Mike Rowe: Classic Facebook reply to Liberal Rant by Jim Green

[emilynghiem]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

He seemed to leave the discussion open to asking him directly more politely without all the yelling.

I believe the conversation varies for each person who asks and each person who answers.

There is nothing contradictory about Republicans wanting all the charity to stay private and not micromanaged by Govt.
Last I checked it was the liberals and Democrats yelling about separation of church and state.

So if you don't want Christianity imposed by govt, don't turn around and ask for charity to go through govt.
If you want Christianity to remain private, that's what Republicans are SAYING, it should be voluntary and
left to private free sector, not imposed through govt where charity is forced to be funded through taxes.

The equal question is how can liberals and Democrats claim to be prochoice yet push
for govt control of health care including reproductive freedom. Let's have a fireside chat and ask that, too!

Nobody wants the capitalistic cronies of the "other party' manipulating govt and policies to serve corporate interests.
but when it comes to their own party, people are pressured to forgive and look the other way.
if they go against their own party leaders, they get ostracized like a gang or cult bullies its members into submission.

So both parties have problems enabling corruption to go on, it's not just Republicans
but more people will say Democrats are worse.

So Impenitent, do you know one of my friends asks me how can I be Christian and a Democrat.
How can I be Christian and prochoice?

The others are just as puzzled, it's not just Democrats who don't understand Republicans.
What a wonderful world this would be if we could understand where each other is coming from.

We might even prove there is such a thing as evolution! Oh no!

Well, my answer was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but we need only look back at the great depression, before social security and other government programs existed, to see how well private charities performed the function now dominated by government.

According to historians, starvation in New York City alone had increased from 20 in1931 to 110 in 1934. But malnutrition was a larger problem, A 1933 study of 514 children in New York found that more than 1/3 were in very poor health. I think that alone justifies our social democracy, regardless of what you believe the constitution says.

We live in a country that can make many of us very wealthy. Why shouldn't those who have most benefited from the many advantages of being an American, in turn, be partially responsible for those, for whatever reason, who have not become self-sufficient?

Have you been ostracized and bullied for your beliefs that are counter to the mainstream Democratic Party? I haven't experienced the inner-workings of the party, so was unaware of this happening. If your beliefs diverge so sharply from the party, perhaps a 3rd party exists, somewhere for you? Or maybe you could start one.

I'm not running away for all the points you brought up - wow, there are so many! I'd be here all night trying to respond to them all! So I just hit a few. I'm sure we'll eventually touch on them, anyway.

????

Impenitent I would look forward not backwards.

1. We have the internet now. People can organize resources by microlending, microdonations, crowdfunding.
We can democratize taxation by party and funnel the support to what Represents our values and programs we support.
Look at donations to campaigns that are focused by party and issue.
Why can't we use that system to organize public and private funding of programs and stop fighting over policies?

2. When Jesse Jones organized local investors around Houston
to bail out small banks, the difference between Texas and the rest of the country is that
the business leaders and resources were concentrated and could organize and take charge of doing that themselves.

it wasn't easy and Jones had to convince them to lend.
But it worked, and we can do the same. Why not look at his example?

The only reason the rest of the country relied on Govt was that the
same level of development in Houston was NOT accessible to the general public AT THAT TIME.
But now it IS.

The point of these social programs was SUPPOSED to be temporary.
Jones only agreed to it for the purpose of getting the country going and then RETURN
the responsibility BACK to the private sector. That was the point, but we got DEPENDENT
and got USED to relying on govt which wasn't the original plan.

Impenitent, it was like having 30 year old teenagers still living at home depending on parents;
the point is to get them independent, not hanging around the house.
We overstayed our welcome but the point was ALWAYS to grow up and move on.

So that is where we are SUPPOSED to be today.
And now that we have the internet, and developed party systems,
we CAN organize our own resources and delegate self-government without depending on
the central govt like an overtaxed parent.

3. Ben Carson supports microlending to replace welfare handouts. Obama and his mama also!
the only thing I see stopping us
is the party politics is blinding and dividing people.

If we focus on getting what we want and believe in, we'd all separate the funding
and create our own programs.

The govt would just be reserved for what we all agree on centrally,
and the rest can be organized by party, by localized agenda and leadership and funding,
and keep each other out of it, quit imposing on others, and do what we want by setting it up ourselves.

The solution is there, and people just have to grow up
and decide to move out of the house and run their own households.

Yes , we have the internet, and many modern method of doing things, so how does the private sector stack up now? With their efficiencies, they should be so much better than the Federal Gov at collecting and disbursing, shouldn't they? Then how do you explain this - ?

America s Worst Charities

What you want to do to charity is similar to what's been done to health care. We've privatized a government function, costs have gone up, and are uncontrollable.

Maybe you say, in a libertarian way, that inefficient charities will go out of business, yet they do not now, why would that change?

You seem to have an idea that govt is bad. Well, if you want to see how bad it can get, just wait until you turn it over to the private sector.

Hi Impenitent
The corporate interests ALREADY got their business mixed in with Congress.

Who do you think is profiting off the Fed and debts but private investors.
Who do you think is profiting off the ACA and billions paid out to insurance companies? Oops gave that away, sorry.

The point of enforcing the Constitution is to keep the govt accountable.

Impenitent I'm a liberal Democrat like you.
the same bad guys you blame, so do I, for running off with taxpayers money.

I'm talking about accounting for the losses, waste and abuses,
tallying up the numbers, and crediting it back to taxpayers where the wrongdoers pay us back!

You have to go through govt to fix that.

So to assess what is outside the bounds of govt contracts,
you compare all these corporate dealings with what the federal govt is authorized to do by the Constitution.

And anything that wasn't authorized, the money has to be paid back to the people.

So we'll have plenty of credits to invest in reforms of the system
by getting taxpayers paid back all the money paid out to corporate cronies
that was outside the limits of the Constitutional duties of govt.

And if the corporate interests can't or won't pay it back,
that's where I would start holding land and property interests as collateral on debts.

Impenitent, I think I will PM you to make sure we are not miscommunicating.

When Govt is checked by the Constitution, there is nothing wrong with it.
What's messed up is corporate interests buying their way through Courts and Congress to skew the policies
to pay taxmoney toward their interests and the people pay all the costs.

So we're funding corporate welfare.
I'm trying to get that crap out of govt so we only pay for what we AGREED to,
not benefits to friends of the politicians who pay for their campaigns.

How are you and I not in agreement on this?

 

[emilynghiem]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

didn't the left get their ass handed to them quite enough in the mid terms? It takes quite a delusion to now post that somehow it is just a mistake and really everyone loves you. Even though the vote count indicates otherwise.

There may be no end to playing the victim.
Or blaming the other side as the bigger bully.

Reminds me of kids who claim they aren't sleepy
but cry and whine from being overtired until they cry themselves to sleep,
arguing they want to stay up....

Don't you just love 'em anyway?

It's okay if these kids just make a loud fuss, and cause no real harm.
But when the hissy fits turn dangerous, like the mobs coming in from out
of town to burn down businesses in Ferguson, that's when it turns tragic.

For liberals who believe they are defending the underrepresented from
bigger bullies, like Impenitent who is a sincerely nice and good guy,
I'd much rather have the discussions and debates civilly and intellectually.

There are good reasons that Conservatives come across as mean bigots, the same
way Liberals come across as enablers without accountability.
We do need to straighten out what is the real intent on both sides!

 

[Impenitent]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

didn't the left get their ass handed to them quite enough in the mid terms? It takes quite a delusion to now post that somehow it is just a mistake and really everyone loves you. Even though the vote count indicates otherwise.

In my next post, I did say this post was tongue-in-cheek... but obviously, the majority of the voters don't know you as well as I do.

 

[Impenitent]

You ideas

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

He seemed to leave the discussion open to asking him directly more politely without all the yelling.

I believe the conversation varies for each person who asks and each person who answers.

There is nothing contradictory about Republicans wanting all the charity to stay private and not micromanaged by Govt.
Last I checked it was the liberals and Democrats yelling about separation of church and state.

So if you don't want Christianity imposed by govt, don't turn around and ask for charity to go through govt.
If you want Christianity to remain private, that's what Republicans are SAYING, it should be voluntary and
left to private free sector, not imposed through govt where charity is forced to be funded through taxes.

The equal question is how can liberals and Democrats claim to be prochoice yet push
for govt control of health care including reproductive freedom. Let's have a fireside chat and ask that, too!

Nobody wants the capitalistic cronies of the "other party' manipulating govt and policies to serve corporate interests.
but when it comes to their own party, people are pressured to forgive and look the other way.
if they go against their own party leaders, they get ostracized like a gang or cult bullies its members into submission.

So both parties have problems enabling corruption to go on, it's not just Republicans
but more people will say Democrats are worse.

So Impenitent, do you know one of my friends asks me how can I be Christian and a Democrat.
How can I be Christian and prochoice?

The others are just as puzzled, it's not just Democrats who don't understand Republicans.
What a wonderful world this would be if we could understand where each other is coming from.

We might even prove there is such a thing as evolution! Oh no!

Well, my answer was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but we need only look back at the great depression, before social security and other government programs existed, to see how well private charities performed the function now dominated by government.

According to historians, starvation in New York City alone had increased from 20 in1931 to 110 in 1934. But malnutrition was a larger problem, A 1933 study of 514 children in New York found that more than 1/3 were in very poor health. I think that alone justifies our social democracy, regardless of what you believe the constitution says.

We live in a country that can make many of us very wealthy. Why shouldn't those who have most benefited from the many advantages of being an American, in turn, be partially responsible for those, for whatever reason, who have not become self-sufficient?

Have you been ostracized and bullied for your beliefs that are counter to the mainstream Democratic Party? I haven't experienced the inner-workings of the party, so was unaware of this happening. If your beliefs diverge so sharply from the party, perhaps a 3rd party exists, somewhere for you? Or maybe you could start one.

I'm not running away for all the points you brought up - wow, there are so many! I'd be here all night trying to respond to them all! So I just hit a few. I'm sure we'll eventually touch on them, anyway.

????

Impenitent I would look forward not backwards.

1. We have the internet now. People can organize resources by microlending, microdonations, crowdfunding.
We can democratize taxation by party and funnel the support to what Represents our values and programs we support.
Look at donations to campaigns that are focused by party and issue.
Why can't we use that system to organize public and private funding of programs and stop fighting over policies?

2. When Jesse Jones organized local investors around Houston
to bail out small banks, the difference between Texas and the rest of the country is that
the business leaders and resources were concentrated and could organize and take charge of doing that themselves.

it wasn't easy and Jones had to convince them to lend.
But it worked, and we can do the same. Why not look at his example?

The only reason the rest of the country relied on Govt was that the
same level of development in Houston was NOT accessible to the general public AT THAT TIME.
But now it IS.

The point of these social programs was SUPPOSED to be temporary.
Jones only agreed to it for the purpose of getting the country going and then RETURN
the responsibility BACK to the private sector. That was the point, but we got DEPENDENT
and got USED to relying on govt which wasn't the original plan.

Impenitent, it was like having 30 year old teenagers still living at home depending on parents;
the point is to get them independent, not hanging around the house.
We overstayed our welcome but the point was ALWAYS to grow up and move on.

So that is where we are SUPPOSED to be today.
And now that we have the internet, and developed party systems,
we CAN organize our own resources and delegate self-government without depending on
the central govt like an overtaxed parent.

3. Ben Carson supports microlending to replace welfare handouts. Obama and his mama also!
the only thing I see stopping us
is the party politics is blinding and dividing people.

If we focus on getting what we want and believe in, we'd all separate the funding
and create our own programs.

The govt would just be reserved for what we all agree on centrally,
and the rest can be organized by party, by localized agenda and leadership and funding,
and keep each other out of it, quit imposing on others, and do what we want by setting it up ourselves.

The solution is there, and people just have to grow up
and decide to move out of the house and run their own households.

Yes , we have the internet, and many modern method of doing things, so how does the private sector stack up now? With their efficiencies, they should be so much better than the Federal Gov at collecting and disbursing, shouldn't they? Then how do you explain this - ?

America s Worst Charities

What you want to do to charity is similar to what's been done to health care. We've privatized a government function, costs have gone up, and are uncontrollable.

Maybe you say, in a libertarian way, that inefficient charities will go out of business, yet they do not now, why would that change?

You seem to have an idea that govt is bad. Well, if you want to see how bad it can get, just wait until you turn it over to the private sector.

Hi Impenitent
The corporate interests ALREADY got their business mixed in with Congress.

Who do you think is profiting off the Fed and debts but private investors.
Who do you think is profiting off the ACA and billions paid out to insurance companies? Oops gave that away, sorry.

The point of enforcing the Constitution is to keep the govt accountable.

Impenitent I'm a liberal Democrat like you.
the same bad guys you blame, so do I, for running off with taxpayers money.

I'm talking about accounting for the losses, waste and abuses,
tallying up the numbers, and crediting it back to taxpayers where the wrongdoers pay us back!

You have to go through govt to fix that.

So to assess what is outside the bounds of govt contracts,
you compare all these corporate dealings with what the federal govt is authorized to do by the Constitution.

And anything that wasn't authorized, the money has to be paid back to the people.

So we'll have plenty of credits to invest in reforms of the system
by getting taxpayers paid back all the money paid out to corporate cronies
that was outside the limits of the Constitutional duties of govt.

And if the corporate interests can't or won't pay it back,
that's where I would start holding land and property interests as collateral on debts.

Impenitent, I think I will PM you to make sure we are not miscommunicating.

When Govt is checked by the Constitution, there is nothing wrong with it.
What's messed up is corporate interests buying their way through Courts and Congress to skew the policies
to pay taxmoney toward their interests and the people pay all the costs.

So we're funding corporate welfare.
I'm trying to get that crap out of govt so we only pay for what we AGREED to,
not benefits to friends of the politicians who pay for their campaigns.

How are you and I not in agreement on this?

Your ideas are unique, provocative, and mesmerizing .... But not in the realm of possibility. With the new make-up of Congress, we might see some right wing undoing of the new deal, but I don't see it getting past a Veto.

All of that swings around in 2016, with the Senate coming back, Potus remaining D, and Scotus having some new D faces.

Things will be looking up for the D's. You won't find any of them willing to compromise with you.

You might find more friends on the R side, they looking for any way to avoid the kill shot.

But it's not going to happen. R's and D's aren't going to willingly cede power. Maybe a third party would adopt your solutions - I don't think you could get the present major parties to do it... ever.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

ROFL! You can't hide an idiot. They simply will not allow it.

 

[Impenitent]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

ROFL! You can't hide an idiot. They simply will not allow it.

Mine is a dirty, thankless job, but somebody's got to do it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

didn't the left get their ass handed to them quite enough in the mid terms? It takes quite a delusion to now post that somehow it is just a mistake and really everyone loves you. Even though the vote count indicates otherwise.

There may be no end to playing the victim.
Or blaming the other side as the bigger bully.

Reminds me of kids who claim they aren't sleepy
but cry and whine from being overtired until they cry themselves to sleep,
arguing they want to stay up....

Don't you just love 'em anyway?

It's okay if these kids just make a loud fuss, and cause no real harm.
But when the hissy fits turn dangerous, like the mobs coming in from out
of town to burn down businesses in Ferguson, that's when it turns tragic.

For liberals who believe they are defending the underrepresented from
bigger bullies, like Impenitent who is a sincerely nice and good guy,
I'd much rather have the discussions and debates civilly and intellectually.

There are good reasons that Conservatives come across as mean bigots, the same
way Liberals come across as enablers without accountability.
We do need to straighten out what is the real intent on both sides!

There is no doubt of the real intent of the Left and the Americans who oppose them.

We, the Americans, have, since the Democrats passing of obamacare, been busy ridding our party of the Progressives who have long since blurred the line distinguishing Americans from anti-Americans, through their insurgency in our party.

You'll note that the squealing in both parties, regarding our 'extremism'... and you should also note the absence of concern and the diminishing ranks of progressives within our ranks.

 

[Impenitent]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

didn't the left get their ass handed to them quite enough in the mid terms? It takes quite a delusion to now post that somehow it is just a mistake and really everyone loves you. Even though the vote count indicates otherwise.

There may be no end to playing the victim.
Or blaming the other side as the bigger bully.

Reminds me of kids who claim they aren't sleepy
but cry and whine from being overtired until they cry themselves to sleep,
arguing they want to stay up....

Don't you just love 'em anyway?

It's okay if these kids just make a loud fuss, and cause no real harm.
But when the hissy fits turn dangerous, like the mobs coming in from out
of town to burn down businesses in Ferguson, that's when it turns tragic.

For liberals who believe they are defending the underrepresented from
bigger bullies, like Impenitent who is a sincerely nice and good guy,
I'd much rather have the discussions and debates civilly and intellectually.

There are good reasons that Conservatives come across as mean bigots, the same
way Liberals come across as enablers without accountability.
We do need to straighten out what is the real intent on both sides!

 

[Impenitent]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

For example, I wish he would explain how it is possible to be both an Ayn Randian, and a Christian. I like Mike Rowe, but his failing to take those issues head-on isn't going to make them go away.

didn't the left get their ass handed to them quite enough in the mid terms? It takes quite a delusion to now post that somehow it is just a mistake and really everyone loves you. Even though the vote count indicates otherwise.

There may be no end to playing the victim.
Or blaming the other side as the bigger bully.

Reminds me of kids who claim they aren't sleepy
but cry and whine from being overtired until they cry themselves to sleep,
arguing they want to stay up....

Don't you just love 'em anyway?

It's okay if these kids just make a loud fuss, and cause no real harm.
But when the hissy fits turn dangerous, like the mobs coming in from out
of town to burn down businesses in Ferguson, that's when it turns tragic.

For liberals who believe they are defending the underrepresented from
bigger bullies, like Impenitent who is a sincerely nice and good guy,
I'd much rather have the discussions and debates civilly and intellectually.

There are good reasons that Conservatives come across as mean bigots, the same
way Liberals come across as enablers without accountability.
We do need to straighten out what is the real intent on both sides!

I was enjoying your writing ... didn't mean for you to go away.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your ideas are unique, provocative, and mesmerizing .... But not in the realm of possibility. With the new make-up of Congress, we might see some right wing undoing of the new deal, but I don't see it getting past a Veto.

All of that swings around in 2016, with the Senate coming back, Potus remaining D, and Scotus having some new D faces.

Things will be looking up for the D's. You won't find any of them willing to compromise with you.

You might find more friends on the R side, they looking for any way to avoid the kill shot.

But it's not going to happen. R's and D's aren't going to willingly cede power. Maybe a third party would adopt your solutions - I don't think you could get the present major parties to do it... ever.

Dear Impeniitent: Why don't you think this is possible or where America is heading anyway?

You do know that Nader and Paul have collaborated and are calling for Progressive Liberals and Libertarian Conservatives
to UNITE, to stand together on common goals
and force accountability for the corporate corruption ruining both parties D and R, right?

Let's look at this way
* let the Democrat Party focus on INCLUSION of DIVERSITY and how to organize all the immigrant and prison populations by sponsors, regions or institutions that AGREE to manage their community members like a school system where everyone has to register and work off any credits or debts they owe toward their educational plans
* let the GREENS focus on cleaning up the CORPORATE corruption of the laws and how to check that and
get that mess out of govt, out of Congress and Courts where corporate influence has been screwing the taxpayers. All the restitution owed for Environmental Damages alone is enough to go after Corporations and set an example to deter this type of abuse in the future, while demanding resources be paid back by investing into restoration of damaged areas. Full time jobs. Why not have the Greens focus there?
* let the CONSERVATIVES and Republicans focus on enforcing the Centralizing Constitutional principles (and relegate anything not agreed on to Optional institutions, like through Party or through local states or cities that want to keep those systems, just not federalize them unless all states/people agree to nationalize it) Why not focus on teaching Constitutional due process to all citizens to prevent any more police/criminal violence as in Ferguson or worse cases?
* let Libertarians take on this legalization or decriminalization issue to change the prisons
and work on alternative medical facilities or whatever is going to prevent crime instead of punish it after the fact. We can create sustainable health care services, education and facilities by converting prisons into campuses with teaching hospitals and secure detention centers that the Veterans can manage so they have sustainable jobs they can retire on comfortably, too.
etc.

if we organize by party, we can focus resources better on solutions.

So why not call a Constitutional Convention on representation by Party
and organize a system of delegating solutions for each group to work on.

Does that really seem so out of hand and impossible?
Nader and Paul are already trying to organize around common goals and solutions.

 

[Impenitent]

I've always considered Nader more than a bit prickish, and I suspect the r's think similar things about Paul. Does their compromise with each other make them any more relevant with their real parties? They are both too old to tread water, so they're grabbing each other - they'll drown anyway.

But you keep on producing ideas on top of ideas - more than I can possibly respond too! You're gonna have to dumb it down, if you expect me to keep up!

Your ideas are good, but I think you're going have to work within the parties, yet convince the powerful to think these are their ideas,

Try this: before you pose an original idea, add the phrase, "What you are really saying is this..." It might work!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your ideas are unique, provocative, and mesmerizing .... But not in the realm of possibility. With the new make-up of Congress, we might see some right wing undoing of the new deal, but I don't see it getting past a Veto.

All of that swings around in 2016, with the Senate coming back, Potus remaining D, and Scotus having some new D faces.

Things will be looking up for the D's. You won't find any of them willing to compromise with you.

You might find more friends on the R side, they looking for any way to avoid the kill shot.

But it's not going to happen. R's and D's aren't going to willingly cede power. Maybe a third party would adopt your solutions - I don't think you could get the present major parties to do it... ever.

Dear Impeniitent: Why don't you think this is possible or where America is heading anyway?

You do know that Nader and Paul have collaborated and are calling for Progressive Liberals and Libertarian Conservatives
to UNITE, to stand together on common goals
and force accountability for the corporate corruption ruining both parties D and R, right?

Let's look at this way
* let the Democrat Party focus on INCLUSION of DIVERSITY and how to organize all the immigrant and prison populations by sponsors, regions or institutions that AGREE to manage their community members like a school system where everyone has to register and work off any credits or debts they owe toward their educational plans
* let the GREENS focus on cleaning up the CORPORATE corruption of the laws and how to check that and
get that mess out of govt, out of Congress and Courts where corporate influence has been screwing the taxpayers. All the restitution owed for Environmental Damages alone is enough to go after Corporations and set an example to deter this type of abuse in the future, while demanding resources be paid back by investing into restoration of damaged areas. Full time jobs. Why not have the Greens focus there?
* let the CONSERVATIVES and Republicans focus on enforcing the Centralizing Constitutional principles (and relegate anything not agreed on to Optional institutions, like through Party or through local states or cities that want to keep those systems, just not federalize them unless all states/people agree to nationalize it) Why not focus on teaching Constitutional due process to all citizens to prevent any more police/criminal violence as in Ferguson or worse cases?
* let Libertarians take on this legalization or decriminalization issue to change the prisons
and work on alternative medical facilities or whatever is going to prevent crime instead of punish it after the fact. We can create sustainable health care services, education and facilities by converting prisons into campuses with teaching hospitals and secure detention centers that the Veterans can manage so they have sustainable jobs they can retire on comfortably, too.
etc.

if we organize by party, we can focus resources better on solutions.

So why not call a Constitutional Convention on representation by Party
and organize a system of delegating solutions for each group to work on.

Does that really seem so out of hand and impossible?
Nader and Paul are already trying to organize around common goals and solutions.

Nice idea. But it rests upon a false assumption.

The assumption is that Left-think; the species of reasoning which animates 'the greens' and the 'Democrat Party' is viable; that it is possesses sufficient objectivity to make your desires possible.

The evidence suggests that it does not.

But, if it did, that would be a wonderful suggestion.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your ideas are unique, provocative, and mesmerizing .... But not in the realm of possibility. With the new make-up of Congress, we might see some right wing undoing of the new deal, but I don't see it getting past a Veto.

All of that swings around in 2016, with the Senate coming back, Potus remaining D, and Scotus having some new D faces.

Things will be looking up for the D's. You won't find any of them willing to compromise with you.

You might find more friends on the R side, they looking for any way to avoid the kill shot.

But it's not going to happen. R's and D's aren't going to willingly cede power. Maybe a third party would adopt your solutions - I don't think you could get the present major parties to do it... ever.

Dear Impeniitent: Why don't you think this is possible or where America is heading anyway?

You do know that Nader and Paul have collaborated and are calling for Progressive Liberals and Libertarian Conservatives
to UNITE, to stand together on common goals
and force accountability for the corporate corruption ruining both parties D and R, right?

Let's look at this way
* let the Democrat Party focus on INCLUSION of DIVERSITY and how to organize all the immigrant and prison populations by sponsors, regions or institutions that AGREE to manage their community members like a school system where everyone has to register and work off any credits or debts they owe toward their educational plans
* let the GREENS focus on cleaning up the CORPORATE corruption of the laws and how to check that and
get that mess out of govt, out of Congress and Courts where corporate influence has been screwing the taxpayers. All the restitution owed for Environmental Damages alone is enough to go after Corporations and set an example to deter this type of abuse in the future, while demanding resources be paid back by investing into restoration of damaged areas. Full time jobs. Why not have the Greens focus there?
* let the CONSERVATIVES and Republicans focus on enforcing the Centralizing Constitutional principles (and relegate anything not agreed on to Optional institutions, like through Party or through local states or cities that want to keep those systems, just not federalize them unless all states/people agree to nationalize it) Why not focus on teaching Constitutional due process to all citizens to prevent any more police/criminal violence as in Ferguson or worse cases?
* let Libertarians take on this legalization or decriminalization issue to change the prisons
and work on alternative medical facilities or whatever is going to prevent crime instead of punish it after the fact. We can create sustainable health care services, education and facilities by converting prisons into campuses with teaching hospitals and secure detention centers that the Veterans can manage so they have sustainable jobs they can retire on comfortably, too.
etc.

if we organize by party, we can focus resources better on solutions.

So why not call a Constitutional Convention on representation by Party
and organize a system of delegating solutions for each group to work on.

Does that really seem so out of hand and impossible?
Nader and Paul are already trying to organize around common goals and solutions.

Nice idea. But it rests upon a false assumption.

The assumption is that Left-think; the species of reasoning which animates 'the greens' and the 'Democrat Party' is viable; that it is possesses sufficient objectivity to make your desires possible.

The evidence suggests that it does not.

But, if it did, that would be a wonderful suggestion.

Well, I've met several Vets now within the Democrat ranks who like the idea of a campus
and helping set up sustainable alternatives that can create stable jobs and housing / services for Vets.

So if the Vets from the different parties can hook up as teams and ranks, putting the Constitution
first before party, maybe the other leaders will respect our Vet leadership enough to follow their lead.

We could create jobs for Vets to take over institutions from the
* VA
* Post Office
* prisons
etc.
and reform these to be sustainable operations.

Everything should be run with respect to the Oath that military and other officers take to uphold the Constitution first.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your ideas are unique, provocative, and mesmerizing .... But not in the realm of possibility. With the new make-up of Congress, we might see some right wing undoing of the new deal, but I don't see it getting past a Veto.

All of that swings around in 2016, with the Senate coming back, Potus remaining D, and Scotus having some new D faces.

Things will be looking up for the D's. You won't find any of them willing to compromise with you.

You might find more friends on the R side, they looking for any way to avoid the kill shot.

But it's not going to happen. R's and D's aren't going to willingly cede power. Maybe a third party would adopt your solutions - I don't think you could get the present major parties to do it... ever.

Dear Impeniitent: Why don't you think this is possible or where America is heading anyway?

You do know that Nader and Paul have collaborated and are calling for Progressive Liberals and Libertarian Conservatives
to UNITE, to stand together on common goals
and force accountability for the corporate corruption ruining both parties D and R, right?

Let's look at this way
* let the Democrat Party focus on INCLUSION of DIVERSITY and how to organize all the immigrant and prison populations by sponsors, regions or institutions that AGREE to manage their community members like a school system where everyone has to register and work off any credits or debts they owe toward their educational plans
* let the GREENS focus on cleaning up the CORPORATE corruption of the laws and how to check that and
get that mess out of govt, out of Congress and Courts where corporate influence has been screwing the taxpayers. All the restitution owed for Environmental Damages alone is enough to go after Corporations and set an example to deter this type of abuse in the future, while demanding resources be paid back by investing into restoration of damaged areas. Full time jobs. Why not have the Greens focus there?
* let the CONSERVATIVES and Republicans focus on enforcing the Centralizing Constitutional principles (and relegate anything not agreed on to Optional institutions, like through Party or through local states or cities that want to keep those systems, just not federalize them unless all states/people agree to nationalize it) Why not focus on teaching Constitutional due process to all citizens to prevent any more police/criminal violence as in Ferguson or worse cases?
* let Libertarians take on this legalization or decriminalization issue to change the prisons
and work on alternative medical facilities or whatever is going to prevent crime instead of punish it after the fact. We can create sustainable health care services, education and facilities by converting prisons into campuses with teaching hospitals and secure detention centers that the Veterans can manage so they have sustainable jobs they can retire on comfortably, too.
etc.

if we organize by party, we can focus resources better on solutions.

So why not call a Constitutional Convention on representation by Party
and organize a system of delegating solutions for each group to work on.

Does that really seem so out of hand and impossible?
Nader and Paul are already trying to organize around common goals and solutions.

Nice idea. But it rests upon a false assumption.

The assumption is that Left-think; the species of reasoning which animates 'the greens' and the 'Democrat Party' is viable; that it is possesses sufficient objectivity to make your desires possible.

The evidence suggests that it does not.

But, if it did, that would be a wonderful suggestion.

Well, I've met several Vets now within the Democrat ranks who like the idea of a campus
and helping set up sustainable alternatives that can create stable jobs and housing / services for Vets.

So if the Vets from the different parties can hook up as teams and ranks, putting the Constitution
first before party, maybe the other leaders will respect our Vet leadership enough to follow their lead.

We could create jobs for Vets to take over institutions from the
* VA
* Post Office
* prisons
etc.
and reform these to be sustainable operations.

Everything should be run with respect to the Oath that military and other officers take to uphold the Constitution first.

Well, I hope it works out for 'em. I really do.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

Suppose some stranger approached you on line in the supermarket, made a bunch of accusations while calling you a reptile, toad, snake and racist. Are you morally and intellectually obliged to respond to such a stranger?

In fact, anyone in such a situation would warn the person to leave them alone, or they'd call the police.

Personally, if someone approached me in such a shouting and vile manner and publicly dengirated me with such passionate hate (as the CAPS implies), I'd have one hand on my revolver expecting them to physically assault me, and I'd be stupid not to have my hand on my revolver.

He sounds like a modern Muslim extremist who hates you with great passion, dehumanizing and abusing you, saying "CONVERT INFIDEL OR DIE"

 

[Impenitent]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

Suppose some stranger approached you on line in the supermarket, made a bunch of accusations while calling you a reptile, toad, snake and racist. Are you morally and intellectually obliged to respond to such a stranger?

In fact, anyone in such a situation would warn the person to leave them alone, or they'd call the police.

Personally, if someone approached me in such a shouting and vile manner and publicly dengirated me with such passionate hate (as the CAPS implies), I'd have one hand on my revolver expecting them to physically assault me, and I'd be stupid not to have my hand on my revolver.

He sounds like a modern Muslim extremist who hates you with great passion, dehumanizing and abusing you, saying "CONVERT INFIDEL OR DIE"

I like how your post builds incrementally from calm rationality to uncontrolled manic hysteria!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

Suppose some stranger approached you on line in the supermarket, made a bunch of accusations while calling you a reptile, toad, snake and racist. Are you morally and intellectually obliged to respond to such a stranger?

In fact, anyone in such a situation would warn the person to leave them alone, or they'd call the police.

Personally, if someone approached me in such a shouting and vile manner and publicly dengirated me with such passionate hate (as the CAPS implies), I'd have one hand on my revolver expecting them to physically assault me, and I'd be stupid not to have my hand on my revolver.

He sounds like a modern Muslim extremist who hates you with great passion, dehumanizing and abusing you, saying "CONVERT INFIDEL OR DIE"

I like how your post builds incrementally from calm rationality to uncontrolled manic hysteria!

Yeah, I enjoyed that myself, in that it provided a lovely contrast against the chronic uncontrolled hysteria typical of your posts.

For instance, that notion that soundly reasoned people are sub-human, while defending individuals whose most glaring trait is the inability to reason soundly. The singular trait that sets humanity distinct from the sub-creatures of the Ideological Left and the rest of the animal kingdom.

LOL! The two values, dark and light... set adjacent to one another... breathtaking!

 

[Impenitent]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

Suppose some stranger approached you on line in the supermarket, made a bunch of accusations while calling you a reptile, toad, snake and racist. Are you morally and intellectually obliged to respond to such a stranger?

In fact, anyone in such a situation would warn the person to leave them alone, or they'd call the police.

Personally, if someone approached me in such a shouting and vile manner and publicly dengirated me with such passionate hate (as the CAPS implies), I'd have one hand on my revolver expecting them to physically assault me, and I'd be stupid not to have my hand on my revolver.

He sounds like a modern Muslim extremist who hates you with great passion, dehumanizing and abusing you, saying "CONVERT INFIDEL OR DIE"

I like how your post builds incrementally from calm rationality to uncontrolled manic hysteria!

Yeah, I enjoyed that myself, in that it provided a lovely contrast against the chronic uncontrolled hysteria typical of your posts.

For instance, that notion that soundly reasoned people are sub-human, while defending individuals whose most glaring trait is the inability to reason soundly. The singular trait that sets humanity distinct from the sub-creatures of the Ideological Left and the rest of the animal kingdom.

LOL! The two values, dark and light... set adjacent to one another... breathtaking!

I'm certain that you have found, as have I, that these conversations require a little provocativeness injected into them, to insure more interested participation.

For instance, your post made me think of that movie theater shooting precipitated by loud texting. Were you perhaps channeling that angry old white man during your rant?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Polite response, but fails to address the issues that R's are vulnerable on, those being: that many are, in fact, reptiles, toads, snakes, and racists, while presenting themselves as the Christian Party, though ignoring much of Jesus's teachings.

Suppose some stranger approached you on line in the supermarket, made a bunch of accusations while calling you a reptile, toad, snake and racist. Are you morally and intellectually obliged to respond to such a stranger?

In fact, anyone in such a situation would warn the person to leave them alone, or they'd call the police.

Personally, if someone approached me in such a shouting and vile manner and publicly dengirated me with such passionate hate (as the CAPS implies), I'd have one hand on my revolver expecting them to physically assault me, and I'd be stupid not to have my hand on my revolver.

He sounds like a modern Muslim extremist who hates you with great passion, dehumanizing and abusing you, saying "CONVERT INFIDEL OR DIE"

I like how your post builds incrementally from calm rationality to uncontrolled manic hysteria!

Yeah, I enjoyed that myself, in that it provided a lovely contrast against the chronic uncontrolled hysteria typical of your posts.

For instance, that notion that soundly reasoned people are sub-human, while defending individuals whose most glaring trait is the inability to reason soundly. The singular trait that sets humanity distinct from the sub-creatures of the Ideological Left and the rest of the animal kingdom.

LOL! The two values, dark and light... set adjacent to one another... breathtaking!

I'm certain that you have found, as have I, that these conversations require a little provocativeness injected into them, to insure more interested participation.

For instance, your post made me think of that movie theater shooting precipitated by loud texting. Were you perhaps channeling that angry old white man during your rant?

So you 'feel' that sound reason constitutes anger? And this you learned from watching TV; cable TV no doubt... which was dedicated to old white men?

LOL! Look buddy, I can see that you've got some needs, but there's nothing I can do for ya here. I personally don't care what kind of TV ya watch, but please keep your twisted carnal cravings and the reasoning which so clearly follows, to yourself.

Public discourse should be left to those with the means to reason soundly and the character to comport themselves honestly.