Poster Child for Legalization? Chattanooga Shooter had multiple addictions

[emilynghiem]

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.

WHAT? G.T. have you talked to any people who are
started to get 1, 2 and now 3% cut out of their income because of the health care mandates?

People are being FINED.
This is no longer a free choice.

If you don't buy insurance under the terms of the mandate,
the govt automatically takes an increasing percentage out of your income
which is showing up on people's tax returns.

G.T. I was planning to go on a hunger strike if the mandate
doesn't change by the time my job ends in September that is paying for my insurance.

Without that, my monthly cost will rise from 30 to over 300 dollars.
I am already paying 300 a month to cover the van for the nonprofit work
done by the Democrat Precinct Chair in our Precinct who reneged on the agreement
to pay "every other month" so I have been paying 300 a month for over 2 years.

So I have argued the Democrats are creating "involuntary servitude"
expecting me to pay 300 a month for insurance I cannot afford
while I am already paying 300 for other expenses, Not including
the interest payment on about 60,000 total I have lent to bail out
two districts destroyed by Democrat administrations that allowed
taxmoney to be wasted on corrupt officials and programs while
the nonprofit groups doing the social work for free had their funding
cut and programs evicted where my money went toward keeping them running
and serving the community.

This is outrageous that the Democrats have pushed and allowed
this "mandate" to stand that would force someone like me, working
two jobs to pay for even the VAN that the Democrat Precinct Chair uses
as his transportation, and then expect me to pay another 300 a month
to avoid a fine through the IRS.

G.T. that WASN'T there before this ACA was passed.
Before, I would have the choice to pay for these other programs
and skip the insurance. I have friends who offer to cover costs
since I am covering costs for other people. But it's broader than
just health care costs, it's housing, transportation, all kinds of
costs for keeping community volunteers and programs running.

Now I would face an additional deduction off my salary that
is already used to pay for all these other expenses.

Where are you getting that people can opt out of the ACA mandates?

THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING FOR, THAT THE MANDATES
SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY. so only if you AGREE to be under
the federal exchanges and ACA, then you are required to pay into it.

But G.T. the BIG controversy is that ALL citizens are required
to buy into this mandated insurance plan. And that's why people
have been arguing that federal govt overstepped Constitutional authority
by requiring citizens to buy private insurance to AVOID a tax penalty.
We are being FINED and it is a form of DISCRIMINATION for people
who believe in paying for their own health care.

Did you even READ the rules for exemption? You have to be
part of a religious organization that has been in existence since 1999.
So there are Govt regulations on exemptions, that is the equivalent
of regulating religion! If you are not affiliated with a qualified group,
you get fined a tax penalty. So this discriminates by creed and religious affiliation.

G.T. what do you THINK all the uproar is about over the ACA mandates?

It is either forcing people to buy insurance or fining them a percent of
their income going up from 1 to 2 to 3 percent each year.

WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE YELLING AND PROTESTING???
We lost our free choice in buying insurance when the mandates
were passed REQUIRING this or else pay a TAX PENALTY.
so people are yelling about "no taxation without representation"
where we didn't agree to tie in tax penalties with any condition to buy private insurance!!!

Where are you and C_Clayton_Jones getting that this is optional?
If it were optional, as I have argued it SHOULD be optional to opt in or out,
then NOBODY would be yelling. The whole protest against ACA is over
the mandates pushed by federal govt through the IRS without a vote or
Constitutional amendment giving federal govt authority to mandate health care
for individual citizens and states much less forcing citizens to buy a private service!

 

[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.

WHAT? G.T. have you talked to any people who are
started to get 1, 2 and now 3% cut out of their income because of the health care mandates?

People are being FINED.
This is no longer a free choice.

If you don't buy insurance under the terms of the mandate,
the govt automatically takes an increasing percentage out of your income
which is showing up on people's tax returns.

G.T. I was planning to go on a hunger strike if the mandate
doesn't change by the time my job ends in September that is paying for my insurance.

Without that, my monthly cost will rise from 30 to over 300 dollars.
I am already paying 300 a month to cover the van for the nonprofit work
done by the Democrat Precinct Chair in our Precinct who reneged on the agreement
to pay "every other month" so I have been paying 300 a month for over 2 years.

So I have argued the Democrats are creating "involuntary servitude"
expecting me to pay 300 a month for insurance I cannot afford
while I am already paying 300 for other expenses, Not including
the interest payment on about 60,000 total I have lent to bail out
two districts destroyed by Democrat administrations that allowed
taxmoney to be wasted on corrupt officials and programs while
the nonprofit groups doing the social work for free had their funding
cut and programs evicted where my money went toward keeping them running
and serving the community.

This is outrageous that the Democrats have pushed and allowed
this "mandate" to stand that would force someone like me, working
two jobs to pay for even the VAN that the Democrat Precinct Chair uses
as his transportation, and then expect me to pay another 300 a month
to avoid a fine through the IRS.

G.T. that WASN'T there before this ACA was passed.
Before, I would have the choice to pay for these other programs
and skip the insurance. I have friends who offer to cover costs
since I am covering costs for other people. But it's broader than
just health care costs, it's housing, transportation, all kinds of
costs for keeping community volunteers and programs running.

Now I would face an additional deduction off my salary that
is already used to pay for all these other expenses.

Where are you getting that people can opt out of the ACA mandates?

THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING FOR, THAT THE MANDATES
SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY. so only if you AGREE to be under
the federal exchanges and ACA, then you are required to pay into it.

But G.T. the BIG controversy is that ALL citizens are required
to buy into this mandated insurance plan. And that's why people
have been arguing that federal govt overstepped Constitutional authority
by requiring citizens to buy private insurance to AVOID a tax penalty.
We are being FINED and it is a form of DISCRIMINATION for people
who believe in paying for their own health care.

Did you even READ the rules for exemption? You have to be
part of a religious organization that has been in existence since 1999.
So there are Govt regulations on exemptions, that is the equivalent
of regulating religion! If you are not affiliated with a qualified group,
you get fined a tax penalty. So this discriminates by creed and religious affiliation.

G.T. what do you THINK all the uproar is about over the ACA mandates?

It is either forcing people to buy insurance or fining them a percent of
their income going up from 1 to 2 to 3 percent each year.

WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE YELLING AND PROTESTING???
We lost our free choice in buying insurance when the mandates
were passed REQUIRING this or else pay a TAX PENALTY.
so people are yelling about "no taxation without representation"
where we didn't agree to tie in tax penalties with any condition to buy private insurance!!!

Where are you and C_Clayton_Jones getting that this is optional?
If it were optional, as I have argued it SHOULD be optional to opt in or out,
then NOBODY would be yelling. The whole protest against ACA is over
the mandates pushed by federal govt through the IRS without a vote or
Constitutional amendment giving federal govt authority to mandate health care
for individual citizens and states much less forcing citizens to buy a private service!

Dodged the issue. Again.

If people can "opt out" and do so.....then get sick and CANNOT pay....


What to do emily?

Stop ducking. Its the arrow through the heart of your retarded idea, my question.

 

[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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

 

[emilynghiem]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

G.T. with the billions of dollars wasted in CA ALONE on illegal immigrants
filling up state prisons, surely you can cover health care with that money!

 

[G.T.]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

 

[emilynghiem]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Where the capital will come from to invest in building campuses,
including military prisons and teaching hospitals to address health care
and VA reform, is by assessing the debts and damages owed to taxpayers
and citizens from corporate abuses of govt resources and crimes such
as drug and human trafficking, and invest that restitution (either fines or
labor/resources owed for violations) into creating jobs building sustainable campus programs, not only for training workers in a safe environment where they receive housing and health are on site as part of the program they are working through,
but training for govt leaders to manage small districts, cities, then states
before running for office so they have real life experience on what it takes to run gov administration in a self-sufficient manner instead of wasting so much money on abuses and corruption that the debts are passed to taxpayers without any corrections.

 

[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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

Marriage as a civil institution, any 2 consenting adults can civilly marry.

The gay debate law suddenly has you wanting to take away civil marriage altogether, because the sensibilities of those who want it illegal.


Heres something you miss, dumb dumb:

Civil marriage doesnt grant you a tax CREDIT. Its a tax BREAK, meaning YOU pay LESS of YOUR OWN taxes, as a benefit.


Nobody else is paying for your marriage.


So again, quit bending over to justify your bigotry.

You want either the bigots to be allowed to make it illegal (which you ADMITTED earlier by mentioning a "local" consensus)....

Or for their to.be no marriages at all because those opposed to gay marriage shouldnt have to pay for it......only thats a fake reason because they DPNT PAY FOR IT.

 

[G.T.]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

 

[G.T.]

Ill bet emily doesnt even know why theres a tax deduction for marriage.....

Because married couples provide a higher net positive boost for the economy, and it pays for itself.

Daft emily didnt know that, huh?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

Marriage as a civil institution, any 2 consenting adults can civilly marry.

The gay debate law suddenly has you wanting to take away civil marriage altogether, because the sensibilities of those who want it illegal.


Heres something you miss, dumb dumb:

Civil marriage doesnt grant you a tax CREDIT. Its a tax BREAK, meaning YOU pay LESS of YOUR OWN taxes, as a benefit.


Nobody else is paying for your marriage.


So again, quit bending over to justify your bigotry.

You want either the bigots to be allowed to make it illegal (which you ADMITTED earlier by mentioning a "local" consensus)....

Or for their to.be no marriages at all because those opposed to gay marriage shouldnt have to pay for it......only thats a fake reason because they DPNT PAY FOR IT.

Dear G.T. either way, there is nothing that requires benefits to go through govt.
So if people don't agree on the terms, they can separate and pay for these through their own networks.

Both Republicans and Democrats have the largest national networks, organized democratically
by elected representation and voted on platforms, from the precinct level all the way to the state and national.

If the parties want beliefs respected equally under the Constitution, without imposing through govt,
they can separate and manage their own taxes and benefits through their own parties.

and leave the federal level of taxes and funding only for issues
that ALL people AGREE belong with federal govt as public policy.

Anything people disagree on with conflicting BELIEFS shouldn't be regulated through federal govt anyway.

Everyone I know has been arguing about this.

The prochoice people don't want prolife people interfering with health care decisions,
so that means to get it out of public policy especially federal govt if you don't want to answer to other people!!

 

[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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

Marriage as a civil institution, any 2 consenting adults can civilly marry.

The gay debate law suddenly has you wanting to take away civil marriage altogether, because the sensibilities of those who want it illegal.


Heres something you miss, dumb dumb:

Civil marriage doesnt grant you a tax CREDIT. Its a tax BREAK, meaning YOU pay LESS of YOUR OWN taxes, as a benefit.


Nobody else is paying for your marriage.


So again, quit bending over to justify your bigotry.

You want either the bigots to be allowed to make it illegal (which you ADMITTED earlier by mentioning a "local" consensus)....

Or for their to.be no marriages at all because those opposed to gay marriage shouldnt have to pay for it......only thats a fake reason because they DPNT PAY FOR IT.

Dear G.T. either way, there is nothing that requires benefits to go through govt.
So if people don't agree on the terms, they can separate and pay for these through their own networks.

Both Republicans and Democrats have the largest national networks, organized democratically
by elected representation and voted on platforms, from the precinct level all the way to the state and national.

If the parties want beliefs respected equally under the Constitution, without imposing through govt,
they can separate and manage their own taxes and benefits through their own parties.

and leave the federal level of taxes and funding only for issues
that ALL people AGREE belong with federal govt as public policy.

Anything people disagree on with conflicting BELIEFS shouldn't be regulated through federal govt anyway.

Everyone I know has been arguing about this.

The prochoice people don't want prolife people interfering with health care decisions,
so that means to get it out of public policy especially federal govt if you don't want to answer to other people!!

You support bigotry.

Legal marriage does not disrespect the view of straight marriage.

Gay marriage GAVE THE VIEWS EQUAL REPRESENTATION UNDER THE LAW.

Those who want marriage to be man/woman CAN LEGALLY MAN WOMAN MARRY.

Those who believe in gay marriage can LEGALLY GAY MARRY.

Neither is taxpayer funded.

Your bigotry is showing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

 

[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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

Marriage as a civil institution, any 2 consenting adults can civilly marry.

The gay debate law suddenly has you wanting to take away civil marriage altogether, because the sensibilities of those who want it illegal.


Heres something you miss, dumb dumb:

Civil marriage doesnt grant you a tax CREDIT. Its a tax BREAK, meaning YOU pay LESS of YOUR OWN taxes, as a benefit.


Nobody else is paying for your marriage.


So again, quit bending over to justify your bigotry.

You want either the bigots to be allowed to make it illegal (which you ADMITTED earlier by mentioning a "local" consensus)....

Or for their to.be no marriages at all because those opposed to gay marriage shouldnt have to pay for it......only thats a fake reason because they DPNT PAY FOR IT.

Dear G.T. either way, there is nothing that requires benefits to go through govt.
So if people don't agree on the terms, they can separate and pay for these through their own networks.

Both Republicans and Democrats have the largest national networks, organized democratically
by elected representation and voted on platforms, from the precinct level all the way to the state and national.

If the parties want beliefs respected equally under the Constitution, without imposing through govt,
they can separate and manage their own taxes and benefits through their own parties.

and leave the federal level of taxes and funding only for issues
that ALL people AGREE belong with federal govt as public policy.

Anything people disagree on with conflicting BELIEFS shouldn't be regulated through federal govt anyway.

Everyone I know has been arguing about this.

The prochoice people don't want prolife people interfering with health care decisions,
so that means to get it out of public policy especially federal govt if you don't want to answer to other people!!

You said ANYTHING that people have conflicting beliefs on should t be handled by govt.

Slavery makes your argument a failure.

Youre ok with the govt allowing the subjugation of human rights.

Freedom from slavery is a right.

Marrige is a right (loving vs. Smith, case law)


Your argument is bigotted and daft.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

Marriage as a civil institution, any 2 consenting adults can civilly marry.

The gay debate law suddenly has you wanting to take away civil marriage altogether, because the sensibilities of those who want it illegal.


Heres something you miss, dumb dumb:

Civil marriage doesnt grant you a tax CREDIT. Its a tax BREAK, meaning YOU pay LESS of YOUR OWN taxes, as a benefit.


Nobody else is paying for your marriage.


So again, quit bending over to justify your bigotry.

You want either the bigots to be allowed to make it illegal (which you ADMITTED earlier by mentioning a "local" consensus)....

Or for their to.be no marriages at all because those opposed to gay marriage shouldnt have to pay for it......only thats a fake reason because they DPNT PAY FOR IT.

Dear G.T. either way, there is nothing that requires benefits to go through govt.
So if people don't agree on the terms, they can separate and pay for these through their own networks.

Both Republicans and Democrats have the largest national networks, organized democratically
by elected representation and voted on platforms, from the precinct level all the way to the state and national.

If the parties want beliefs respected equally under the Constitution, without imposing through govt,
they can separate and manage their own taxes and benefits through their own parties.

and leave the federal level of taxes and funding only for issues
that ALL people AGREE belong with federal govt as public policy.

Anything people disagree on with conflicting BELIEFS shouldn't be regulated through federal govt anyway.

Everyone I know has been arguing about this.

The prochoice people don't want prolife people interfering with health care decisions,
so that means to get it out of public policy especially federal govt if you don't want to answer to other people!!

You support bigotry.

Legal marriage does not disrespect the view of straight marriage.

Gay marriage GAVE THE VIEWS EQUAL REPRESENTATION UNDER THE LAW.

Those who want marriage to be man/woman CAN LEGALLY MAN WOMAN MARRY.

Those who believe in gay marriage can LEGALLY GAY MARRY.

Neither is taxpayer funded.

Your bigotry is showing.

Hi G.T. I didn't say it disrespected the traditional marriage.

I am saying state marriage, either straight gay or whatever,
disrespects "separation of church and state"

If people AGREE to let religious or faith based beliefs into public policy, people
can pass laws. Even the death penalty brings up conflicting beliefs, but it has been instituted through states.

Where people DISAGREE then such institutions shouldn't be implemented through the state.

Get an agreement first, and then it's okay to implement.

If the laws were written neutrally enough, nobody would complain.

 

[G.T.]

Daft idiot ignored all substance.

"What of those who cant pay?"

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dodges her glaring bigotted views.

Where am I being bigoted?
I respect and include ALL people to take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Which beliefs am I leaving out?

I equally include the belief in gay marriage where people fund that themselves
just like any other religious practice I don't expect the entire public to fund.

If the people don't want the state to endorse gay marriage
then I'm saying don't endorse marriage for ANYONE, and keep it private for EVERYONE.

So that way it is FAIR and NOT bigoted.

Give people tax breaks for funding their own benefits
packages through their national organizations or parties of their choice,
so they don't impose on each other!

G.T. would you call me bigoted for telling
Hindus and Muslims to keep their beliefs and practices private
and not push them through Congress or States for everyone to endorse?

Marriage as a civil institution, any 2 consenting adults can civilly marry.

The gay debate law suddenly has you wanting to take away civil marriage altogether, because the sensibilities of those who want it illegal.


Heres something you miss, dumb dumb:

Civil marriage doesnt grant you a tax CREDIT. Its a tax BREAK, meaning YOU pay LESS of YOUR OWN taxes, as a benefit.


Nobody else is paying for your marriage.


So again, quit bending over to justify your bigotry.

You want either the bigots to be allowed to make it illegal (which you ADMITTED earlier by mentioning a "local" consensus)....

Or for their to.be no marriages at all because those opposed to gay marriage shouldnt have to pay for it......only thats a fake reason because they DPNT PAY FOR IT.

Dear G.T. either way, there is nothing that requires benefits to go through govt.
So if people don't agree on the terms, they can separate and pay for these through their own networks.

Both Republicans and Democrats have the largest national networks, organized democratically
by elected representation and voted on platforms, from the precinct level all the way to the state and national.

If the parties want beliefs respected equally under the Constitution, without imposing through govt,
they can separate and manage their own taxes and benefits through their own parties.

and leave the federal level of taxes and funding only for issues
that ALL people AGREE belong with federal govt as public policy.

Anything people disagree on with conflicting BELIEFS shouldn't be regulated through federal govt anyway.

Everyone I know has been arguing about this.

The prochoice people don't want prolife people interfering with health care decisions,
so that means to get it out of public policy especially federal govt if you don't want to answer to other people!!

You said ANYTHING that people have conflicting beliefs on should t be handled by govt.

Slavery makes your argument a failure.

Youre ok with the govt allowing the subjugation of human rights.

Freedom from slavery is a right.

Marrige is a right (loving vs. Smith, case law)

Your argument is bigotted and daft.

Dear G.T.
1. People do have the right to volunteer WILLFULLY as for charity and not get paid for their work.
But this is not forced on people INVOLUNTARILY as in slavery or involuntary servitude.
The issue is FREE CHOICE.

So where slavery is forced on people AGAINST their will,
that IS VIOLATING THEIR BELIEFS.

2. with marriage, both sides want their BELIEFS and free choice respected.

So I am saying to stick where they AGREE.

So back to the issue of SLAVERY, there is nothing I have
said to support "violating ANYONE'S CONSENT"

in both cases I am saying to respect the CONSENT of both sides.

so there cannot be slavery forced on anyone because they would not CONSENT

And same with the marriage issue, neither side CONSENTS to
a public policy that doesn't represent them and their BELIEFS.

this is to PREVENT imposition on either group
by coming up with policies that BOTH sides CONSENT to in order
to call that public policy, state law or govt authority.

CONSENT is the opposite of slavery.
I am trying to defend CONSENT of all people equally
and prevent ANYONE from feeling oppressed,
victimized, or enslaved by political imposition from dissenting sources.

Is this more clear?

The same way I want YOUR consent and beliefs respected and protected,
I want the same for the consent and beliefs of all other people including ones who disagree with you and me.
We still deserve to CONSENT to laws that affect us all.
So I believe in consensus on how to write laws and implement
programs where everyone can have their right to life, right to choose, right to health care,
right to marriage according to their beliefs and not interfere with the next person having the same through their group.

If anything will stop bigotry it is having the freedom
to work out differences and take the pressure off people
who otherwise get defensive and start projecting when they feel attacked.

At this point, even you have projected onto me,
assuming I believe as people do who discriminate against gays unequally for being gay
(instead of targeting ALL relationship abuse whether heterosexual or homosexual and addressing
ALL abuses as needing correction to prevent abuse in the future).

So G.T. you have practiced the same thing as bigotry
by attacking me as if I represent that entire group you are against.

That is punishing me, calling me dumb, accusing me of not thinking this through,
just because you ASSOCIATE me with people who have reacted and rejected out of sheer whatever!
So that is how bigotry gets expressed -- taking YOUR perception of an entire group
and projecting it onto me as an individual, without any due process to prove I have done
any of the wrongs accused of the other group you associate with me.

That is a form of projected PREJUDICE and bigotry, against a group or stereotype label for one,
and assuming I am part of that label and deserve to be attacked, insulted and punished because of the
behavior of other people.

 

[G.T.]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...


So what freedom is it, exactly?




Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

 

[emilynghiem]

What about people who can't pay for their costs of health care in prison?
Why not go after people who have COMMITTED CRIMES that cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.

And use THAT money and restitution owed to pay for health care
instead of charging people who didn't commit any crimes.

If you were REALLY going after responsibility for costs, look at the prison system.
Why keep making law abiding taxpayers pay 50K a year per person locked away who can't work.

And then COMPLAIN There's no money to pay for education and health care?
Look at the people really running up the costs to society.
Fix that and there are plenty of resources that can cover
housing, education and health care on a SUSTAINABLE basis
when it is tied in with school programs where the participants
EARN their education by working and providing services at the
same time, while training through school and internships.

here's the model for the sustainable community campus plans,
passed as part of Federal Laws on public housing reform:
http www.houstonprogressive.org
Why not apply this to reforming not only public housing and public schools,
but public health care, mental treatment facilities, and also prisons and VA?

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

Dear G.T.
It is like the argument for public schools.
As long as it is going through the public institutions,
then it must reflect and represent the people.

So atheists who don't feel prayers, God and crosses represent the public
but are pushing a religious belief through the public institutions will sue to have that removed.

They don't want to be responsible for it through PUBLIC institutions.

Same with people protesting the death penalty or war.
and don't want that publicly endorsed where it violates their beliefs.

People who don't believe in recognizing same sex marriage
don't want benefits paid the same way traditional couples are recognized.

So I am saying to be fair and NOT be bigoted,
then REMOVE all marriage all benefits and manage health
care and prison programs etc under separate tracks.

Let people endorse and fund the programs of their choice
and quit fighting. So nobody is left out unequally.
Everyone has the right to set up their own programs
and deduct that from taxes. make it the same for everyone.

There is no bigotry and no fighting over who is endorsing
what, because people can form their own programs.

 

[emilynghiem]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.