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.
Emily, Emily, Emily....MYSTERY C:
Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply
I believe in separation of church and state
Healthcare is not a religion
Dear rightwinger
Thanks again for responding point by point.
BELIEF that "health care is a right"
is a POLITICAL BELIEF.
BELIEVING that health care for everyone
requires going through govt (as opposed
to locally owned cooperatives for example)
becomes a POLITICAL RELIGION.
SOCIALISM and insisting that for the people
to manage health care it "has to be through govt"
is a POLITICAL RELIGION.
Do you understand the difference between
* health care for everyone through FREE CHOICE
of BOTH govt programs or free market programs
coordinated through cooperatives
* FORCED funding and TERMS OF SERVICE
dictated and regulated through GOVT POLICIES
that people cannot change but vote on indirectly
through govt representatives
So "having faith" in free market systems to
develop cost effective health care by DEMOCRATIZING
it with local ownership and free choice by individuals
is DIFFERENT
from NOT HAVING FAITH and
BELIEVING that GOVT is necessary to protect
and managing health care for the public.
Do you understand the DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THESE TWO POLITICAL BELIEFS
(about health care but also about the
role of govt in general).
Thanks rightwinger!
This is a bit hard to communicate this idea
online. I wish we could talk in person, on this
idea, which I think would be easier. Sorry!
Let's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
if RW's spent as much time, and energy solving their own issues as they do slinging mud at liberals they might gain a little credibility -
She did no mud slinging whatsoever... simply asking questions. If anyone around here has credibility it has to be Em. Shes one of the more thoughtful posters on the forum. Either your out of your mind or in deep denial.
Thank you Yarddog
If I could get more to respond like Pogo and G.T.
I'd like to formulate solid strategies and business plans.
If we can actually agree on more Constitutional and cost effective solutions
that satisfy the goals of both left and right,
why couldn't we PITCH the plans to Presidential candidates, create
jobs in policy and program development?
If this succeeds in shifting social programs back to local democratic management, in order
to reduce burdens and political complications with federal govt, why couldn't CONSERVATIVE business interests and investors be invited to SUPPORT these efforts, through paid Mentorship/Internship training in self-government and financial management, for the purpose of eliminating govt abuses and waste to get it back within limits?
All we'd need is to show a VIABLE business plan for making cost effective reforms
that are more ethical, constitutional, cost effective and sustainable.
Why wouldn't conservatives PREFER to fund that with tax deductible investments
loans or donations, instead of trying to push failed proposals through govt on taxpayers.
if RW's spent as much time, and energy solving their own issues as they do slinging mud at liberals they might gain a little credibility -
She did no mud slinging whatsoever... simply asking questions. If anyone around here has credibility it has to be Em. Shes one of the more thoughtful posters on the forum. Either your out of your mind or in deep denial.
Thank you Yarddog
If I could get more to respond like Pogo and G.T.
I'd like to formulate solid strategies and business plans.
If we can actually agree on more Constitutional and cost effective solutions
that satisfy the goals of both left and right,
why couldn't we PITCH the plans to Presidential candidates, create
jobs in policy and program development?
If this succeeds in shifting social programs back to local democratic management, in order
to reduce burdens and political complications with federal govt, why couldn't CONSERVATIVE business interests and investors be invited to SUPPORT these efforts, through paid Mentorship/Internship training in self-government and financial management, for the purpose of eliminating govt abuses and waste to get it back within limits?
All we'd need is to show a VIABLE business plan for making cost effective reforms
that are more ethical, constitutional, cost effective and sustainable.
Why wouldn't conservatives PREFER to fund that with tax deductible investments
loans or donations, instead of trying to push failed proposals through govt on taxpayers.
You are talking about two mutually exclusive issues.MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.
How can you have both?
We can have both universal health care and a $15 minimum wage
They are mutually exclusive
Yes, I don’t want slave labor
^ Okay rightwinger so we agree no slave labor.
Can you explain how to have $15 minimum wage for everything.
What are businesses going to do that can't afford that.
Ask students to volunteer for free as part of internships?
Rely on volunteers?
Cut down on staff, and make jobs UNSAFE by putting
MORE workload on FEWER people to afford paying 15/hour?
Are you telling me that Nonprofits that could have paid
workers $10-12 an hour now have to rely on those
people VOLUNTEERING because they can't afford
to pay more without breaking employment laws?
????
NOTE: knowing you, I THINK we must be talking
about different things. But if you can answer my
above questions, that would clarify where I am
not understanding what you mean when you
say $15 an hour because some businesses
can't afford that. I've worked places that
could only afford 10-12 an hour while
building up their businesses. If they
had to pay 15 they couldn't grow their business.
A $15 min wage has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare
Since they are separate issues, I will address them separately
How do we get to a $15 wage? Easy when the $7.25 wage hasn’t been increased in ten years. You have pity for the poor businesses having to pay more, but have no sympathy for students working minimum wage who have to make up for decade low wages with increased borrowing.
If a business can’t survive without expecting workers to survive on $7.25 an hour, they don’t deserve to survive
As to Universal Healthcare, it gets paid for from the money employers and employees now pay for private insurance
Sure we can afford itLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
That kid living at home making $7.50 an hour needs money for college. Right now, the difference between $7.25 and $15 goes towards student loansYou are talking about two mutually exclusive issues.MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.
How can you have both?
We can have both universal health care and a $15 minimum wage
They are mutually exclusive
Yes, I don’t want slave labor
^ Okay rightwinger so we agree no slave labor.
Can you explain how to have $15 minimum wage for everything.
What are businesses going to do that can't afford that.
Ask students to volunteer for free as part of internships?
Rely on volunteers?
Cut down on staff, and make jobs UNSAFE by putting
MORE workload on FEWER people to afford paying 15/hour?
Are you telling me that Nonprofits that could have paid
workers $10-12 an hour now have to rely on those
people VOLUNTEERING because they can't afford
to pay more without breaking employment laws?
????
NOTE: knowing you, I THINK we must be talking
about different things. But if you can answer my
above questions, that would clarify where I am
not understanding what you mean when you
say $15 an hour because some businesses
can't afford that. I've worked places that
could only afford 10-12 an hour while
building up their businesses. If they
had to pay 15 they couldn't grow their business.
A $15 min wage has NOTHING to do with universal healthcare
Since they are separate issues, I will address them separately
How do we get to a $15 wage? Easy when the $7.25 wage hasn’t been increased in ten years. You have pity for the poor businesses having to pay more, but have no sympathy for students working minimum wage who have to make up for decade low wages with increased borrowing.
If a business can’t survive without expecting workers to survive on $7.25 an hour, they don’t deserve to survive
As to Universal Healthcare, it gets paid for from the money employers and employees now pay for private insurance
Maybe the kid taking the 7.50 dollar an hour job is the one who still lives at home, has no expenses and its his first job. Maybe a small business is struggling and perhaps the owner can get by with no employee at all, doing the work himself, but if he can also pay someone a lower wage who will be happy with that and a chance to learn something, then why not? how can you decide who deserves what?
No, i think Emily is quite right. A lot of these economic issues are like a religion to the left.
MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?
I'm a liberal. I never said any of that crap.
Thank you. That's why I noted the thread was built on a stack of strawmen.
She creates nonsensical arguments so she can put prepared nonsensical responses in.
Sure we can afford itLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Point of Order.If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:
A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence
MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?
1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?
If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?
Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!
B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor
MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.
How can you have both?
PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.
DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)
C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt
MYSTERY C:
Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.
How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?
Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?
My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.
LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?
What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?
THANK YOU!
No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.Sure we can afford itLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
It's too complicated. Much simpler just to eliminate private health insurance and consolidate everything under one umbrella.Sure we can afford itLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.Sure we can afford itLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
I want to know why you engage in the inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric that has made messageboards a vile place for discourse in the first place.
Let's see you come to terms with your bullshit OP and its motivations befor I waste any time trying to be "serious" with you. You also labeled me, AGAIN as "progressive" whereas I don't identify as any such thing.
I also think you have the poorest possible understanding of most anyone on the board as to what elected representatives are sent to do. They're not sent to placate every side of every issue, they're there to fulfill the will of the voters that put them there. To REPRESENT them.
Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.Sure we can afford itDear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal Healthcare
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
I want to know why you engage in the inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric that has made messageboards a vile place for discourse in the first place.
Let's see you come to terms with your bullshit OP and its motivations befor I waste any time trying to be "serious" with you. You also labeled me, AGAIN as "progressive" whereas I don't identify as any such thing.
I also think you have the poorest possible understanding of most anyone on the board as to what elected representatives are sent to do. They're not sent to placate every side of every issue, they're there to fulfill the will of the voters that put them there. To REPRESENT them.
Hi G.T. and sorry to give the wrong impression here.
A. I totally agree that it isn't "all liberals" who want to ban guns outright.
But yes, I do know and have run into such people even at my local
fellowship who preach about banning guns, and having gun free schools
and district. so it's not like this mindset doesn't exist at all.
It may be the minority, but that's enough to make it worth addressing.
I'm GLAD if you and me and others advocate for better solutions.
That is why I asked to hear from others like you with better solutions.
Pogo also made it clear.
so that's what I'm asking for.
Sorry I set up the thread in such a way as to appear
NOT interested in that.
B. As for representatives, do you agree that even while
representing the beliefs of the district and populations these reps serve
NO ONE IN GOVT SERVICE SHOULD BE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS, ETHICS, LIMITS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS.
I totally agree that reps should be representing the people.
But since Govt cannot establish beliefs or mandates AGAINST the will of the people, it makes more sense that the PEOPLE form policies that represent
the public and then WE instruct GOVT officials in what is approved by the PEOPLE in order for policies and reforms to reflect the consent of the taxpayers
and citizens affected and served by govt and public policies and institutions.
Do you have any issues with that?
With making sure that govt and policies reflect the CONSENT of the people governed? And the taxpayers paying for policies so we agree on the terms of payment and services?
Thanks G.T.
I'm okay starting over with a different thread and different premise
if that would work better than whatever is objected to here.
Sorry about that, but whatever it takes,
the whole point and purpose IS to discuss
working solutions and approaches. Whatever that takes!
Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.Sure we can afford itI like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
I want to know why you engage in the inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric that has made messageboards a vile place for discourse in the first place.
Let's see you come to terms with your bullshit OP and its motivations befor I waste any time trying to be "serious" with you. You also labeled me, AGAIN as "progressive" whereas I don't identify as any such thing.
I also think you have the poorest possible understanding of most anyone on the board as to what elected representatives are sent to do. They're not sent to placate every side of every issue, they're there to fulfill the will of the voters that put them there. To REPRESENT them.
Hi G.T. and sorry to give the wrong impression here.
A. I totally agree that it isn't "all liberals" who want to ban guns outright.
But yes, I do know and have run into such people even at my local
fellowship who preach about banning guns, and having gun free schools
and district. so it's not like this mindset doesn't exist at all.
It may be the minority, but that's enough to make it worth addressing.
I'm GLAD if you and me and others advocate for better solutions.
That is why I asked to hear from others like you with better solutions.
Pogo also made it clear.
so that's what I'm asking for.
Sorry I set up the thread in such a way as to appear
NOT interested in that.
B. As for representatives, do you agree that even while
representing the beliefs of the district and populations these reps serve
NO ONE IN GOVT SERVICE SHOULD BE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS, ETHICS, LIMITS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS.
I totally agree that reps should be representing the people.
But since Govt cannot establish beliefs or mandates AGAINST the will of the people, it makes more sense that the PEOPLE form policies that represent
the public and then WE instruct GOVT officials in what is approved by the PEOPLE in order for policies and reforms to reflect the consent of the taxpayers
and citizens affected and served by govt and public policies and institutions.
Do you have any issues with that?
With making sure that govt and policies reflect the CONSENT of the people governed? And the taxpayers paying for policies so we agree on the terms of payment and services?
Thanks G.T.
I'm okay starting over with a different thread and different premise
if that would work better than whatever is objected to here.
Sorry about that, but whatever it takes,
the whole point and purpose IS to discuss
working solutions and approaches. Whatever that takes!
I don't like the hard right religious indoctrination wrapped up in fuddy duddy, "fairness for all" pie in the sky baby girl bullshit every time a policy is passed that isn't hard right religious indoctrination bullshit...Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.Sure we can afford it
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
I want to know why you engage in the inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric that has made messageboards a vile place for discourse in the first place.
Let's see you come to terms with your bullshit OP and its motivations befor I waste any time trying to be "serious" with you. You also labeled me, AGAIN as "progressive" whereas I don't identify as any such thing.
I also think you have the poorest possible understanding of most anyone on the board as to what elected representatives are sent to do. They're not sent to placate every side of every issue, they're there to fulfill the will of the voters that put them there. To REPRESENT them.
Hi G.T. and sorry to give the wrong impression here.
A. I totally agree that it isn't "all liberals" who want to ban guns outright.
But yes, I do know and have run into such people even at my local
fellowship who preach about banning guns, and having gun free schools
and district. so it's not like this mindset doesn't exist at all.
It may be the minority, but that's enough to make it worth addressing.
I'm GLAD if you and me and others advocate for better solutions.
That is why I asked to hear from others like you with better solutions.
Pogo also made it clear.
so that's what I'm asking for.
Sorry I set up the thread in such a way as to appear
NOT interested in that.
B. As for representatives, do you agree that even while
representing the beliefs of the district and populations these reps serve
NO ONE IN GOVT SERVICE SHOULD BE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS, ETHICS, LIMITS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS.
I totally agree that reps should be representing the people.
But since Govt cannot establish beliefs or mandates AGAINST the will of the people, it makes more sense that the PEOPLE form policies that represent
the public and then WE instruct GOVT officials in what is approved by the PEOPLE in order for policies and reforms to reflect the consent of the taxpayers
and citizens affected and served by govt and public policies and institutions.
Do you have any issues with that?
With making sure that govt and policies reflect the CONSENT of the people governed? And the taxpayers paying for policies so we agree on the terms of payment and services?
Thanks G.T.
I'm okay starting over with a different thread and different premise
if that would work better than whatever is objected to here.
Sorry about that, but whatever it takes,
the whole point and purpose IS to discuss
working solutions and approaches. Whatever that takes!
???
What "intentions" are you talking about G.T.
What is wrong with setting up local representation by party
so that all people can redress grievances without depending
on being voted in before we enjoy equal rights and protections.
What do you think will go wrong that you think
I am either "naive" about or actively trying to do that is negative here?
Thanks G.T.
sorry if I still come across wrong or disingenuous.
Whatever is causing that, we need to fix it if we are going
to implement sustainable health care, education and other
solutions to social problems that require democratizing districts
so resources are invested into cost effective programs that work
instead of wasted on fighting politically without solving problems!
If I had to summarize the Top Three Mysteries
I cannot understand with Liberal Beliefs, here they are.
Can any LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE please take 1 and explain to me
using simple terms what you are REALLY trying to accomplish
and how you expect to achieve it THAT MAKES SENSE:
A. Ending abuse of firearms and gun violence
MYSTERY A:
How can Liberals only want POLICE to have guns
but then don't trust POLICE with guns either.
What is the solution?
1. Liberals only want REGISTERED and REGULATED
owners to have guns like POLICE and MILITARY.
2. But at the same time DON'T TRUST POLICE WITH GUNS
and want to DEFUND the military
3. So who is left to regulate laws except the police?
And if they aren't trusted with guns, who is?
If you are going to reduce military, and police the police,
what is your proposal for doing this without relying on
CITIZENS getting involved in policing and law enforcement.
And doesn't empowering CITIZENS to get involved
REQUIRE training in Constitutional laws and enforcement?
Which is what Second Amendment and Constitutionalists are arguing for?
Why are you disagreeing if the common solution *IS* Constitutional law enforcement!
B. Universal Health Care and either forced minimum wage or forced slave labor
MYSTERY B:
How can Liberals afford "universal health care" for all people except by
providing charitable and voluntary services. While the same liberals
demand minimum wage at 15.00 an hour and don't want slave labor.
How can you have both?
PS My answer to this is to set up Medical internships, teaching
hospitals and health care cooperatives IN PLACE OF FAILED
mental health and prison systems. So instead of wasting 50K a year
per person incarcerated under a FAILED system, we pay for educating
doctors and nurses through public service internships and
use those programs to TREAT criminally ill and prevent mental disorders
from causing MORE crime and triple the costs, where taxes can go toward
health care, education and housing through campus cooperatives that work.
DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION HOW TO PROVIDE FREE
HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION while preventing SLAVE LABOR
(with or without the 15.00/hour minimum wage if you can explain how that works!)
C. Socialism mandated through Federal taxes versus keeping religion out of Govt
MYSTERY C:
Liberals who believe in "separation of church and state" and don't
want Christians IMPLEMENTING their beliefs through schools and public institutions
want their SOCIALIST beliefs (such as health care for all people including immigrants)
mandated, regulated and paid for through Federal Govt forcing all TAXPAYERS to comply.
How can you FORCE taxpayers to pay for SOCIALISM beliefs,
while arguing AGAINST Christians doing this through Govt?
Is that DISCRIMINATION BY CREED to allow this for
SOCIALIST beliefs but bar Christians and other beliefs from
being established through Govt forcing the public to comply?
My answer: I am guessing that neither side will agree to remove their beliefs from Govt.
What we will end up with, is a system of allowing taxpayers to DEFUND The programs
they don't believe in funding, and setting up TAX BREAKS and TAX DEDUCTIONS
for investing in programs they DO believe in funding. And democratically set up
enough schools, hospital programs, housing and cooperatives for everyone to
pay for what they believe in under terms and conditions they consent to without conflict or coercion.
LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES how do you answer these problems?
What SOLUTIONS and steps toward democratic social development do
you propose that either RESOLVES or AVOIDS the above 3 conflicts with others?
THANK YOU!
What is the difference between Healthcare exchanges under Obamacare and a Healthcare Cooperative?Sure we can afford itLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
Dear WTH_Progs?
How about reducing the crime rate so that the 50K a year wasted on incarcerating people who cannot work,
gets re-invested in paying for health care programs and medical education with the same tax resources.
Giving tax deductions for districts that implement crime prevention to save costs for investing in local health care facilities would give INCENTIVE for people and families with criminal illness, addiction or disorders to GO AND GET MEDICAL HELP BEFORE CRIMES ARE COMMITTED. That way, the money they save pays for local clinics run by medical interns, and everyone benefits.
If families let drugs, abuse, addictions and crime run rampant, that's money that isn't paying for elderly care, daycare, and health care for their own community.
I like it, but I don't hear prog-leaders suggesting anything more than allowing felons to vote from prison. Additionally, their stance on immigration induces crime.
Universal HealthcareLet's be honest, can you think of A SINGLE prog-narrative that makes sense? Just one will do, pretty please, list one. I don't care who does it, just one..........one............Go!
A terrifically horrible idea. We can't afford it, and if you think it's hard to see a doctor now, that would put everyone on a LONG waiting list.
We just need to reallocate healthcare money spent by employers and their workers. Universal Healthcare would be significantly cheaper
The market will adjust to the availability of healthcare to all
Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
I don't like the hard right religious indoctrination wrapped up in fuddy duddy, "fairness for all" pie in the sky baby girl bullshit every time a policy is passed that isn't hard right religious indoctrination bullshit...Voting them in IS the consent. No, I'm not interested in your discussions. They're naive, 100% of the time...and I also don't believe your intentions are good in spite of your assertions to the contrary. Your intentions shine through your phraseology. Not interesting at all.No, I think for me - to engage you in conversation would require you recognizing that it's trollish to proclaim what some invisible entity's beliefs are and then ask how that invisible entity's beliefs are not contradictory...and not only that - but be clearly incorrect about it since it's remarkably rare to hear a person proclaim they want all guns banned...or any of the other bullshit in the OP.Thanks rightwinger
I believe health care cooperatives are the most viable means of
setting up universal health care because these can respect free market choices
while preserving and utilizing existing federal funded programs. So people have
equal access and choice of the best benefits and advantages offered by the different options.
www.patientphysiciancooperatives.com
otto105 also brought up issues concerning how can
cooperatives offer both the same discounts as larger organized pools
and yet keep accountable management localized in chapters of 1500.
So federalizing all the costs and benefits is not necessary to
get the maximum benefits at the lowest costs available.
Can we discuss this seriously here, or would you prefer
a new thread since G.T. Crepitus Disir and Pogo
seem to object to the premise used to set this thread up.
Sorry about that, do you prefer we start over?
Can we keep discussing real solutions HERE?
How can we preserve the same focus from the threads
that everyone was objecting on, yet discussion solutions instead
without losing that same commitment to participate and keep answering.
I want to know why you engage in the inflammatory and disingenuous rhetoric that has made messageboards a vile place for discourse in the first place.
Let's see you come to terms with your bullshit OP and its motivations befor I waste any time trying to be "serious" with you. You also labeled me, AGAIN as "progressive" whereas I don't identify as any such thing.
I also think you have the poorest possible understanding of most anyone on the board as to what elected representatives are sent to do. They're not sent to placate every side of every issue, they're there to fulfill the will of the voters that put them there. To REPRESENT them.
Hi G.T. and sorry to give the wrong impression here.
A. I totally agree that it isn't "all liberals" who want to ban guns outright.
But yes, I do know and have run into such people even at my local
fellowship who preach about banning guns, and having gun free schools
and district. so it's not like this mindset doesn't exist at all.
It may be the minority, but that's enough to make it worth addressing.
I'm GLAD if you and me and others advocate for better solutions.
That is why I asked to hear from others like you with better solutions.
Pogo also made it clear.
so that's what I'm asking for.
Sorry I set up the thread in such a way as to appear
NOT interested in that.
B. As for representatives, do you agree that even while
representing the beliefs of the district and populations these reps serve
NO ONE IN GOVT SERVICE SHOULD BE VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS, ETHICS, LIMITS AND SEPARATION OF POWERS.
I totally agree that reps should be representing the people.
But since Govt cannot establish beliefs or mandates AGAINST the will of the people, it makes more sense that the PEOPLE form policies that represent
the public and then WE instruct GOVT officials in what is approved by the PEOPLE in order for policies and reforms to reflect the consent of the taxpayers
and citizens affected and served by govt and public policies and institutions.
Do you have any issues with that?
With making sure that govt and policies reflect the CONSENT of the people governed? And the taxpayers paying for policies so we agree on the terms of payment and services?
Thanks G.T.
I'm okay starting over with a different thread and different premise
if that would work better than whatever is objected to here.
Sorry about that, but whatever it takes,
the whole point and purpose IS to discuss
working solutions and approaches. Whatever that takes!
???
What "intentions" are you talking about G.T.
What is wrong with setting up local representation by party
so that all people can redress grievances without depending
on being voted in before we enjoy equal rights and protections.
What do you think will go wrong that you think
I am either "naive" about or actively trying to do that is negative here?
Thanks G.T.
sorry if I still come across wrong or disingenuous.
Whatever is causing that, we need to fix it if we are going
to implement sustainable health care, education and other
solutions to social problems that require democratizing districts
so resources are invested into cost effective programs that work
instead of wasted on fighting politically without solving problems!
...and every time you say something stupid like "setting up local representation by party,"...
when we already have that,,,
and you pretend it's some new or needed idea...
JUST because your Religious views, YOU FEEL, aren't getting their shine.....THAT'S a clearly hidden intention. Raise your hand.
It's... in effect... whining. Quit whining.
We HAVE local representatives.
We HAVE national representatives.
We DO Vote for our beliefs, and we win and lose.
There's nothing "unfair" about society moving past certain mores and traditions. Go out in your back yard, start a mini government for your friends and family and be happy. Quit pretending you don't already have the Vote...both locally and nationally...every time a policy decision doesn't go your way. It's old.
