Poster Child for Legalization? Chattanooga Shooter had multiple addictions

[Moonglow]

I did illegal drugs for many, many years and suffered no health problems and payed for it all by my own labor....As has millions others...

Many, many millions of others.

This country was founded on tobacco and whiskey, even the Pilgrims drank beer as did the kids..The main reason they landed when and where they did was because they needed to brew more beer....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I guess his sister must have drug problems too, if that's what we're gonna be blaming this on.....No? Yea, these bitches are indoctrinated to believe that these actions are not only not regrettable but in the service of their made up god.

Dear TheGreatGatsby There is only one God, though called by different names and terms.
The difference is whether people take a positive or negative approach to God's will:
* retributive justice, or restorative justice
* good will, or ill will
* love of truth, or fear of the unknown
* abundance mentality, or scarcity mentality
* forgiveness and inclusion, or unforgiveness and coercion

I find the key, that makes all the difference,
is forgiveness. If people cannot forgive something or someone
in their past, they will project it forward and cause a vicious cycle of retribution and ill will.

This cycle can only be broken by forgiveness and letting go,
so that positive insights, energy, relations and direction can move toward solutions, corrections and prevention
of whatever caused problems in the first place.

The faith in forgiveness transforming and healing everything in its path
is what it means to have faith in God's grace.

Some Muslims have this naturally, others do not.
Some Christians and some Buddhists live naturally by grace, and others are stuck in negativity.

It isn't the denomination that makes someone closer to God or universal truth,
it is the degree of forgiveness, awareness and acceptance
vs. the degree of unforgiveness, wilful ignorance, and rejection/division caused by ill will towards others
that determines how closely you are following God's will or good will, which is very fine line where
all paths converge and agree in truth, versus following the negative path of destruction that is broader
because it is easier for everyone to think they are right while others are wrong.
It is more refined to find where everyone can agree on what is true and right, and stick with those points instead.

I agree with your God is love premise. But I don't agree with your conclusions about denominations. If the plant be bad then how can the fruit then also be good? Islam might be a chicken and the egg question to you; is it evil people who join or does it make them evil; but the reality is it's a bad plant that produces bad fruits.

Hi TheGreatGatsby
Are you looking at all of the Muslim followers through the same lens?
If you see SOME bad and then assume "ALL are bad," that isn't fair to the ones
who are consistent with Christian teachings as well. There are many who are not against
Christ so it isn't fair to judge "ALL apples as bad" just because you happen to see a bunch of bad apples!

There are Jewish-Christians or Messianic Jews who are NOT in conflict with Christianity
but consider themselves Christian, a Baptist denomination, but retain their Jewish cultural ways and spiritual laws. So it isn't fair to judge "all Jews the same way" if some are able to reconcile and work with all other religions and some are not. (See also Bernie Glassman Zen Peacemaker who teaches all-inclusive approaches to building spiritual and community relations on a sustainable basis.)

There are also Buddhist-Christians who are not the same as other Buddhists.

I even know Atheists I consider Neighbors in Christ, even though they don't believe in a Personifed
God or Christ. Many people I know are still called to Conscience as Gentiles under Natural laws,
committed to follow and live by the spirit of Restorative Justice but do not personify this as a personal Jesus.

It is still the same calling whether you recognize the name as "Christ Jesus" or the meaning
as "Restorative Justice" in secular practical terms.

Many of the Muslims I have met are more like the Secular Gentiles under Natural laws
who follow the spirit of Christ that way, living by peace and justice NATURALLY.

The Jehovah's Witnesses I have met also come across more like Secular Gentiles
who understand Jesus and the Bible from a more naturalistic angle.

Even if they remain "secular" with their practice, similar to the "secular gentiles".
this is still a valid path in Christianity.

The Gentiles are STILL under natural laws that Jesus or Justice "fulfills." .

As long as we agree to forgive and receive one another as equals,
we can still work together in the spirit of truth, connected by conscience (ie "through Christ.")

The believers under Scriptural laws and authority
and the secular gentiles under Natural laws and civil authority,
are still under the same laws of Justice which Jesus symbolizes .

Even if my atheist and secular friends do not personify these universal concepts and principles as
a "personal God" or "personal Christ," we are still talking about the same process humans go through.

Thank you for your msgs

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

 

[Moonglow]

I guess his sister must have drug problems too, if that's what we're gonna be blaming this on.....No? Yea, these bitches are indoctrinated to believe that these actions are not only not regrettable but in the service of their made up god.

Dear TheGreatGatsby There is only one God, though called by different names and terms.
The difference is whether people take a positive or negative approach to God's will:
* retributive justice, or restorative justice
* good will, or ill will
* love of truth, or fear of the unknown
* abundance mentality, or scarcity mentality
* forgiveness and inclusion, or unforgiveness and coercion

I find the key, that makes all the difference,
is forgiveness. If people cannot forgive something or someone
in their past, they will project it forward and cause a vicious cycle of retribution and ill will.

This cycle can only be broken by forgiveness and letting go,
so that positive insights, energy, relations and direction can move toward solutions, corrections and prevention
of whatever caused problems in the first place.

The faith in forgiveness transforming and healing everything in its path
is what it means to have faith in God's grace.

Some Muslims have this naturally, others do not.
Some Christians and some Buddhists live naturally by grace, and others are stuck in negativity.

It isn't the denomination that makes someone closer to God or universal truth,
it is the degree of forgiveness, awareness and acceptance
vs. the degree of unforgiveness, wilful ignorance, and rejection/division caused by ill will towards others
that determines how closely you are following God's will or good will, which is very fine line where
all paths converge and agree in truth, versus following the negative path of destruction that is broader
because it is easier for everyone to think they are right while others are wrong.
It is more refined to find where everyone can agree on what is true and right, and stick with those points instead.

I agree with your God is love premise. But I don't agree with your conclusions about denominations. If the plant be bad then how can the fruit then also be good? Islam might be a chicken and the egg question to you; is it evil people who join or does it make them evil; but the reality is it's a bad plant that produces bad fruits.

Hi TheGreatGatsby
Are you looking at all of the Muslim followers through the same lens?
If you see SOME bad and then assume "ALL are bad," that isn't fair to the ones
who are consistent with Christian teachings as well. There are many who are not against
Christ so it isn't fair to judge "ALL apples as bad" just because you happen to see a bunch of bad apples!

There are Jewish-Christians or Messianic Jews who are NOT in conflict with Christianity
but consider themselves Christian, a Baptist denomination, but retain their Jewish cultural ways and spiritual laws. So it isn't fair to judge "all Jews the same way" if some are able to reconcile and work with all other religions and some are not. (See also Bernie Glassman Zen Peacemaker who teaches all-inclusive approaches to building spiritual and community relations on a sustainable basis.)

There are also Buddhist-Christians who are not the same as other Buddhists.

I even know Atheists I consider Neighbors in Christ, even though they don't believe in a Personifed
God or Christ. Many people I know are still called to Conscience as Gentiles under Natural laws,
committed to follow and live by the spirit of Restorative Justice but do not personify this as a personal Jesus.

It is still the same calling whether you recognize the name as "Christ Jesus" or the meaning
as "Restorative Justice" in secular practical terms.

Many of the Muslims I have met are more like the Secular Gentiles under Natural laws
who follow the spirit of Christ that way, living by peace and justice NATURALLY.

The Jehovah's Witnesses I have met also come across more like Secular Gentiles
who understand Jesus and the Bible from a more naturalistic angle.

Even if they remain "secular" with their practice, similar to the "secular gentiles".
this is still a valid path in Christianity.

The Gentiles are STILL under natural laws that Jesus or Justice "fulfills." .

As long as we agree to forgive and receive one another as equals,
we can still work together in the spirit of truth, connected by conscience (ie "through Christ.")

The believers under Scriptural laws and authority
and the secular gentiles under Natural laws and civil authority,
are still under the same laws of Justice which Jesus symbolizes .

Even if my atheist and secular friends do not personify these universal concepts and principles as
a "personal God" or "personal Christ," we are still talking about the same process humans go through.

Thank you for your msgs

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I guess his sister must have drug problems too, if that's what we're gonna be blaming this on.....No? Yea, these bitches are indoctrinated to believe that these actions are not only not regrettable but in the service of their made up god.

Dear TheGreatGatsby There is only one God, though called by different names and terms.
The difference is whether people take a positive or negative approach to God's will:
* retributive justice, or restorative justice
* good will, or ill will
* love of truth, or fear of the unknown
* abundance mentality, or scarcity mentality
* forgiveness and inclusion, or unforgiveness and coercion

I find the key, that makes all the difference,
is forgiveness. If people cannot forgive something or someone
in their past, they will project it forward and cause a vicious cycle of retribution and ill will.

This cycle can only be broken by forgiveness and letting go,
so that positive insights, energy, relations and direction can move toward solutions, corrections and prevention
of whatever caused problems in the first place.

The faith in forgiveness transforming and healing everything in its path
is what it means to have faith in God's grace.

Some Muslims have this naturally, others do not.
Some Christians and some Buddhists live naturally by grace, and others are stuck in negativity.

It isn't the denomination that makes someone closer to God or universal truth,
it is the degree of forgiveness, awareness and acceptance
vs. the degree of unforgiveness, wilful ignorance, and rejection/division caused by ill will towards others
that determines how closely you are following God's will or good will, which is very fine line where
all paths converge and agree in truth, versus following the negative path of destruction that is broader
because it is easier for everyone to think they are right while others are wrong.
It is more refined to find where everyone can agree on what is true and right, and stick with those points instead.

I agree with your God is love premise. But I don't agree with your conclusions about denominations. If the plant be bad then how can the fruit then also be good? Islam might be a chicken and the egg question to you; is it evil people who join or does it make them evil; but the reality is it's a bad plant that produces bad fruits.

Hi TheGreatGatsby
Are you looking at all of the Muslim followers through the same lens?
If you see SOME bad and then assume "ALL are bad," that isn't fair to the ones
who are consistent with Christian teachings as well. There are many who are not against
Christ so it isn't fair to judge "ALL apples as bad" just because you happen to see a bunch of bad apples!

There are Jewish-Christians or Messianic Jews who are NOT in conflict with Christianity
but consider themselves Christian, a Baptist denomination, but retain their Jewish cultural ways and spiritual laws. So it isn't fair to judge "all Jews the same way" if some are able to reconcile and work with all other religions and some are not. (See also Bernie Glassman Zen Peacemaker who teaches all-inclusive approaches to building spiritual and community relations on a sustainable basis.)

There are also Buddhist-Christians who are not the same as other Buddhists.

I even know Atheists I consider Neighbors in Christ, even though they don't believe in a Personifed
God or Christ. Many people I know are still called to Conscience as Gentiles under Natural laws,
committed to follow and live by the spirit of Restorative Justice but do not personify this as a personal Jesus.

It is still the same calling whether you recognize the name as "Christ Jesus" or the meaning
as "Restorative Justice" in secular practical terms.

Many of the Muslims I have met are more like the Secular Gentiles under Natural laws
who follow the spirit of Christ that way, living by peace and justice NATURALLY.

The Jehovah's Witnesses I have met also come across more like Secular Gentiles
who understand Jesus and the Bible from a more naturalistic angle.

Even if they remain "secular" with their practice, similar to the "secular gentiles".
this is still a valid path in Christianity.

The Gentiles are STILL under natural laws that Jesus or Justice "fulfills." .

As long as we agree to forgive and receive one another as equals,
we can still work together in the spirit of truth, connected by conscience (ie "through Christ.")

The believers under Scriptural laws and authority
and the secular gentiles under Natural laws and civil authority,
are still under the same laws of Justice which Jesus symbolizes .

Even if my atheist and secular friends do not personify these universal concepts and principles as
a "personal God" or "personal Christ," we are still talking about the same process humans go through.

Thank you for your msgs

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

 

[Moonglow]

Dear TheGreatGatsby There is only one God, though called by different names and terms.
The difference is whether people take a positive or negative approach to God's will:
* retributive justice, or restorative justice
* good will, or ill will
* love of truth, or fear of the unknown
* abundance mentality, or scarcity mentality
* forgiveness and inclusion, or unforgiveness and coercion

I find the key, that makes all the difference,
is forgiveness. If people cannot forgive something or someone
in their past, they will project it forward and cause a vicious cycle of retribution and ill will.

This cycle can only be broken by forgiveness and letting go,
so that positive insights, energy, relations and direction can move toward solutions, corrections and prevention
of whatever caused problems in the first place.

The faith in forgiveness transforming and healing everything in its path
is what it means to have faith in God's grace.

Some Muslims have this naturally, others do not.
Some Christians and some Buddhists live naturally by grace, and others are stuck in negativity.

It isn't the denomination that makes someone closer to God or universal truth,
it is the degree of forgiveness, awareness and acceptance
vs. the degree of unforgiveness, wilful ignorance, and rejection/division caused by ill will towards others
that determines how closely you are following God's will or good will, which is very fine line where
all paths converge and agree in truth, versus following the negative path of destruction that is broader
because it is easier for everyone to think they are right while others are wrong.
It is more refined to find where everyone can agree on what is true and right, and stick with those points instead.

I agree with your God is love premise. But I don't agree with your conclusions about denominations. If the plant be bad then how can the fruit then also be good? Islam might be a chicken and the egg question to you; is it evil people who join or does it make them evil; but the reality is it's a bad plant that produces bad fruits.

Hi TheGreatGatsby
Are you looking at all of the Muslim followers through the same lens?
If you see SOME bad and then assume "ALL are bad," that isn't fair to the ones
who are consistent with Christian teachings as well. There are many who are not against
Christ so it isn't fair to judge "ALL apples as bad" just because you happen to see a bunch of bad apples!

There are Jewish-Christians or Messianic Jews who are NOT in conflict with Christianity
but consider themselves Christian, a Baptist denomination, but retain their Jewish cultural ways and spiritual laws. So it isn't fair to judge "all Jews the same way" if some are able to reconcile and work with all other religions and some are not. (See also Bernie Glassman Zen Peacemaker who teaches all-inclusive approaches to building spiritual and community relations on a sustainable basis.)

There are also Buddhist-Christians who are not the same as other Buddhists.

I even know Atheists I consider Neighbors in Christ, even though they don't believe in a Personifed
God or Christ. Many people I know are still called to Conscience as Gentiles under Natural laws,
committed to follow and live by the spirit of Restorative Justice but do not personify this as a personal Jesus.

It is still the same calling whether you recognize the name as "Christ Jesus" or the meaning
as "Restorative Justice" in secular practical terms.

Many of the Muslims I have met are more like the Secular Gentiles under Natural laws
who follow the spirit of Christ that way, living by peace and justice NATURALLY.

The Jehovah's Witnesses I have met also come across more like Secular Gentiles
who understand Jesus and the Bible from a more naturalistic angle.

Even if they remain "secular" with their practice, similar to the "secular gentiles".
this is still a valid path in Christianity.

The Gentiles are STILL under natural laws that Jesus or Justice "fulfills." .

As long as we agree to forgive and receive one another as equals,
we can still work together in the spirit of truth, connected by conscience (ie "through Christ.")

The believers under Scriptural laws and authority
and the secular gentiles under Natural laws and civil authority,
are still under the same laws of Justice which Jesus symbolizes .

Even if my atheist and secular friends do not personify these universal concepts and principles as
a "personal God" or "personal Christ," we are still talking about the same process humans go through.

Thank you for your msgs

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

I am not defending der Muslims, I am only stating facts.....If you can't handle them, it isn't my problem.....I am more likely to be killed by a white person than a black or Muslim, since the demographic s statistics are in the whites favor here....They ran off the blacks about a dozen years ago...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I agree with your God is love premise. But I don't agree with your conclusions about denominations. If the plant be bad then how can the fruit then also be good? Islam might be a chicken and the egg question to you; is it evil people who join or does it make them evil; but the reality is it's a bad plant that produces bad fruits.

Hi TheGreatGatsby
Are you looking at all of the Muslim followers through the same lens?
If you see SOME bad and then assume "ALL are bad," that isn't fair to the ones
who are consistent with Christian teachings as well. There are many who are not against
Christ so it isn't fair to judge "ALL apples as bad" just because you happen to see a bunch of bad apples!

There are Jewish-Christians or Messianic Jews who are NOT in conflict with Christianity
but consider themselves Christian, a Baptist denomination, but retain their Jewish cultural ways and spiritual laws. So it isn't fair to judge "all Jews the same way" if some are able to reconcile and work with all other religions and some are not. (See also Bernie Glassman Zen Peacemaker who teaches all-inclusive approaches to building spiritual and community relations on a sustainable basis.)

There are also Buddhist-Christians who are not the same as other Buddhists.

I even know Atheists I consider Neighbors in Christ, even though they don't believe in a Personifed
God or Christ. Many people I know are still called to Conscience as Gentiles under Natural laws,
committed to follow and live by the spirit of Restorative Justice but do not personify this as a personal Jesus.

It is still the same calling whether you recognize the name as "Christ Jesus" or the meaning
as "Restorative Justice" in secular practical terms.

Many of the Muslims I have met are more like the Secular Gentiles under Natural laws
who follow the spirit of Christ that way, living by peace and justice NATURALLY.

The Jehovah's Witnesses I have met also come across more like Secular Gentiles
who understand Jesus and the Bible from a more naturalistic angle.

Even if they remain "secular" with their practice, similar to the "secular gentiles".
this is still a valid path in Christianity.

The Gentiles are STILL under natural laws that Jesus or Justice "fulfills." .

As long as we agree to forgive and receive one another as equals,
we can still work together in the spirit of truth, connected by conscience (ie "through Christ.")

The believers under Scriptural laws and authority
and the secular gentiles under Natural laws and civil authority,
are still under the same laws of Justice which Jesus symbolizes .

Even if my atheist and secular friends do not personify these universal concepts and principles as
a "personal God" or "personal Christ," we are still talking about the same process humans go through.

Thank you for your msgs

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

I am not defending der Muslims, I am only stating facts.....If you can't handle them, it isn't my problem.....I am more likely to be killed by a white person than a black or Muslim, since the demographic s statistics are in the whites favor here....They ran off the blacks about a dozen years ago...

I know you're not defending Muslims. I'm the one who told you that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

#1 doesnt work because there are more than 2 views, and if the state endorse "unlimited" views its the same as endorsing NONE. and if they dont endorse unlimited views, then you fairy tale everyone gets a say bullshit snt realized.


Solution #2 i already destroyed BEFORE, dumb dumb


We pay, AS A POLICY, for people who have no coverage (OPT OUTS), but GET SICK.

The ONLY way to solve that, is LET THEM DIE AND DONT OFFER CARE SINCE THEY HAVE NO COVERAGE -OR- make everyone opt in to mitigate the cost.

That annihilates your #2. Totally destroys it. And i did that before, and you ignored it and or typed 42 substanceless paragraphs that contained ZERO logic therein.


Also, the "seperate by party" thing is already what has occurred.

Gay married couples are one party.
Straight married couples are another.

Both are legal, thus have an equal voice in marriaGe and are LEGALLY represented.

So again, #2 destroyed.

Hi G.T. and that's why the state doesn't go around
endorsing religions, because there are too many denominations
and different beliefs. So let people govern their own groups.

The govt was NEVER designed to micromanage people's beliefs.
it is unconstitutional by the First Amendment
and just plain against natural laws to try to control every single decision
on personal matters.

That's why govt should stick to COLLECTIVE policies that
apply to everyone. And where it no longer applies globally,
then revert to the States or to the People to work out on a local democratized level.

In schools, the principals hire their own teachers.
In cities, the people vote for their reps using different rules
for different cities.
It is not going to be all the same,
because on that level there is diversity in the needs
representation, interests and priorities of the LOCAL citizens.

So the more personal you get, it helps to have more freedom
to work out individualized policies that match the dynamics of that group.

Ideally the higher levels of govt should be for GENERAL issues,
and delegate the specific choices and details to LOCAL levels to work out.

Only if a conflict cannot be resolved is the govt supposed to step in
and prevent rights from being violated.

In the recent cases of health care mandates and now gay marriage,
govt should not be abused to MAKE decisions for people or states.
Same with the controversial issue over Terri Schiavo where there
was a conflict of interest with her "ex" husband but the state went
with his opinion although there was no proof in writing and there
were more people in the family in favor of keeping her alive.
since nothing was in writing, the decision was FAITH based,
so it should be left to the family and not up to the court to
decide a FAITH based issue. Now we have the same
pattern of deciding faith-based issues applied to other conflicts,
instead of ordering the parties to resolve their own issues,
and either come up with consensual policy or agree to separate.

It doesnt matter how local or small you want to try and allow legalize bigotry against gays...

Like i told you before. Its is evil to allow banning gay marriage.

You wanting to allow said banning at local levels is disgusting. You are a shameful pig.

What? Who said anything about bigotry against gays?
I have argued that gay marriage has ALWAYS been legal under religious freedom.
You cannot ban someone's religious practices, and marriage falls under that.
I have also argued that orientation is a SPIRITUAL matter which CANNOT be legislated
or regulated by Govt.

The main difference, G.T. is that since orientation and/or change to orientation/gender
involves a spiritual level, then I respect the EQUAL free choice of people in their beliefs
or in changing beliefs, and I don't authorize Govt to mandate beliefs or changing them!

That is CONSISTENT with both sides, protecting BOTH from each other.

So I don't know why you feel the need to project other people's issues
onto me that my system would AVOID. By RESPECTING the beliefs
equally on BOTH sides, as I am advocating through mediation and consensus,
or separation of policies, this PREVENTS anyone's biases or bigotry from affecting
anyone else through the govt. it keeps it OUT of public policy.

Sorry this still is not clear to you.

By the time I explained it to one of my friends who is a retired college professor,
It took 6-8 months of arguing back and forth before he understood what I was talking about.

Separation of church and state goes BOTH ways.
Neither side can impose their biases, and then blame the
other side for being bigoted for rejecting that.
There are people on both sides projecting and rejecting
each other's beliefs, and I am saying it is unconstitutional
to abuse govt to bully back and forth, regardless which beliefs you hold or reject.

Sorry if you see this as bigoted when I am trying to PREVENT it.

If Muslims don't agree to buy or consume pork, or Vegans don't agree to buy or consume meat,
that is their belief and nobody can force them to change their beliefs.

even the people who have changed orientation or gender do so by FREE CHOICE,
so that is what i respect as the standard regarding spiritual and personal beliefs.

The only change I have ever seen has always been by the person's FREE WILL.
You cannot force people to change their spiritual views by Govt!!

 

[G.T.]

Ill show you something, emily - watch.

Try and summarize your gay marriage "solution" in one short, non tedious paragraph.

Ill explain to you thoroughly why it is asinine, and why you have no place in an in depth discussion on these issues.

I will deliver. I promise.

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

#1 doesnt work because there are more than 2 views, and if the state endorse "unlimited" views its the same as endorsing NONE. and if they dont endorse unlimited views, then you fairy tale everyone gets a say bullshit snt realized.


Solution #2 i already destroyed BEFORE, dumb dumb


We pay, AS A POLICY, for people who have no coverage (OPT OUTS), but GET SICK.

The ONLY way to solve that, is LET THEM DIE AND DONT OFFER CARE SINCE THEY HAVE NO COVERAGE -OR- make everyone opt in to mitigate the cost.

That annihilates your #2. Totally destroys it. And i did that before, and you ignored it and or typed 42 substanceless paragraphs that contained ZERO logic therein.


Also, the "seperate by party" thing is already what has occurred.

Gay married couples are one party.
Straight married couples are another.

Both are legal, thus have an equal voice in marriaGe and are LEGALLY represented.

So again, #2 destroyed.

Hi G.T. and that's why the state doesn't go around
endorsing religions, because there are too many denominations
and different beliefs. So let people govern their own groups.

The govt was NEVER designed to micromanage people's beliefs.
it is unconstitutional by the First Amendment
and just plain against natural laws to try to control every single decision
on personal matters.

That's why govt should stick to COLLECTIVE policies that
apply to everyone. And where it no longer applies globally,
then revert to the States or to the People to work out on a local democratized level.

In schools, the principals hire their own teachers.
In cities, the people vote for their reps using different rules
for different cities.
It is not going to be all the same,
because on that level there is diversity in the needs
representation, interests and priorities of the LOCAL citizens.

So the more personal you get, it helps to have more freedom
to work out individualized policies that match the dynamics of that group.

Ideally the higher levels of govt should be for GENERAL issues,
and delegate the specific choices and details to LOCAL levels to work out.

Only if a conflict cannot be resolved is the govt supposed to step in
and prevent rights from being violated.

In the recent cases of health care mandates and now gay marriage,
govt should not be abused to MAKE decisions for people or states.
Same with the controversial issue over Terri Schiavo where there
was a conflict of interest with her "ex" husband but the state went
with his opinion although there was no proof in writing and there
were more people in the family in favor of keeping her alive.
since nothing was in writing, the decision was FAITH based,
so it should be left to the family and not up to the court to
decide a FAITH based issue. Now we have the same
pattern of deciding faith-based issues applied to other conflicts,
instead of ordering the parties to resolve their own issues,
and either come up with consensual policy or agree to separate.

It doesnt matter how local or small you want to try and allow legalize bigotry against gays...

Like i told you before. Its is evil to allow banning gay marriage.

You wanting to allow said banning at local levels is disgusting. You are a shameful pig.

What? Who said anything about bigotry against gays?
I have argued that gay marriage has ALWAYS been legal under religious freedom.
You cannot ban someone's religious practices, and marriage falls under that.
I have also argued that orientation is a SPIRITUAL matter which CANNOT be legislated
or regulated by Govt.

The main difference, G.T. is that since orientation and/or change to orientation/gender
involves a spiritual level, then I respect the EQUAL free choice of people in their beliefs
or in changing beliefs, and I don't authorize Govt to mandate beliefs or changing them!

That is CONSISTENT with both sides, protecting BOTH from each other.

So I don't know why you feel the need to project other people's issues
onto me that my system would AVOID. By RESPECTING the beliefs
equally on BOTH sides, as I am advocating through mediation and consensus,
or separation of policies, this PREVENTS anyone's biases or bigotry from affecting
anyone else through the govt. it keeps it OUT of public policy.

Sorry this still is not clear to you.

By the time I explained it to one of my friends who is a retired college professor,
It took 6-8 months of arguing back and forth before he understood what I was talking about.

Separation of church and state goes BOTH ways.
Neither side can impose their biases, and then blame the
other side for being bigoted for rejecting that.
There are people on both sides projecting and rejecting
each other's beliefs, and I am saying it is unconstitutional
to abuse govt to bully back and forth, regardless which beliefs you hold or reject.

Sorry if you see this as bigoted when I am trying to PREVENT it.

If Muslims don't agree to buy or consume pork, or Vegans don't agree to buy or consume meat,
that is their belief and nobody can force them to change their beliefs.

even the people who have changed orientation or gender do so by FREE CHOICE,
so that is what i respect as the standard regarding spiritual and personal beliefs.

The only change I have ever seen has always been by the person's FREE WILL.
You cannot force people to change their spiritual views by Govt!!

How does gay marriage being legal i.pose anything on anyone's religion.

#2. When you say "seperate policies," what the fuck specifically are you talking about if not banning gay marriage in "certain localities" based on popular vote? Which IS bigotted.

Id love to know what you mean by these "seperate policies" and what theyd look like. Specifically. NOT generally.

Dont duck. Like you just did.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi TheGreatGatsby
Are you looking at all of the Muslim followers through the same lens?
If you see SOME bad and then assume "ALL are bad," that isn't fair to the ones
who are consistent with Christian teachings as well. There are many who are not against
Christ so it isn't fair to judge "ALL apples as bad" just because you happen to see a bunch of bad apples!

There are Jewish-Christians or Messianic Jews who are NOT in conflict with Christianity
but consider themselves Christian, a Baptist denomination, but retain their Jewish cultural ways and spiritual laws. So it isn't fair to judge "all Jews the same way" if some are able to reconcile and work with all other religions and some are not. (See also Bernie Glassman Zen Peacemaker who teaches all-inclusive approaches to building spiritual and community relations on a sustainable basis.)

There are also Buddhist-Christians who are not the same as other Buddhists.

I even know Atheists I consider Neighbors in Christ, even though they don't believe in a Personifed
God or Christ. Many people I know are still called to Conscience as Gentiles under Natural laws,
committed to follow and live by the spirit of Restorative Justice but do not personify this as a personal Jesus.

It is still the same calling whether you recognize the name as "Christ Jesus" or the meaning
as "Restorative Justice" in secular practical terms.

Many of the Muslims I have met are more like the Secular Gentiles under Natural laws
who follow the spirit of Christ that way, living by peace and justice NATURALLY.

The Jehovah's Witnesses I have met also come across more like Secular Gentiles
who understand Jesus and the Bible from a more naturalistic angle.

Even if they remain "secular" with their practice, similar to the "secular gentiles".
this is still a valid path in Christianity.

The Gentiles are STILL under natural laws that Jesus or Justice "fulfills." .

As long as we agree to forgive and receive one another as equals,
we can still work together in the spirit of truth, connected by conscience (ie "through Christ.")

The believers under Scriptural laws and authority
and the secular gentiles under Natural laws and civil authority,
are still under the same laws of Justice which Jesus symbolizes .

Even if my atheist and secular friends do not personify these universal concepts and principles as
a "personal God" or "personal Christ," we are still talking about the same process humans go through.

Thank you for your msgs

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

I am not defending der Muslims, I am only stating facts.....If you can't handle them, it isn't my problem.....I am more likely to be killed by a white person than a black or Muslim, since the demographic s statistics are in the whites favor here....They ran off the blacks about a dozen years ago...

I know you're not defending Muslims. I'm the one who told you that.

Hi TheGreatGatsby and Moonglow
I think the distinction needs to be made with when a religion stays in private
vs. when a religion becomes POLITICAL and is pushed to mandate through govt for "all people" to be affected.

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War
is when it is turned into a Political Religion and made mandatory through the State,
where it affects Due Process and imposing on the lives, rights and freedom of other people.

This is true of any religion that gets abused to impose politically through mandatory laws for all people
where not all people agree to be under those mandates.

The Christians get jumped on when Prolife gets pushed through the State instead of keeping their practice
and beliefs in private. They equally argue that Prochoice is a belief being pushed through the State forcing
them to pay for the consequences of abortion they don't believe in and don't want endorsed through the State.

Same with the fights with public schools and institutions over prayer, creation/evolution,
sex education and now health care and benefits recognizing same sex partners that has brought up conflicts with beliefs.

Where BELIEFS are involved, these technically should not be implemented through the State.

When Muslims practice their beliefs in private similar to Buddhists or Hindus who remain peaceful,
there is no issue with that. Pam Geller and others who are against the Jihadist teachings of Islam
even emphasize they have no issue with peaceful Muslims.

It is the Political Religion that crosses the line and becomes abusive of public authority to impose
on others who do not share the same beliefs.

And the same is argued against Conservative Christians who abuse govt to impose their agenda for all people,
whether it is returning Govt to a God-based Christian approach, or it is pushing prolife or prayer policies, etc.

And the same is argued against Liberals pushing BELIEFS in right to health care and right to marriage
through Govt instead of separation of church and state, and keeping beliefs, even secular beliefs, out of govt.
When it becomes a POLITICAL RELIGION that is where opponents complain of infringing on equal religious freedom.

 

[Moonglow]

My position doesn't presuppose that all Muslims are terrible people. However, Islam itself is a force for evil; and anyone that is a part of it and isn't evil is likely severely oppressed or ignorant.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

I am not defending der Muslims, I am only stating facts.....If you can't handle them, it isn't my problem.....I am more likely to be killed by a white person than a black or Muslim, since the demographic s statistics are in the whites favor here....They ran off the blacks about a dozen years ago...

I know you're not defending Muslims. I'm the one who told you that.

Hi TheGreatGatsby and Moonglow
I think the distinction needs to be made with when a religion stays in private
vs. when a religion becomes POLITICAL and is pushed to mandate through govt for "all people" to be affected.

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War
is when it is turned into a Political Religion and made mandatory through the State,
where it affects Due Process and imposing on the lives, rights and freedom of other people.

This is true of any religion that gets abused to impose politically through mandatory laws for all people
where not all people agree to be under those mandates.

The Christians get jumped on when Prolife gets pushed through the State instead of keeping their practice
and beliefs in private. They equally argue that Prochoice is a belief being pushed through the State forcing
them to pay for the consequences of abortion they don't believe in and don't want endorsed through the State.

Same with the fights with public schools and institutions over prayer, creation/evolution,
sex education and now health care and benefits recognizing same sex partners that has brought up conflicts with beliefs.

Where BELIEFS are involved, these technically should not be implemented through the State.

When Muslims practice their beliefs in private similar to Buddhists or Hindus who remain peaceful,
there is no issue with that. Pam Geller and others who are against the Jihadist teachings of Islam
even emphasize they have no issue with peaceful Muslims.

It is the Political Religion that crosses the line and becomes abusive of public authority to impose
on others who do not share the same beliefs.

And the same is argued against Conservative Christians who abuse govt to impose their agenda for all people,
whether it is returning Govt to a God-based Christian approach, or it is pushing prolife or prayer policies, etc.

And the same is argued against Liberals pushing BELIEFS in right to health care and right to marriage
through Govt instead of separation of church and state, and keeping beliefs, even secular beliefs, out of govt.
When it becomes a POLITICAL RELIGION that is where opponents complain of infringing on equal religious freedom.

Well it's too late, since the Christian religion being so dominate in the USA has infiltrated the social and political realms...There wasa time in the US when conformity was forced upon citizens and freedoms were suppressed...
So the people have to go to the federal govt. to get equality which is denied by those with religion imposing their will..It's sad but progressive religious political dogma has been a powerful force in the USA and it needs abated..yet let legal..

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay
1. If people in a state AGREE to a marriage policy, and how to write it neutrally
where all people and beliefs are included respected and represented equally
then the state can endorse such an agreed policy.

2. If they CAN'T agree how to conduct or manage marriage through the state
without people's beliefs getting entangled, then I recommend they SEPARATE
by party. This would also resolve similar issues with diverging beliefs about
health care, by allowing people to fund their own solution and quit dictating terms
they don't all agree with or believe in.

#1 doesnt work because there are more than 2 views, and if the state endorse "unlimited" views its the same as endorsing NONE. and if they dont endorse unlimited views, then you fairy tale everyone gets a say bullshit snt realized.


Solution #2 i already destroyed BEFORE, dumb dumb


We pay, AS A POLICY, for people who have no coverage (OPT OUTS), but GET SICK.

The ONLY way to solve that, is LET THEM DIE AND DONT OFFER CARE SINCE THEY HAVE NO COVERAGE -OR- make everyone opt in to mitigate the cost.

That annihilates your #2. Totally destroys it. And i did that before, and you ignored it and or typed 42 substanceless paragraphs that contained ZERO logic therein.


Also, the "seperate by party" thing is already what has occurred.

Gay married couples are one party.
Straight married couples are another.

Both are legal, thus have an equal voice in marriaGe and are LEGALLY represented.

So again, #2 destroyed.

Hi G.T. and that's why the state doesn't go around
endorsing religions, because there are too many denominations
and different beliefs. So let people govern their own groups.

The govt was NEVER designed to micromanage people's beliefs.
it is unconstitutional by the First Amendment
and just plain against natural laws to try to control every single decision
on personal matters.

That's why govt should stick to COLLECTIVE policies that
apply to everyone. And where it no longer applies globally,
then revert to the States or to the People to work out on a local democratized level.

In schools, the principals hire their own teachers.
In cities, the people vote for their reps using different rules
for different cities.
It is not going to be all the same,
because on that level there is diversity in the needs
representation, interests and priorities of the LOCAL citizens.

So the more personal you get, it helps to have more freedom
to work out individualized policies that match the dynamics of that group.

Ideally the higher levels of govt should be for GENERAL issues,
and delegate the specific choices and details to LOCAL levels to work out.

Only if a conflict cannot be resolved is the govt supposed to step in
and prevent rights from being violated.

In the recent cases of health care mandates and now gay marriage,
govt should not be abused to MAKE decisions for people or states.
Same with the controversial issue over Terri Schiavo where there
was a conflict of interest with her "ex" husband but the state went
with his opinion although there was no proof in writing and there
were more people in the family in favor of keeping her alive.
since nothing was in writing, the decision was FAITH based,
so it should be left to the family and not up to the court to
decide a FAITH based issue. Now we have the same
pattern of deciding faith-based issues applied to other conflicts,
instead of ordering the parties to resolve their own issues,
and either come up with consensual policy or agree to separate.

It doesnt matter how local or small you want to try and allow legalize bigotry against gays...

Like i told you before. Its is evil to allow banning gay marriage.

You wanting to allow said banning at local levels is disgusting. You are a shameful pig.

What? Who said anything about bigotry against gays?
I have argued that gay marriage has ALWAYS been legal under religious freedom.
You cannot ban someone's religious practices, and marriage falls under that.
I have also argued that orientation is a SPIRITUAL matter which CANNOT be legislated
or regulated by Govt.

The main difference, G.T. is that since orientation and/or change to orientation/gender
involves a spiritual level, then I respect the EQUAL free choice of people in their beliefs
or in changing beliefs, and I don't authorize Govt to mandate beliefs or changing them!

That is CONSISTENT with both sides, protecting BOTH from each other.

So I don't know why you feel the need to project other people's issues
onto me that my system would AVOID. By RESPECTING the beliefs
equally on BOTH sides, as I am advocating through mediation and consensus,
or separation of policies, this PREVENTS anyone's biases or bigotry from affecting
anyone else through the govt. it keeps it OUT of public policy.

Sorry this still is not clear to you.

By the time I explained it to one of my friends who is a retired college professor,
It took 6-8 months of arguing back and forth before he understood what I was talking about.

Separation of church and state goes BOTH ways.
Neither side can impose their biases, and then blame the
other side for being bigoted for rejecting that.
There are people on both sides projecting and rejecting
each other's beliefs, and I am saying it is unconstitutional
to abuse govt to bully back and forth, regardless which beliefs you hold or reject.

Sorry if you see this as bigoted when I am trying to PREVENT it.

If Muslims don't agree to buy or consume pork, or Vegans don't agree to buy or consume meat,
that is their belief and nobody can force them to change their beliefs.

even the people who have changed orientation or gender do so by FREE CHOICE,
so that is what i respect as the standard regarding spiritual and personal beliefs.

The only change I have ever seen has always been by the person's FREE WILL.
You cannot force people to change their spiritual views by Govt!!

How does gay marriage being legal i.pose anything on anyone's religion.

#2. When you say "seperate policies," what the fuck specifically are you talking about if not banning gay marriage in "certain localities" based on popular vote? Which IS bigotted.

Id love to know what you mean by these "seperate policies" and what theyd look like. Specifically. NOT generally.

Dont duck. Like you just did.

Hi G.T.
It doesn't when it is kept in private, like running your own private school, paying for it yourself, and teaching
and practicing whatever you want in there.

Where it crosses the line is when the entire public is taxed to pay for benefits,
and some people do not recognize same sex partners the same as traditional married male/female husband/wife.

Because this is a spiritual matter and difference in beliefs,
that is where I argue this cannot be forced on people to pay for.

I make the same argument with people who by their beliefs in Restorative Justice
do not believe in paying for the death penalty, but want their taxes to pay for restitution for life
so that person pays for their crime in other ways that are more meaningful and productive instead of killing them
which doesn't solve the problems. They see executions as promoting Retributive instead of Restorative Justice,
so one goes against their beliefs and they want to fund the other.
As long as state money and authority keeps promoting capital punishment, this goes against their beliefs.
Since this is a public institution, they can argue to SEPARATE the funding and pay for alternatives.
But likewise, people who don't believe in rehab and restitution can't be forced to fund or support that either!

So both sides would have to separate and agree only to fund cases by CONSENT of the people affected,
including taxpayers, to avoid imposing either life imprisonment when people believe in death,
or imposing death where people believe in working a life sentence to pay restitution to victims and society.

What is holding up this separation process is setting up means
by which both sides can PAY for their own beliefs without imposing on each other or the public.

The same is in conflict with health care and benefits,
where people don't agree whether to go through govt, through insurance,
through free marketplace, and the added issue of whether or not to
recognize same sex partners in benefits that are paid through the PUBLIC institution of govt.

If the benefits were paid through a PRIVATE group, such as how Mormons
have their own temporary 2 year program that acts as social security,
and Galveston has its own social security that it decides the terms of locally,
then we don't have to argue for "one policy for the entire population" across the state or nation.

At some point we will have to recognize that people have different political beliefs
and all people have a right to fund their own without imposing on each other.

So there is NO PROBLEM, G.T. when these things are practiced in a private system
and people have freedom to implement and pay for their own policies and TERMS of paying into the group system.

Where it is falling apart and dividing people
is injecting BELIEFS into the terms of service and paying taxes and distributing benefits.

The same issue of same sex benefits has caused 2 legal issues to be contested in Houston
where the Mayor and City Council passed changes to ordinances that opponents
are saying go against State laws and require further legislative changes to be voted on before implementing.

So again, differences in BELIEFS are affecting what taxpayers agree or don't agree to pay for.
If they cannot agree, we may have to separate the funding tracks, and that is why I recommend
doing this by party since people are already organized in a democratic structure based on shared BELIEFS.

 

[emilynghiem]

Guns don't kill people by themselves, it takes a human to do that..Yet Americans are evil since they have killed more via mass murders by whites than the Muslims...According to your logical conclusions...

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

I am not defending der Muslims, I am only stating facts.....If you can't handle them, it isn't my problem.....I am more likely to be killed by a white person than a black or Muslim, since the demographic s statistics are in the whites favor here....They ran off the blacks about a dozen years ago...

I know you're not defending Muslims. I'm the one who told you that.

Hi TheGreatGatsby and Moonglow
I think the distinction needs to be made with when a religion stays in private
vs. when a religion becomes POLITICAL and is pushed to mandate through govt for "all people" to be affected.

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War
is when it is turned into a Political Religion and made mandatory through the State,
where it affects Due Process and imposing on the lives, rights and freedom of other people.

This is true of any religion that gets abused to impose politically through mandatory laws for all people
where not all people agree to be under those mandates.

The Christians get jumped on when Prolife gets pushed through the State instead of keeping their practice
and beliefs in private. They equally argue that Prochoice is a belief being pushed through the State forcing
them to pay for the consequences of abortion they don't believe in and don't want endorsed through the State.

Same with the fights with public schools and institutions over prayer, creation/evolution,
sex education and now health care and benefits recognizing same sex partners that has brought up conflicts with beliefs.

Where BELIEFS are involved, these technically should not be implemented through the State.

When Muslims practice their beliefs in private similar to Buddhists or Hindus who remain peaceful,
there is no issue with that. Pam Geller and others who are against the Jihadist teachings of Islam
even emphasize they have no issue with peaceful Muslims.

It is the Political Religion that crosses the line and becomes abusive of public authority to impose
on others who do not share the same beliefs.

And the same is argued against Conservative Christians who abuse govt to impose their agenda for all people,
whether it is returning Govt to a God-based Christian approach, or it is pushing prolife or prayer policies, etc.

And the same is argued against Liberals pushing BELIEFS in right to health care and right to marriage
through Govt instead of separation of church and state, and keeping beliefs, even secular beliefs, out of govt.
When it becomes a POLITICAL RELIGION that is where opponents complain of infringing on equal religious freedom.

Well it's too late, since the Christian religion being so dominate in the USA has infiltrated the social and political realms...There wasa time in the US when conformity was forced upon citizens and freedoms were suppressed...
So the people have to go to the federal govt. to get equality which is denied by those with religion imposing their will..It's sad but progressive religious political dogma has been a powerful force in the USA and it needs abated..yet let legal..

No, it's not too late to enforce the laws. In fact that is the only thing that has ever corrected anything,
is enforcing the same standards that a person or group commits to follow.

The Constitution which these people live by is directly effective in checking against "infiltrating" the govt with faith based beliefs that violate the First Amendment.

I use the Constitutional arguments all the time to explain to prolife advocates why this has to remain free choice,
as long as the arguments are FAITH based and can't be endorsed by govt without violating religious freedom and establishment clauses also in the Constitutional laws.

Both Christianity and Constitutionalism can be checked by enforcing the laws among the members
and holding them to their own principles. That is the only thing I have found that works, holding people to their own laws and principles to stop any abuses or violations that contradict themselves.

Too bad this doesn't work as well with liberals. when I try to hold fellow Democrats and liberals to their own party principles of free choice and inclusion,
I don't have as much success as when I am able to hold prolife people to respect religious free choice and keeping faith based beliefs out of govt. The liberals will keep pushing their beliefs as more important than free choice, and contradict themselves, but the Christians and prolife will back off when I make Constitutional arguments about not injecting faith based beliefs into govt and they have to respect that.

[Note: The people who respond most directly to this approach tend to be either Christian or Constitutionalists who have made the commitment to uphold the laws THEMSELVES. If they depend on other people to enforce or make laws for them, they wait for "someone else" to change laws or rulings first, before they will be open to change. If people don't make these decisions themselves, I can't always get anywhere with such people who are just following the interpretation or lead of someone else and wait for changes to come from elsewhere before they follow, so they stick with the status quo. The ones who do take responsibility themselves can make up or change their minds without depending on other people to confirm first.]

I find both sides are frustrated and don't trust the other group they see as "pushing their beliefs through govt"

They'd both have to agree to stop crossing the line with "political beliefs" being imposed
the same way religious beliefs are barred from govt and public policy. Both sides think the other is going too far,
and they are both right.

If Conservatives are going to be held to Constitutional religious freedom and NOT establishing religion through Govt,
then Liberals need to be held to the same standards of "separation of church and state' and not imposing
political or secular beliefs through Govt such as right to health care through govt,
and right to marriage that are both political beliefs not all people share.

 

[G.T.]

Emily, you are really this dumb.

Your health care views where people can opt out of govt run healthcare are ALREADY IN PLACE. How do I know? I have private insurance.


That insurance is mandatory, as a whole, cannot be "opted out of" and be called FAIR if we are still going to pay to care for sick people who opted to risk it and not have insurance.

So either ypur plan is as fucking retarded as it sounds - or - youre promoting the refusal of care to those who opted out, got sick, and bow have no way to pay

That you dont realize that is a testament to your level of retardedness.


As far as marriage, here is all you had to say: NO government marriages. Otherwise, your "idea" does in fact promote BIGOTRY and FURTHER, it can't work because people dont voluntarily opt into a tax of choice, that would be charity youre talking about dumb dumb. If you want taxes to be voluntary take them or leave them, youre dumber on this issue than on the healthcare one.

We are a representative republic. You are represented by your vote. REPRESENTATIVE DOESNT MEAN THE GOVERNMENT APPEALS TO EVERY LAST PERSON'S VIEWS IN EVERY LITTLE CRACK EVERYWHERE as you daftly assume.



Your view of government is infantile and more-so how a daycare should be run. You belong a zillion fucking miles away from any type of office or leadership position.

 

[Moonglow]

Emily, you are really this dumb.

Your health care views where people can opt out of govt run healthcare are ALREADY IN PLACE. How do I know? I have private insurance.


That insurance is mandatory, as a whole, cannot be "opted out of" and be called FAIR if we are still going to pay to care for sick people who opted to risk it and not have insurance.

So either ypur plan is as fucking retarded as it sounds - or - youre promoting the refusal of care to those who opted out, got sick, and bow have no way to pay

That you dont realize that is a testament to your level of retardedness.


As far as marriage, here is all you had to say: NO government marriages. Otherwise, your "idea" does in fact promote BIGOTRY and FURTHER, it can't work because people dont voluntarily opt into a tax of choice, that would be charity youre talking about dumb dumb. If you want taxes to be voluntary take them or leave them, youre dumber on this issue than on the healthcare one.

We are a representative republic. You are represented by your vote. REPRESENTATIVE DOESNT MEAN THE GOVERNMENT APPEALS TO EVERY LAST PERSON'S VIEWS IN EVERY LITTLE CRACK EVERYWHERE as you daftly assume.



Your view of government is infantile and more-so how a daycare should be run. You belong a zillion fucking miles away from any type of office or leadership position.

Not according to my logical conclusions. What you're babbling on about is not a defense of Islam whatsoever.

I am not defending der Muslims, I am only stating facts.....If you can't handle them, it isn't my problem.....I am more likely to be killed by a white person than a black or Muslim, since the demographic s statistics are in the whites favor here....They ran off the blacks about a dozen years ago...

I know you're not defending Muslims. I'm the one who told you that.

Hi TheGreatGatsby and Moonglow
I think the distinction needs to be made with when a religion stays in private
vs. when a religion becomes POLITICAL and is pushed to mandate through govt for "all people" to be affected.

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War
is when it is turned into a Political Religion and made mandatory through the State,
where it affects Due Process and imposing on the lives, rights and freedom of other people.

This is true of any religion that gets abused to impose politically through mandatory laws for all people
where not all people agree to be under those mandates.

The Christians get jumped on when Prolife gets pushed through the State instead of keeping their practice
and beliefs in private. They equally argue that Prochoice is a belief being pushed through the State forcing
them to pay for the consequences of abortion they don't believe in and don't want endorsed through the State.

Same with the fights with public schools and institutions over prayer, creation/evolution,
sex education and now health care and benefits recognizing same sex partners that has brought up conflicts with beliefs.

Where BELIEFS are involved, these technically should not be implemented through the State.

When Muslims practice their beliefs in private similar to Buddhists or Hindus who remain peaceful,
there is no issue with that. Pam Geller and others who are against the Jihadist teachings of Islam
even emphasize they have no issue with peaceful Muslims.

It is the Political Religion that crosses the line and becomes abusive of public authority to impose
on others who do not share the same beliefs.

And the same is argued against Conservative Christians who abuse govt to impose their agenda for all people,
whether it is returning Govt to a God-based Christian approach, or it is pushing prolife or prayer policies, etc.

And the same is argued against Liberals pushing BELIEFS in right to health care and right to marriage
through Govt instead of separation of church and state, and keeping beliefs, even secular beliefs, out of govt.
When it becomes a POLITICAL RELIGION that is where opponents complain of infringing on equal religious freedom.

Well it's too late, since the Christian religion being so dominate in the USA has infiltrated the social and political realms...There wasa time in the US when conformity was forced upon citizens and freedoms were suppressed...
So the people have to go to the federal govt. to get equality which is denied by those with religion imposing their will..It's sad but progressive religious political dogma has been a powerful force in the USA and it needs abated..yet let legal..

No, it's not too late to enforce the laws. In fact that is the only thing that has ever corrected anything,
is enforcing the same standards that a person or group commits to follow.

The Constitution which these people live by is directly effective in checking against "infiltrating" the govt with faith based beliefs that violate the First Amendment.

I use the Constitutional arguments all the time to explain to prolife advocates why this has to remain free choice,
as long as the arguments are FAITH based and can't be endorsed by govt without violating religious freedom and establishment clauses also in the Constitutional laws.

Both Christianity and Constitutionalism can be checked by enforcing the laws among the members
and holding them to their own principles. That is the only thing I have found that works, holding people to their own laws and principles to stop any abuses or violations that contradict themselves.

Too bad this doesn't work too well with liberals.
when I try to hold Democrats and liberals to their own party principles of free choice and inclusion,
I don't have as much success as when I am able to hold prolife people to respect religious free choice
and keeping faith based beliefs out of govt. The liberals will keep pushing their beliefs as more important
than free choice, and contradict themselves, but the Christians and prolife will back off when I make
Constitutional arguments about not injecting faith based beliefs into govt and they have to respect that.

I find both sides are frustrated and don't trust the other group they see as "pushing their beliefs through govt"

They'd both have to agree to stop crossing the line with "political beliefs" being imposed
the same way religious beliefs are barred from govt and public policy. Both sides think the other is going too far,
and they are both right.

If Conservatives are going to be held to Constitutional religious freedom and NOT establishing religion through Govt,
then Liberals need to be held to the same standards of "separation of church and state' and not imposing
political or secular beliefs through Govt such as right to health care through govt,
and right to marriage that are both political beliefs not all people share.

The reason why religon has less influence in politics now is because the voters don't want it.Instead of helping folks in the USA the religious base seems more harsh and wants people to do without basic needs...The economic climate in the USA favors corporations and not the small business owner...
Had the GOP not changed the status of corporations in the USA to individuals they would not have such a great influence in politics, which is just as bad as a theocracy...which needs to be moderated....

 

[G.T.]

The facts of the matter are that both christians and gays can BOTH be legally married so NEITHER is not represented through government.

So instead of calling it a non issue, shed rather folks who are AGAINST the liberty of gays to marry be allowed to enforce their bigotry SOMEwhere, namely (she named it) through local "consensus."

She is showing to be a bigot and continues to duck that fact by saying "i just want EQUAL representation."

While DUCKING THE FACT both types of marriage ARE both equally REPRESENTED, finally.............but but but what about those bigots being represented equally too? Is her actual beef.

A coward.

 

[G.T.]

Also, she wants people to have the freedom to "opt out" of government insurance.

They already can.

Further, she wants those who opt out to either A: die if they cannot pay......

Or B: be taken care of by......by.....by....YPU GUESSED IT! The rest of society.


She truly is this daft. Sad.

 

[BlindBoo]

who knows if he had any paranoid delusions made worse by marijuana.

Equating this shooter sounds a lot like:

The Licata case became a cause célèbre in the press, cited by proponents of laws cracking down on marijuana. It became central to the trope of "marijuana-crime-insanity".[4] An October 20, 1933 editorial on page six of the Tampa Morning Tribune was entitled "Stop This Murderous Smoke".[5] The editorial writer called for the prohibition of marijuana:

"...t may or may not be wholly true that the pernicious marijuana cigarette is responsible for the murderous mania of a Tampa young man in exterminating all the members of his family within his reach — but whether or not the poisonous mind-wrecking weed is mainly accountable for the tragedy its sale should not be and should never have been permitted here or elsewhere.[6]

The case served to inspire media depictions of normal people driven to criminal insanity by the "evil weed" such as the notorious 1936 exploitation film Tell Your Children (a.k.a.Reefer Madness).[7]

In 1941, Cornell Woolrich under his pen name William Irish published the dime novel Marihuana: A Drug-Crazed Killer at Large, a story exploiting the marijuana-crime-insanity trope popularized by drug prohibitionists who used the Licata case as an example. In the book, a man goes on a murder spree after being exposed to marijuana for the first time.

When in fact:

Victor Licata (c. 1912 – December 4, 1950) was an axe murderer who killed his father, mother, two brothers, a sister and their dog in the Ybor City neighborhood of Tampa, Florida on October 16, 1933.[1] Declared unfit to stand trial for reasons of insanity, subsequent psychiatric examination at the Florida State Hospital for the Insane determined that the 21-year-old Licata suffered from "dementia praecox with homicidal tendencies". While the press depicted the murders as a result of Licata being a cannabis user, the drug was not mentioned in psychiatric reports as having any bearing on his actions. Licata had already been identified as mentally ill and there had been steps to incarcerate him before his crime.[2]

But all the politically correct sources will say:
* marijuana causes no harm and is non-addictive
* marijuana does not cause paranoia or alter anyone's personality
* nobody ever died from using marijuana

Marijuana is not physically additive like Heroin or Morphine is. No one has ever died from an overdoes of Marijuana. Smoking anything is harmful to the body. Of course it is an intoxicant that alters one perceptions, so it can cause paranoia in the inexperienced user.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you are really this dumb.

Your health care views where people can opt out of govt run healthcare are ALREADY IN PLACE. How do I know? I have private insurance.


That insurance is mandatory, as a whole, cannot be "opted out of" and be called FAIR if we are still going to pay to care for sick people who opted to risk it and not have insurance.

So either ypur plan is as fucking retarded as it sounds - or - youre promoting the refusal of care to those who opted out, got sick, and bow have no way to pay

That you dont realize that is a testament to your level of retardedness.


As far as marriage, here is all you had to say: NO government marriages. Otherwise, your "idea" does in fact promote BIGOTRY and FURTHER, it can't work because people dont voluntarily opt into a tax of choice, that would be charity youre talking about dumb dumb. If you want taxes to be voluntary take them or leave them, youre dumber on this issue than on the healthcare one.

We are a representative republic. You are represented by your vote. REPRESENTATIVE DOESNT MEAN THE GOVERNMENT APPEALS TO EVERY LAST PERSON'S VIEWS IN EVERY LITTLE CRACK EVERYWHERE as you daftly assume.



Your view of government is infantile and more-so how a daycare should be run. You belong a zillion fucking miles away from any type of office or leadership position.

Slavery was also in place but it violated human equality and was changed.
We are still fighting the ill effects of slavery today, where people don't have equal
knowledge or experience owning or managing their own property, so people are UNEQUAL.
They DON'T have equal empowerent so they get politically abused and oppressed by others.

G.T. as long as people depend on govt for health care and other benefits,
they will NOT BE EQUAL with people who are already building their own schools and clinics
to serve the public by FREE MARKET choice, and voluntary funding and participation.

That is SUPERIOR to be able to provide services by free choice, instead of being
forced to follow govt mandates.

G.T. that is like the difference between people who are prolife because they CHOOSE to
advocate and prevent abortion on their own, versus people who depend on laws to ban it to make it illegal and not a choice.

I explain to prolife people all the time it is SUPERIOR to have arrived at their level of outreach by FREE CHOICE
not by force of law. None of them are forced by law to be prolife, they are doing that voluntarily and I find that superior.

G.T. I am talking about changing the prison and health care systems
where people DO take back local ownership of these programs through the School system.

I am talking about organizing each district, starting with Houston, to basically buy back the property
to manage their own schools and collaborate with businesses to run their own programs!

I have meetings going on with different leaders who have been working for years to
change the prison culture and take back control so people aren't herded like sheep for the govt contracts
that other people make money from.

We plan to go through public radio and organize teams in each district.
Then we have contacts with other states and a national radio show to go nationwide
and take back communities, starting with the schools and even seizing former drug houses
that can be converted into community centers and start rebuilding each district where
the PEOPLE manage it and learn to govern themselves instead of depending on centralized govt to hand them benefits.

So this is where society is heading and where we are developing politically.

G.T. we can keep the national and state structures, but organize it better
where there is direct accountability instead of bottlenecking through federal govt making all decisions from DC.

Maybe I'm on a different track because coming from Texas, I am used to being around
people who build their own businesses or community programs and have funded their own outreach.

If anything Texas has a culture that seeks to resist and reduce any dependence on federal govt.
The Governor and Republican party get attacked, constantly criticized, for either bowing and depending on
federal funding, or holding it hostage to prevent from bowing to federal conditions on the money.

This is a big issue in the history and future of Texas, so I am used to working with
people who support sustainable means of self-govt and not depending on Washington to redirect funds this way or that way.

Most Texans I know take great pride in working toward independence and maximizing sovereignty.

I see it as teaching your kids to run their own households without depending on their parents to bail them out
when they go overbudget or have worse problems than they can handle on their own.

If you maximize the capacity of each person, group or state to be self-governing and sustainable
where the resources they produce support their population, then the federal level would have less of a burden
because it would only be in change of things that REQUIRE going through the federal level such as interstate commerce, etc. or national security, borders, and international economic and foreign relations

The point is to organize as efficiently as possible, so the personal local issues are best managed directly
where people can represent themselves. And the global issues that require whole nations to form agreements
with each other should be handled at the top. But NOT bog down the top levels with so much bureaucracy
from trying to micromanage the local issues that people can learn to handle themselves.

That is like trying to run a household or a classroom where "all the kids keep running to mom and dad,
the teacher or principal" for help with every little math problem, when they need to be focused on running the entire program,
not watching over the homework the kids need to learn to do on their own. We can't bog down the system that way.
And we need to be in the business of teaching people to operate independently, where they can form teams
to set up their own schools, hospitals, utility and energy provisions, etc. instead of running to mom and dad
to subsidize the cost of living and managing communities that can be self-sustaining if they are set up like schools.

 

[G.T.]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

 

[BlindBoo]

But all the politically correct sources will say:
* marijuana causes no harm and is non-addictive

True. There is no authoritative medical evidence that marijuana is addictive or is harmful.

* marijuana does not cause paranoia or alter anyone's personality.

True. Marijuana does not cause paranoia. If one is innately paranoid using marijuana, or any other mood-altering substance, such as beverage alcohol, is likely to engender symptoms.

* nobody ever died from using marijuana.

Quite true. There is no record in the annals of medical science of marijuana causing death or illness.

You obviously have chosen to believe all the negative Reefer Madness nonsense put forth about marijuana. But unless you simply prefer to remain misinformed you can do yourself a favor by reading, Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, PhD., Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

You are dangerously misguided.
THC can cause permanent anxiety and depression, especially in young, developing brains.

July 1, 2003 -- Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.

The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.

In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn t Damage Brain







Surprising Finding