Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh goody goody, the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves.
Dear Luddly:
It's not just physical birthplace in question
but the SPIRIT of whether people uphold their duty of office to
ENFORCE Constitutional laws and principles for ALL people and interests nationwide
NOT JUST THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.
If Jake sees Ted Cruz as putting political agenda before the Constitution,
then at least have the equality of judgment to see Obama comes across
the same way, as putting political agenda above Constitutional inclusion of ALL views,
including the opposition.
If people are going to be SO BIASED as to NOT be able to include ALL PEOPLE OF ALL VIEWS EQUALLY under Constitutional representation and protection,
I don't believe such people should be in office imposing their biases on public policy.
At the very least, they should have facilitators or mediators assigned to resolve conflicts so that public policies truly reflect the PUBLIC CONSENSUS and not just a majority of one party "bullying over dissenters" by political force, majority vote, or media campaigns.
Shouldn't public policy be based on CONSENT of all the taxpaying public?
Have we gone so long with this trend of coercion and exclusion, that's all we rely on to make decisions anymore?
Luddly, if you were in a partnership with a person who made decisions this way, by "coercing you against your will or beliefs by force or by threat" instead of listening and including your objections and dissent/consent, wouldn't you COMPLAIN the relationship was ABUSIVE?
If the only way you could be heard and defended in such a relationship was to BULLY BACK wouldnt you consider such a relationship to be UNHEALTHY? wouldn't you seek counseling to fix the problems and make decisions in a more healthy and balanced way, instead of forcing decisions back and forth by ganging up on each other?
Really Luddly?
What does it take to explain how this bullying is unhealthy and obstructive to the democratic/due process? how long can we continue thinking this is the only way????
How can either you or I be supportive of stopping the bullying or abuse of women and children by these same tactics, yet condone the constant reliance on them in politics???
????
Please work with my Luddly, as a fellow prochoice liberal/progressive Democrat I really really need to understand this mindset so I can help stop bullying and abuse that I see is related to this same behavior. Please help me understand, can you please explain?
Let's recap this thread, shall we?
He wrote: "...the Hawaii BC was a fake..."
I wrote: "...the birther nutters are still making total assssholes of themselves..."
And, Emily took that straightforward exchange and wandered off into cyberspace with it.
Sorry, but you're gonna be taking that trip without me.
stay on topic
As a Constitutionalist, I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.
guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list
Cruz for president, eh.
stay on topic
I agree but feel I must address this one line. (Mostly because it was the only thing she wrote than made any sense.)
As a Constitutionalist, I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.
Not possible. Indeed, that would be the exact opposite of the Constitution.
Voting, by its very definition, disappoints and disagrees with some portion of the population.
Okay, back to trashing ....
guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list
guy blew $24 BILLION in GDP, w/ his gov't shutdown, to increase the size of his mailing list
Yurt used to post such good threads What happened to the Yurt I used to know?
I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.
if people AGREE to majority rule
Because YOU don't believe that consensus policies are possible...
Emily, this is not Government Law 101 and I have no intention of spending any time explaining my opinions to you. Especially since you contradict* your own position from one post to the next and then tell me what I believe**. I'm sure you're a very nice person but you're barking up the wrong poster.
OTOH, you could the admin for your own forum where you can post these miles long lectures of yours. maybe someone else would be interested in reading them.
*I believe public policies should include and reflect ALL the public, including ALL major as well as minor parties.
... followed by ...
if people AGREE to majority rule
*I want to be very clear that THIS is why I will not attempt any kind of conversation with you:
Because YOU don't believe that consensus policies are possible...
Yurt used to post such good threads What happened to the Yurt I used to know?
and once again a post of non substance and zero will to back up your claims. you're the one posting crap and pulling jakestarkey's all over the board by making claims and then when asked to back them up...all you do is ad hom.
poor form, very immature.