Union?

[emilynghiem]

^ and that's the problem 1stRambo ^
as long as we elect people based on money we end up with
pimps and ho's, buying and selling votes through the commercialized media

Why not invest those campaign dollars DIRECTLY into solutions and reforms?
You have the advantage of being conservative, you know that power and responsibility
and resources should be invested locally into sovereign programs run by self-government.

Why keep paying for the bigger corporate pigs to bully it out and get nothing done that way?

If conservatives and Constitutionalists organized coalitions around real reforms,
then picked Candidates to lead these programs, and prove which solutions work,
we could use THAT as public campaigns for candidates and leaders to run for office.

Why not invest in solutions, and then use THOSE as publicity to run for office?
So the money goes into the programs directly, and the candidates run on their record,
"competing" to prove their leadership skills by actually SOLVING and reforming govt.

Yo, "pimps and ho's" funny Emily, you sound more like a Tea Party Member? I agree with your assessment! But this is America, and if you are going to run against people who are out to destroy HER, America? You need all you can get, to fight fire with fire in the meantime!

"GTP"
View attachment 37717

Hi 1stRambo I may end up joining the Tea Party or starting my own, to follow up on the Constitutional education, ethics and mediation on political beliefs.

Constitutional authority is enforceable if we don't breach it ourselves.
It is important to stick to rule of law and respect all beliefs equally in order to enforce the same protections for ourselves.

If we make the mistake of pushing politically too far, that opens the door for others to do that, and it goes in circles.
Neither agenda is Constitutionally defensible if it keeps violating, excluding or discriminating against the beliefs of the other.

The best way to check Democrats is NOT to push political beliefs,
but to enforce them IN PRIVATE, and AGREE to shift what isn't supported by the public
into PRIVATELY managed and governed programs. So the Constitution is enforced
to limit federal govt to just what all parties AGREE is authorized, and the rest is reverted to states and people,
possibly through parties so this can cover both state and national programs and still be outside govt.

With the ACA and gay marriage, why not all agree to push these contested issues
back to states and people to work out, according to their BELIEFS.

By recognizing the Democrats and political platforms as pushing BELIEFS
and supporting these to be practiced and paid for in PRIVATE, this can be kept out of govt
unless there is a consensus on policies and programs. If the public AGREES then those can be in govt.

And stop this nonsense of fighting to fund one party's beliefs over others.
We would not allow Hindus and Muslims to rule by majority or pay for the bigger bully to impose laws on the nation
that are based on their private beliefs. Why continue to let parties push their political beliefs like religions?

To stop this practice, we have to stand on common principles of the Constitution.
If we overreach and start pushing our own political agenda, we enable others to breach Constitutional limits also.

We enforce a common standards, and stop all breaches on all sides.
Then we can invest our resources into the programs of our choice, freely independent of govt,
instead of fighting to push one policy over another. Let public laws be decided by consensus, so there
cannot be any agenda pushing. Either we all agree that programs and reforms are Constitutional,
so we agree that is govt and to fund them without any conflicts that are resolved in advance,
or places we don't agree get separated that from govt, so all political beliefs are respected equally and carried out in private.

That will stop the fighting, by enforcing a consistent standard based on consensus of what is Constitutional or not.

Yo, Agree Emily , but who in Government now? Goes by the Constitution? The Tea Party Members! The Liberals interpret the Constitution as they see fit? The Elite Republicans just go along to get along!

And than you have a Socialist Independent Bernie Sanders, he has no shame, and tells everybody! I hope you see the light enough to know, that the Democrat Party has been taken over by the Socialist?

They are now-a-days known as the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party! So, if you choose one Party? I would go with the Constitution Party, The Tea Party! They are working on eliminating the Socialist Progressives, and the Elite Republicans, one by one!

There is a problem that the Tea Party is running into? The Elites are running campaigns against them, sounds like something the Democrats do, but no, its Republicans, McConnell, and Boehner?

You see, they don`t want to change whats going on in Washington, you should see that from their reactions on Obama-Care and "Obama Executive Order" on illegals?

They don`t like the Tea Party and the Constitution way, they are just happy collecting their "Big Paychecks" and getting richer, period!

If you wish to be more informed? Just find Mark Levin on the radio, or online, you can listen to all of his shows when you have time, thanks!

"GTP"

How do I bring this whole Tea Party/Constitutionalist support INTO the Democrats
to reform it?

I have joined a meetup group and a list serv.

I proposed to work with the Veterans Party of America, the Libertarians and Greens
to host a Constitutional CONFERENCE addressing POLITICAL BELIEFS.

If we can argue that both the Democrats and Republicans owe taxpayers billions if not trillions
in wasted taxpayer resources abused on Unconstitutional Unauthorized contracts,
why not petition or sue the parties to invest in reimbursement and restitution of those funds
to fix those programs and shift them out of federal govt into the private sector and manage themselves.

Wouldn't there be enough support between the Constitutionalists
among the Tea Party, Greens like Ralph Nader, Libertarians like Paul who teamed up with Nader
to stop corporate abuses going on with both major parties, Constitution and Natural Law Party.
Also the Veterans Party of America that denounces all social legislation as unconstitutional.

Can't we organize local Constitutional conferences per state and set up a Constitutional
ethics coalition of Constitutionalists from ALL the parties to assess the damages for violations
and start demanding corrections and restitution from the Wrongdoers or the Parties that enabled them.

so there is accountability and the damages are either paid back to taxpayers,
credits are issued through govt and charged to the wrongdoers to pay back,
and/or land and programs are held as collateral if we the people have to bail out the abuses on our dime a second time.

Who are your contacts with your local Tea Party?
Where are they in terms of a Constitutional Conference to address getting political beliefs out of govt?

Yo, I forgot to tell you? You are an intelligent person, The Tea Party could use you views? You should tell them your thoughts? You never know!

"GTP"

Thanks for the link.
My bf is fed up and wants to start his own radio show..
I was saying to tie it to Constitutional outreach, Project Veritas, and the Tea Party.

I am looking at a step BEFORE calling State conventions.
And that is calling a conference of parties.
And prepare grievances and issues in advance.

If you don't want the process hijacked, derailed or railroaded,
then we should organize solutions we already want to enforce
and get all our ducks in a row before we even go into the process.

For the ACA there is enough to organize a lawsuit and demand
that Democrats set up the programs promised to their voting base
and not run for office until that's all cleaned up.

Either Democrats admit this is unconstitutional and offer to clean up as I am committed
to do as a member who takes responsibility for the wrongs and restitution of the party,
or be found unfit to run for office if you have no concept of political beliefs and equal protection
without discrimination. If you do not even know you are committing abuse you should not be in office.

Either prove competence by taking responsibility or let other people take over cleaning
up the messes made by party and corporate politics if you do not know right from wrong.

If we organize a conference by party then the
progressive Greens and conservative Libertarians,
theTea Party and Veterans can put the points together of where corrections are needed.

then after that, we can organize by States and it won't get overrun
by party politics by the two bigger bullies that get hijacked by the monied interests.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, "pimps and ho's" funny Emily, you sound more like a Tea Party Member? I agree with your assessment! But this is America, and if you are going to run against people who are out to destroy HER, America? You need all you can get, to fight fire with fire in the meantime!

"GTP"
View attachment 37717

Hi 1stRambo I may end up joining the Tea Party or starting my own, to follow up on the Constitutional education, ethics and mediation on political beliefs.

Constitutional authority is enforceable if we don't breach it ourselves.
It is important to stick to rule of law and respect all beliefs equally in order to enforce the same protections for ourselves.

If we make the mistake of pushing politically too far, that opens the door for others to do that, and it goes in circles.
Neither agenda is Constitutionally defensible if it keeps violating, excluding or discriminating against the beliefs of the other.

The best way to check Democrats is NOT to push political beliefs,
but to enforce them IN PRIVATE, and AGREE to shift what isn't supported by the public
into PRIVATELY managed and governed programs. So the Constitution is enforced
to limit federal govt to just what all parties AGREE is authorized, and the rest is reverted to states and people,
possibly through parties so this can cover both state and national programs and still be outside govt.

With the ACA and gay marriage, why not all agree to push these contested issues
back to states and people to work out, according to their BELIEFS.

By recognizing the Democrats and political platforms as pushing BELIEFS
and supporting these to be practiced and paid for in PRIVATE, this can be kept out of govt
unless there is a consensus on policies and programs. If the public AGREES then those can be in govt.

And stop this nonsense of fighting to fund one party's beliefs over others.
We would not allow Hindus and Muslims to rule by majority or pay for the bigger bully to impose laws on the nation
that are based on their private beliefs. Why continue to let parties push their political beliefs like religions?

To stop this practice, we have to stand on common principles of the Constitution.
If we overreach and start pushing our own political agenda, we enable others to breach Constitutional limits also.

We enforce a common standards, and stop all breaches on all sides.
Then we can invest our resources into the programs of our choice, freely independent of govt,
instead of fighting to push one policy over another. Let public laws be decided by consensus, so there
cannot be any agenda pushing. Either we all agree that programs and reforms are Constitutional,
so we agree that is govt and to fund them without any conflicts that are resolved in advance,
or places we don't agree get separated that from govt, so all political beliefs are respected equally and carried out in private.

That will stop the fighting, by enforcing a consistent standard based on consensus of what is Constitutional or not.

Yo, Agree Emily , but who in Government now? Goes by the Constitution? The Tea Party Members! The Liberals interpret the Constitution as they see fit? The Elite Republicans just go along to get along!

And than you have a Socialist Independent Bernie Sanders, he has no shame, and tells everybody! I hope you see the light enough to know, that the Democrat Party has been taken over by the Socialist?

They are now-a-days known as the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party! So, if you choose one Party? I would go with the Constitution Party, The Tea Party! They are working on eliminating the Socialist Progressives, and the Elite Republicans, one by one!

There is a problem that the Tea Party is running into? The Elites are running campaigns against them, sounds like something the Democrats do, but no, its Republicans, McConnell, and Boehner?

You see, they don`t want to change whats going on in Washington, you should see that from their reactions on Obama-Care and "Obama Executive Order" on illegals?

They don`t like the Tea Party and the Constitution way, they are just happy collecting their "Big Paychecks" and getting richer, period!

If you wish to be more informed? Just find Mark Levin on the radio, or online, you can listen to all of his shows when you have time, thanks!

"GTP"

How do I bring this whole Tea Party/Constitutionalist support INTO the Democrats
to reform it?

I have joined a meetup group and a list serv.

I proposed to work with the Veterans Party of America, the Libertarians and Greens
to host a Constitutional CONFERENCE addressing POLITICAL BELIEFS.

If we can argue that both the Democrats and Republicans owe taxpayers billions if not trillions
in wasted taxpayer resources abused on Unconstitutional Unauthorized contracts,
why not petition or sue the parties to invest in reimbursement and restitution of those funds
to fix those programs and shift them out of federal govt into the private sector and manage themselves.

Wouldn't there be enough support between the Constitutionalists
among the Tea Party, Greens like Ralph Nader, Libertarians like Paul who teamed up with Nader
to stop corporate abuses going on with both major parties, Constitution and Natural Law Party.
Also the Veterans Party of America that denounces all social legislation as unconstitutional.

Can't we organize local Constitutional conferences per state and set up a Constitutional
ethics coalition of Constitutionalists from ALL the parties to assess the damages for violations
and start demanding corrections and restitution from the Wrongdoers or the Parties that enabled them.

so there is accountability and the damages are either paid back to taxpayers,
credits are issued through govt and charged to the wrongdoers to pay back,
and/or land and programs are held as collateral if we the people have to bail out the abuses on our dime a second time.

Who are your contacts with your local Tea Party?
Where are they in terms of a Constitutional Conference to address getting political beliefs out of govt?

Yo, I forgot to tell you? You are an intelligent person, The Tea Party could use you views? You should tell them your thoughts? You never know!

"GTP"

Thanks for the link.
My bf is fed up and wants to start his own radio show..
I was saying to tie it to Constitutional outreach, Project Veritas, and the Tea Party.

I am looking at a step BEFORE calling State conventions.
And that is calling a conference of parties.
And prepare grievances and issues in advance.

If you don't want the process hijacked, derailed or railroaded,
then we should organize solutions we already want to enforce
and get all our ducks in a row before we even go into the process.

For the ACA there is enough to organize a lawsuit and demand
that Democrats set up the programs promised to their voting base
and not run for office until that's all cleaned up.

Either Democrats admit this is unconstitutional and offer to clean up as I am committed
to do as a member who takes responsibility for the wrongs and restitution of the party,
or be found unfit to run for office if you have no concept of political beliefs and equal protection
without discrimination. If you do not even know you are committing abuse you should not be in office.

Either prove competence by taking responsibility or let other people take over cleaning
up the messes made by party and corporate politics if you do not know right from wrong.

If we organize a conference by party then the
progressive Greens and conservative Libertarians,
theTea Party and Veterans can put the points together of where corrections are needed.

then after that, we can organize by States and it won't get overrun
by party politics by the two bigger bullies that get hijacked by the monied interests.

Yo, "pimps and ho's" funny Emily, you sound more like a Tea Party Member? I agree with your assessment! But this is America, and if you are going to run against people who are out to destroy HER, America? You need all you can get, to fight fire with fire in the meantime!

"GTP"
View attachment 37717

Hi 1stRambo I may end up joining the Tea Party or starting my own, to follow up on the Constitutional education, ethics and mediation on political beliefs.

Constitutional authority is enforceable if we don't breach it ourselves.
It is important to stick to rule of law and respect all beliefs equally in order to enforce the same protections for ourselves.

If we make the mistake of pushing politically too far, that opens the door for others to do that, and it goes in circles.
Neither agenda is Constitutionally defensible if it keeps violating, excluding or discriminating against the beliefs of the other.

The best way to check Democrats is NOT to push political beliefs,
but to enforce them IN PRIVATE, and AGREE to shift what isn't supported by the public
into PRIVATELY managed and governed programs. So the Constitution is enforced
to limit federal govt to just what all parties AGREE is authorized, and the rest is reverted to states and people,
possibly through parties so this can cover both state and national programs and still be outside govt.

With the ACA and gay marriage, why not all agree to push these contested issues
back to states and people to work out, according to their BELIEFS.

By recognizing the Democrats and political platforms as pushing BELIEFS
and supporting these to be practiced and paid for in PRIVATE, this can be kept out of govt
unless there is a consensus on policies and programs. If the public AGREES then those can be in govt.

And stop this nonsense of fighting to fund one party's beliefs over others.
We would not allow Hindus and Muslims to rule by majority or pay for the bigger bully to impose laws on the nation
that are based on their private beliefs. Why continue to let parties push their political beliefs like religions?

To stop this practice, we have to stand on common principles of the Constitution.
If we overreach and start pushing our own political agenda, we enable others to breach Constitutional limits also.

We enforce a common standards, and stop all breaches on all sides.
Then we can invest our resources into the programs of our choice, freely independent of govt,
instead of fighting to push one policy over another. Let public laws be decided by consensus, so there
cannot be any agenda pushing. Either we all agree that programs and reforms are Constitutional,
so we agree that is govt and to fund them without any conflicts that are resolved in advance,
or places we don't agree get separated that from govt, so all political beliefs are respected equally and carried out in private.

That will stop the fighting, by enforcing a consistent standard based on consensus of what is Constitutional or not.

Yo, Agree Emily , but who in Government now? Goes by the Constitution? The Tea Party Members! The Liberals interpret the Constitution as they see fit? The Elite Republicans just go along to get along!

And than you have a Socialist Independent Bernie Sanders, he has no shame, and tells everybody! I hope you see the light enough to know, that the Democrat Party has been taken over by the Socialist?

They are now-a-days known as the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party! So, if you choose one Party? I would go with the Constitution Party, The Tea Party! They are working on eliminating the Socialist Progressives, and the Elite Republicans, one by one!

There is a problem that the Tea Party is running into? The Elites are running campaigns against them, sounds like something the Democrats do, but no, its Republicans, McConnell, and Boehner?

You see, they don`t want to change whats going on in Washington, you should see that from their reactions on Obama-Care and "Obama Executive Order" on illegals?

They don`t like the Tea Party and the Constitution way, they are just happy collecting their "Big Paychecks" and getting richer, period!

If you wish to be more informed? Just find Mark Levin on the radio, or online, you can listen to all of his shows when you have time, thanks!

"GTP"

How do I bring this whole Tea Party/Constitutionalist support INTO the Democrats
to reform it?

I have joined a meetup group and a list serv.

I proposed to work with the Veterans Party of America, the Libertarians and Greens
to host a Constitutional CONFERENCE addressing POLITICAL BELIEFS.

If we can argue that both the Democrats and Republicans owe taxpayers billions if not trillions
in wasted taxpayer resources abused on Unconstitutional Unauthorized contracts,
why not petition or sue the parties to invest in reimbursement and restitution of those funds
to fix those programs and shift them out of federal govt into the private sector and manage themselves.

Wouldn't there be enough support between the Constitutionalists
among the Tea Party, Greens like Ralph Nader, Libertarians like Paul who teamed up with Nader
to stop corporate abuses going on with both major parties, Constitution and Natural Law Party.
Also the Veterans Party of America that denounces all social legislation as unconstitutional.

Can't we organize local Constitutional conferences per state and set up a Constitutional
ethics coalition of Constitutionalists from ALL the parties to assess the damages for violations
and start demanding corrections and restitution from the Wrongdoers or the Parties that enabled them.

so there is accountability and the damages are either paid back to taxpayers,
credits are issued through govt and charged to the wrongdoers to pay back,
and/or land and programs are held as collateral if we the people have to bail out the abuses on our dime a second time.

Who are your contacts with your local Tea Party?
Where are they in terms of a Constitutional Conference to address getting political beliefs out of govt?

Yo, I forgot to tell you? You are an intelligent person, The Tea Party could use you views? You should tell them your thoughts? You never know!

"GTP"

Thanks for the link.
My bf is fed up and wants to start his own radio show..
I was saying to tie it to Constitutional outreach, Project Veritas, and the Tea Party.

I am looking at a step BEFORE calling State conventions.
And that is calling a conference of parties.
And prepare grievances and issues in advance.

If you don't want the process hijacked, derailed or railroaded,
then we should organize solutions we already want to enforce
and get all our ducks in a row before we even go into the process.

For the ACA there is enough to organize a lawsuit and demand
that Democrats set up the programs promised to their voting base
and not run for office until that's all cleaned up.

Either Democrats admit this is unconstitutional and offer to clean up as I am committed
to do as a member who takes responsibility for the wrongs and restitution of the party,
or be found unfit to run for office if you have no concept of political beliefs and equal protection
without discrimination. If you do not even know you are committing abuse you should not be in office.

Either prove competence by taking responsibility or let other people take over cleaning
up the messes made by party and corporate politics if you do not know right from wrong.

If we organize a conference by party then the
progressive Greens and conservative Libertarians,
theTea Party and Veterans can put the points together of where corrections are needed.

then after that, we can organize by States and it won't get overrun
by party politics by the two bigger bullies that get hijacked by the monied interests.

Yo, good luck to you and your BF, its tough out there? I don`t think what you are saying will work? But hey, worse things have happened? What Party does your BF support?

"GTP"

 

[Jackson]

^ and that's the problem 1stRambo ^
as long as we elect people based on money we end up with
pimps and ho's, buying and selling votes through the commercialized media

Why not invest those campaign dollars DIRECTLY into solutions and reforms?
You have the advantage of being conservative, you know that power and responsibility
and resources should be invested locally into sovereign programs run by self-government.

Why keep paying for the bigger corporate pigs to bully it out and get nothing done that way?

If conservatives and Constitutionalists organized coalitions around real reforms,
then picked Candidates to lead these programs, and prove which solutions work,
we could use THAT as public campaigns for candidates and leaders to run for office.

Why not invest in solutions, and then use THOSE as publicity to run for office?
So the money goes into the programs directly, and the candidates run on their record,
"competing" to prove their leadership skills by actually SOLVING and reforming govt.

Yo, "pimps and ho's" funny Emily, you sound more like a Tea Party Member? I agree with your assessment! But this is America, and if you are going to run against people who are out to destroy HER, America? You need all you can get, to fight fire with fire in the meantime!

"GTP"
View attachment 37717

Hi 1stRambo I may end up joining the Tea Party or starting my own, to follow up on the Constitutional education, ethics and mediation on political beliefs.

Constitutional authority is enforceable if we don't breach it ourselves.
It is important to stick to rule of law and respect all beliefs equally in order to enforce the same protections for ourselves.

If we make the mistake of pushing politically too far, that opens the door for others to do that, and it goes in circles.
Neither agenda is Constitutionally defensible if it keeps violating, excluding or discriminating against the beliefs of the other.

The best way to check Democrats is NOT to push political beliefs,
but to enforce them IN PRIVATE, and AGREE to shift what isn't supported by the public
into PRIVATELY managed and governed programs. So the Constitution is enforced
to limit federal govt to just what all parties AGREE is authorized, and the rest is reverted to states and people,
possibly through parties so this can cover both state and national programs and still be outside govt.

With the ACA and gay marriage, why not all agree to push these contested issues
back to states and people to work out, according to their BELIEFS.

By recognizing the Democrats and political platforms as pushing BELIEFS
and supporting these to be practiced and paid for in PRIVATE, this can be kept out of govt
unless there is a consensus on policies and programs. If the public AGREES then those can be in govt.

And stop this nonsense of fighting to fund one party's beliefs over others.
We would not allow Hindus and Muslims to rule by majority or pay for the bigger bully to impose laws on the nation
that are based on their private beliefs. Why continue to let parties push their political beliefs like religions?

To stop this practice, we have to stand on common principles of the Constitution.
If we overreach and start pushing our own political agenda, we enable others to breach Constitutional limits also.

We enforce a common standards, and stop all breaches on all sides.
Then we can invest our resources into the programs of our choice, freely independent of govt,
instead of fighting to push one policy over another. Let public laws be decided by consensus, so there
cannot be any agenda pushing. Either we all agree that programs and reforms are Constitutional,
so we agree that is govt and to fund them without any conflicts that are resolved in advance,
or places we don't agree get separated that from govt, so all political beliefs are respected equally and carried out in private.

That will stop the fighting, by enforcing a consistent standard based on consensus of what is Constitutional or not.

Yo, Agree Emily , but who in Government now? Goes by the Constitution? The Tea Party Members! The Liberals interpret the Constitution as they see fit? The Elite Republicans just go along to get along!

And than you have a Socialist Independent Bernie Sanders, he has no shame, and tells everybody! I hope you see the light enough to know, that the Democrat Party has been taken over by the Socialist?

They are now-a-days known as the Socialist Progressive Democrat Party! So, if you choose one Party? I would go with the Constitution Party, The Tea Party! They are working on eliminating the Socialist Progressives, and the Elite Republicans, one by one!

There is a problem that the Tea Party is running into? The Elites are running campaigns against them, sounds like something the Democrats do, but no, its Republicans, McConnell, and Boehner?

You see, they don`t want to change whats going on in Washington, you should see that from their reactions on Obama-Care and "Obama Executive Order" on illegals?

They don`t like the Tea Party and the Constitution way, they are just happy collecting their "Big Paychecks" and getting richer, period!

If you wish to be more informed? Just find Mark Levin on the radio, or online, you can listen to all of his shows when you have time, thanks!

"GTP"

How do I bring this whole Tea Party/Constitutionalist support INTO the Democrats
to reform it?

I have joined a meetup group and a list serv.

I proposed to work with the Veterans Party of America, the Libertarians and Greens
to host a Constitutional CONFERENCE addressing POLITICAL BELIEFS.

If we can argue that both the Democrats and Republicans owe taxpayers billions if not trillions
in wasted taxpayer resources abused on Unconstitutional Unauthorized contracts,
why not petition or sue the parties to invest in reimbursement and restitution of those funds
to fix those programs and shift them out of federal govt into the private sector and manage themselves.

Wouldn't there be enough support between the Constitutionalists
among the Tea Party, Greens like Ralph Nader, Libertarians like Paul who teamed up with Nader
to stop corporate abuses going on with both major parties, Constitution and Natural Law Party.
Also the Veterans Party of America that denounces all social legislation as unconstitutional.

Can't we organize local Constitutional conferences per state and set up a Constitutional
ethics coalition of Constitutionalists from ALL the parties to assess the damages for violations
and start demanding corrections and restitution from the Wrongdoers or the Parties that enabled them.

so there is accountability and the damages are either paid back to taxpayers,
credits are issued through govt and charged to the wrongdoers to pay back,
and/or land and programs are held as collateral if we the people have to bail out the abuses on our dime a second time.

Who are your contacts with your local Tea Party?
Where are they in terms of a Constitutional Conference to address getting political beliefs out of govt?

Yo, Emily, here is the only way to get America back to the way she should be? Mark Levin tells you how, step by step, there is plenty for you to read about it online, but doing it state by state might be a problem? Go here and read about it: Mark Levin States Should Call Convention to Propose Amending Constitution CNS News
Like I said, many links online to read up on it?

My Tea Party I follow: teapartypatriots.org

"GTP"

I read Mark Levin's interview and was very impressed. I like the fact that he starts with the premise that we all know so well, Washington is Broken. Blame goes to both sides and the amendments he proposes to the Constitution do make sense. I urge others to read this interview.

 

[Pogo]

HER, as in America is a HER... what a load. Funny though. Gotta hand it to you.

Yes, many cultures tend to feminize the collective nouns:
ships, countries, the CHURCH or the people as the BRIDE or WIFE, Mother Earth, Mother Nature.

The Law or Lord is portrayed as male, as a protectorate or husband role,
the government or parental authority as a male figure,
while the people who submit as equals under law are represented by the female role.
The church body, especially is represented as female like a mother figure in a nurturing role.

That is why the feminists and humanists take very similar approaches, by focusing
on the PEOPLE on the grassroots level and the effects on women and workers
of the rules and systems that are enforced by top down management in a pecking order hierarchy.

That's prolly because nations are abstract concepts. Men call them "she/her" because the feminine is another abstract (unreal) concept.

I don't do that mind you, I'm just sayin', those who do....

As for "God" being male, that's a head-scratcher. Makes no sense at all. There is no male without a female.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's prolly because nations are abstract concepts. Men call them "she/her" because the feminine is another abstract (unreal) concept.

I don't do that mind you, I'm just sayin', those who do....

As for "God" being male, that's a head-scratcher. Makes no sense at all. There is no male without a female.

That's why the body of people or the church is female.
Otherwise there would be no balance to the relationship.

All people are supposed to be the Bride or church body, humanity collectively as a whole.

When God is seen as male it is an authority figure like God the Father.

For cultures who see God as Creation or Earth, that is more often represented by female.

So these two approaches balance each other in harmony.
It is like treble and bass in harmony, they are supposed to complement each other.

 

[Pogo]

That's prolly because nations are abstract concepts. Men call them "she/her" because the feminine is another abstract (unreal) concept.

I don't do that mind you, I'm just sayin', those who do....

As for "God" being male, that's a head-scratcher. Makes no sense at all. There is no male without a female.

That's why the body of people or the church is female.
Otherwise there would be no balance to the relationship.

All people are supposed to be the Bride or church body, humanity collectively as a whole.

When God is seen as male it is an authority figure like God the Father.

For cultures who see God as Creation or Earth, that is more often represented by female.

So these two approaches balance each other in harmony.
It is like treble and bass in harmony, they are supposed to complement each other.

That's a cute observation Emily but no.... I don't think anyone intended to "balance" anything at all.

The idea of female as abstraction is just my spontaneous stream-of-consciousness thinking, but the male God is a very political historical and intentional placement fixed as a blueprint for human power structure. After all, within the concept of "God", humans follow the God's example --- not the other way around. God as male is a very political logic-defying concept designed specifically to keep women "in their place".
.
Logically it makes no sense for a Creator to be male. Males don't procreate. Only females do that. So really, if we go with a concept of monotheism, "God" must necessarily be either neuter with no gender at all, or female with power of parthenogenesis. Can't be male with no female.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's a cute observation Emily but no.... I don't think anyone intended to "balance" anything at all.

The idea of female as abstraction is just my spontaneous stream-of-consciousness thinking, but the male God is a very political historical and intentional placement fixed as a blueprint for human power structure. After all, within the concept of "God", humans follow the God's example --- not the other way around. God as male is a very political logic-defying concept designed specifically to keep women "in their place".
.
Logically it makes no sense for a Creator to be male. Males don't procreate. Only females do that. So really, if we go with a concept of monotheism, "God" must necessarily be either neuter with no gender at all, or female with power of parthenogenesis. Can't be male with no female.

Hi Pogo and this is a very interesting and insightful conversation to have with you.
However, it may not work to continue it on this thread that was intended to address
unions and maybe other means of collective representation.

I think the reason for personifying God as male is the concept of Authority of Law as a Lord.
the connection with patriarchal head of households with women and children treated as property of the
estate passed down from fathers to son.

This stage in society came after the matriarchal cultures where power was passed from mothers to daughters. so yes, I do believe humanity is meant to reach a balance between the male and female components in our nature.


This may get too complicated to discuss here. I posted three interpretations of Adam and Eve
on another thread where the issue of male dominance in Christianity came up. I can post the link here: Protests Fifty Shades as Glamorizing Domestic Violence Page 62 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
and can we please continue discussing over there, is that okay? Thanks and I do think this is a great discussion to have because everyone sees it differently and we need to work with all views to have full inclusion and equality.

 

[Pogo]

That's a cute observation Emily but no.... I don't think anyone intended to "balance" anything at all.

The idea of female as abstraction is just my spontaneous stream-of-consciousness thinking, but the male God is a very political historical and intentional placement fixed as a blueprint for human power structure. After all, within the concept of "God", humans follow the God's example --- not the other way around. God as male is a very political logic-defying concept designed specifically to keep women "in their place".
.
Logically it makes no sense for a Creator to be male. Males don't procreate. Only females do that. So really, if we go with a concept of monotheism, "God" must necessarily be either neuter with no gender at all, or female with power of parthenogenesis. Can't be male with no female.

Hi Pogo and this is a very interesting and insightful conversation to have with you.
However, it may not work to continue it on this thread that was intended to address
unions and maybe other means of collective representation.

I think the reason for personifying God as male is the concept of Authority of Law as a Lord.
the connection with patriarchal head of households with women and children treated as property of the
estate passed down from fathers to son.

This stage in society came after the matriarchal cultures where power was passed from mothers to daughters. so yes, I do believe humanity is meant to reach a balance between the male and female components in our nature.


This may get too complicated to discuss here. I posted three interpretations of Adam and Eve
on another thread where the issue of male dominance in Christianity came up. I can post the link here: Protests Fifty Shades as Glamorizing Domestic Violence Page 62 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
and can we please continue discussing over there, is that okay? Thanks and I do think this is a great discussion to have because everyone sees it differently and we need to work with all views to have full inclusion and equality.

Thanks -- I would never have guessed that content from the title though...

Just to clarify in closing, what I'm saying is that -- it's not that we call God "male" out of the tradition that males have the authority, but rather the reverse: males have the authority out of the tradition that we call God "male". IOW I think you've got the cart before the horse. Since "God" is a man-made invention, man is going to (and did) make "him" in a way that serves his objective -- which is to acquire power. The effective way to do that is to create this imaginary superhero and then go, "oh look -- he's got a penis, like me. Therefore I must be an authority figure. God says so".

EDIT - this is bizarre... your link doesn't show up in your post, but then it does show up when I quote the post.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's a cute observation Emily but no.... I don't think anyone intended to "balance" anything at all.

The idea of female as abstraction is just my spontaneous stream-of-consciousness thinking, but the male God is a very political historical and intentional placement fixed as a blueprint for human power structure. After all, within the concept of "God", humans follow the God's example --- not the other way around. God as male is a very political logic-defying concept designed specifically to keep women "in their place".
.
Logically it makes no sense for a Creator to be male. Males don't procreate. Only females do that. So really, if we go with a concept of monotheism, "God" must necessarily be either neuter with no gender at all, or female with power of parthenogenesis. Can't be male with no female.

Hi Pogo and this is a very interesting and insightful conversation to have with you.
However, it may not work to continue it on this thread that was intended to address
unions and maybe other means of collective representation.

I think the reason for personifying God as male is the concept of Authority of Law as a Lord.
the connection with patriarchal head of households with women and children treated as property of the
estate passed down from fathers to son.

This stage in society came after the matriarchal cultures where power was passed from mothers to daughters. so yes, I do believe humanity is meant to reach a balance between the male and female components in our nature.


This may get too complicated to discuss here. I posted three interpretations of Adam and Eve
on another thread where the issue of male dominance in Christianity came up. I can post the link here: Protests Fifty Shades as Glamorizing Domestic Violence Page 62 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
and can we please continue discussing over there, is that okay? Thanks and I do think this is a great discussion to have because everyone sees it differently and we need to work with all views to have full inclusion and equality.

Thanks -- I would never have guessed that content from the title though...

Just to clarify in closing, what I'm saying is that -- it's not that we call God "male" out of the tradition that males have the authority, but rather the reverse: males have the authority out of the tradition that we call God "male". IOW I think you've got the cart before the horse. Since "God" is a man-made invention, man is going to (and did) make "him" in a way that serves his objective -- which is to acquire power. The effective way to do that is to create this imaginary superhero and then go, "oh look -- he's got a penis, like me. Therefore I must be an authority figure. God says so".

EDIT - this is bizarre... your link doesn't show up in your post, but then it does show up when I quote the post.

Sorry my fault Pogo I posted the wrong msg and changed it to #619 not #618 before it.
The reason I list all three interpretations, the spiritual one is saying the relationship with God comes first and then it is manifested in the laws as symbolized as male/female. the laws are already existent and then they manifest as man's language made up. The other interpretations are more like the male perception being projected into society.