I can't seem to explain
is that in order NOT to violate consent
the point IS to form AN AGREEMENT first among the people
and THEN work on laws or revisions AFTERWARDS.

You dont take your beliefs and run them through votes and courts
to IMPOSE on others, or that is committing the SAME fault I was objecting to in
the first place, BECAUSE beliefs are involved. It is just as wrongful to
take MY view/belief and impose it on others by law/govt/courts, so I can't
well go do the same thing I am complaining violated Constitutional equality.

The 1st and 14th Amendments have limits on laws that can't discriminate by creed or violate religious freedom.

Yet if we fail to recognize each other's POLITICAL BELIEFS
this keeps getting infringed upon.

What I seem to be getting from Jake is that "he would need GOVT to
spell out what is a political belief" before being able to interpret and enforce
Amendments 1 and 14 to include "political beliefs."

This isn't a choice for him to interpret that way UNTIL the govt makes it a law, or something.

That is really weird.

To have your free will and brain so connected to govt
that you cannot choose to interpret "religious freedom" and "creed"
to mean political beliefs, unless the govt passes a law saying this is okay?

okay....I learn something new everyday about
this political religion. Where some Constitutionalists have this automatically
and other people rely on Govt to dictate before they can choose believe or act on something. wild!
=====================
link above copied below:
RE: "majority vote ratifies consent"

I would agree for issues that do not involve changing the Constitution or involve BELIEFS
that the First Amendment (and Fourteenth) prohibit Congress from establishing bias over.

This ACA mandate dispute involves BOTH.

Constitutional issues of amendment (and/or political beliefs about them)
issues of state vs federal jurisdiction (and/or political beliefs about them)
beliefs about health care and if these are natural rights or not

Anyone who does not want to be found of either
negligently or deliberately violating the equal beliefs of others
should at least acknowledge that there are conflicting beliefs in play here.

And ONE of the issues is whether the vote of Congress
and approval of courts is enough to justify overriding these beliefs.

I am saying by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
all these levels of BELIEFS must be treated equally
in order to mediate a solution that respects all the beliefs involved here.

To place one belief above others is already
skewing the process to DISCRIMINATE, exclude or demean the
equal beliefs of others with equal right to participate.

The process is SKEWED unless it is facilitated by
neutral parties that can at least ACKNOWLEDGE
different but equal beliefs are in conflict here. The parties
don't have to AGREE with the beliefs to acknowledge
they should be treated as equal by govt and in the democratic process.

Any trained mediator should be able to see the structure
of this conflict, and understand that the mediation has to
be all inclusive or OF COURSE it will fail.

There are clashing beliefs here, so just like Hindus vs. Muslims,
the govt cannot be abused to legislate one view over the other.
That is in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
and what is so curious to me is that people with these views
are SO BIASED they cannot even see the other views are
EQUALLY valid and protected by law. they only see their
view as right and the other as wrong. So they are both in trouble
unless they open up the process and solution to include BOTH beliefs.

Any mediator knows that you need to start at neutral.
And that's not happening here.

It depends on what the topic is, if you found an issue that he felt the government had no right to do, you would find a common ground.

ACA is the issue that you contend with.

Find out what Jake's is, perhaps he didn't agree with Bush's War on Terror,maybe he is against the NSA.

Everyone has an issue they feel the government oversteps in, but they get blinded by their own and can't see others issues.

It is kind of like the ongoing debate you and I have, where you are ok with alcohol being legal, but when I want pot legal it seems to freak you out and you have to go on and on about setting up recovery and treatment centers.

Yet, alcohol is legal and you never go on about recovery for that addiction.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[HenryBHough]

Do you have adequate "Life" insurance?

Adequate to ensure sanitary disposal of your corpse when you meet the reaper?

Is it not incumbent on government to require that you purchase a policy or pay for anticipatory arrangements to ensure that you don't become a rotting, festering blob lying in the gutter?

How can this be any less important than the mandates of Obamacare.

Does failure of Our Kenyan Emperor to mandate what would more appropriately be called "Dead Disposal Care" indicate he's in favor of dogs eating corpses? Dogs that might be eaten?

Alas, another failure.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agreement was reached. Consensus means 50% plus one and a ratification of the courts if challenged. Not everyone in America, particularly Emily. Guess what? Marriage equality and ACA are part of the fabric of America.

ACA was not voted on by the people.

We are not a government by Jacksonian majority, my friend. Our legislatures, national and state, do the voting. It's always been that way, and I doubt we are going to be taking national referendums.

Emily is to be commended for her passion and her vision. But she must understand this system is what we have. She will have to amend the Constitution to do what I think she wants. What others do is really not your business.

I simply don't think Americans are amenable to sensy-feely therapy in lieu of hard ball politics, which is a great national sport.

In the meantime, ACA is the law. SCOTUS is probably going to make marriage equality the law of the land. For those who don't like it, purchase your own health insurance with proof of it, and also don't marry someone of your own sex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anytime anyone anywhere suggests our Hawaiian born President is a Kenyan loses the respect of knowledgeable folks.

 

[Michelle420]

Agreement was reached. Consensus means 50% plus one and a ratification of the courts if challenged. Not everyone in America, particularly Emily. Guess what? Marriage equality and ACA are part of the fabric of America.

ACA was not voted on by the people.

We are not a government by Jacksonian majority, my friend. Our legislatures, national and state, do the voting. It's always been that way, and I doubt we are going to be taking national referendums.

Emily is to be commended for her passion and her vision. But she must understand this system is what we have. She will have to amend the Constitution to do what I think she wants. What others do is really not your business.

I simply don't think Americans are amenable to sensy-feely therapy in lieu of hard ball politics, which is a great national sport.

In the meantime, ACA is the law. SCOTUS is probably going to make marriage equality the law of the land. For those who don't like it, purchase your own health insurance with proof of it, and also don't marry someone of your own sex.

Well, I would argue that things change when groups get together and are able to persuade enough people to change their minds about something enough to want changes in the government.

For instance, Gay Marriage. The constitution has not changed but society has and is more and more on how they interpret marriage.

As far as the tax for healthcare, people did not vote for that specifically.

If Emily wants to have talks about that and get parties to work with each other to change that, she sure can try and if enough people agreed it actually could be changed, because this is how things are done over time.

People decide to interpret the law differently then they did a hundred years ago, much like religions change what they say is ok that once wasn't ok.

The Bible didn't change, The constitution foundation didn't change but amendments are made or laws get changed.

That does happen!

 

[HenryBHough]

Anytime anyone anywhere suggests our Hawaiian born President is a Kenyan loses the respect of knowledgeable folks.

Yeah, sorta like happens to folks who wander the Utah desert in Red Dr. Denton Jammies with sandwich signs proclaiming their love for Obamacare.

Very, very similar.

 

[dblack]

Even if it saves my life, the government has no right to force me to take any insurance, unless required for a license for something I choose, like driving a car. My greatest objection to health care managed by any government is that I have no choice about which doctor I will see or what treatment will be paid. If I believed doctors I would have already been dead four times, but instead I make my own choice of something better that insurance would not pay for anyway. Whatever the insurance covers should be 100% our own choice, especially not any government dumb rule.

Move to your own island and make up new rules.

Or stick up for your rights and stay right here.