Who is more intolerant of political opponents the "left" or "the right"

[Tommy Tainant]

You said 'everybody', yet I see people who have lived on Welfare their entire lives. They haven't earned 1 single days wage yet.

So with what, do you claim they "pay" for their guaranteed things?

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

Labour destroyed the NHS by flooding the country with immigrants and through wasting huge huge amounts of money on PFI with cronyism thrown in and foundation trust status just for starters. Labour turned the NHS into a health care system that wouldn't be out of place in a third world nation.

I agree that pfi is a disaster. I cant agree with the rest of your ill informed racist rant though. Play another tune Eva.

 

[2aguy]

Here...quoted from your post.....

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

this is an attack on Conservatives/libertarians and Tea Party members and it is a wrong headed attack...considering that as you just posted, we actually support and defend the Bill of Rights.....vs. the left who see the Bill of Rights as an inconvenience....

I was saying the RIGHTWING do better than the Leftwing at taking corrections !

Sorry 2aguy I can see how that was read wrong.

And BTW the Muslims who are law-abiding and consistent with Christianity tend to be in line with Conservatives on many issues too. But in this passage I meant the Christians and Constituitionalists on the right accept corrections better because of respect for Constituitionalist principles.

Still not explaining your statement about discriminating against muslims.....

Look at examples of conservatives in TN trying to block Mosques which violates religious freedom. 2aguy

When Herman Caine made a statement against Muslims, a group came to speak with him, he apologized and accepted the correction. A lot of Muslims align with conservatives and Republicans so it wasn't fair to misportay or misstate otherwise

In general you can't punish innocent Muslims for the crimes and warfare of others, similar to threats to regulate guns for all citizens instead of just isolating criminals with unlawful intent.

So blanket statements that blame or associate ALL Muslims as enabling terrorism is where SOME not all conservatives go too far.

I've even stopped my own boyfriend from this notion of putting Walid Shoebats interpretation of Islam before how Mustafa a Carroll teaches it who has Christian family and works with Christians and other religious leaders without issue.

Lots of conservative friends I know have misperceptions that Islam is a cult and I only heard recently from one conservative talk show host who said the same thing I was saying to do:
Distinguish between
* Muslims
* Islamists
* jihadists
So yes I do give credit to conservatives who are better at correcting these problems. I've had to explain to many Christians Conservative friends that Islam practiced correctly includes Christianity so it's compatible, and only when people reject either Christianity and/or constitutional/natural laws then does the religious abuse go unchecked.

Herman Caine, the TN far right conservatives trying to block Mosques, and talk show hosts like my own boyfriend who would only air Walid Shoebat and exclude Mustafaa Carroll are examples of conservatives discriminating on the Muslim issues although they are better at correcting when they go too far.

You are mistaken about islam......Christians are not equal under islam...they are a protected class...but have dhimmi status.....and isolated incidents mean nothing ....... you are implying systemic discrimination from conservatives and that just isn't happening...anywhere.....

A protected class under Islam?

Sure thing. No problem. Let's make blacks in the US a protected class, according to Islamic standards.

First, segregate them into isolated areas.... you know... for their protection.

Then let's levy on them a special "black tax" that unless they pay the black tax, then we kill them.

And how much is this tax? Well it's between $42 to $650. That sounds rather reasonable.... until you remember, we're talking about the middle east.

The average wage in the middle east is $200 a month. Iraq-$214, Iran-$215, Jordan-$268.

So we're talking between 1 week, and 3 months worth of wages.

So the tax should be about $2,000 to $10,000 here in the US.

Now keep in mind, this isn't a 'replacement' tax. This is just an additional tax. They still have to pay all the same taxes that middle east people do. This is just an additional burden on top of normal taxes.

So let's do that here. Let's make our minorities a "protected" class of people.

Now I get it, that most... not all, but most Islamic based countries are gradually moving away from this view. Egypt for example started military action against IS, because Christians from Egypt were killed by IS. That would have never happened 50 or 100 years ago, or any time in the distant past.

But please.... spare me this "protected class" BS. Islamic 'protected class' was at best a more lethal version of Mafia protection money.

You don't have to tell me...I understand what you are saying, I didn't want to take the time to go into what Islam really does to dhimmi........Emily doesn't understand the reality of Islam, the left and other nutters out there......

I enjoy your posts.....

 

[Tilly]

Neither have all the millions of immigrants.

Immigrants my arse. The NHS is kept alive by the work of immigrants because the right wing government prefers to stop training staff. More racist shite from a racist shite.

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

Labour destroyed the NHS by flooding the country with immigrants and through wasting huge huge amounts of money on PFI with cronyism thrown in and foundation trust status just for starters. Labour turned the NHS into a health care system that wouldn't be out of place in a third world nation.

I agree that pfi is a disaster. I cant agree with the rest of your ill informed racist rant though. Play another tune Eva.

We have people dying of dehydration and malnutrition in our hospitals. If that's not third world standards of care, I don't what is, boyo.

 

[Google]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I was drinking with co-workers a month ago and the topic of politics was brought up. I stated that leftists on college campuses are the most intolerant, militant thought police that are dedicated to censoring opinions they don't agree with. A GA Tech grad, and huge liberal, fervently disagreed with me. I showed him some videos of leftists storming conservative meetings and screaming people down, burning literature, and pulling fire alarms--and I made the challenge to show me one video of conservatives doing this on college campuses. He took out his phone and began pecking away. The conversation progressed and the topic was never brought up again.

I'll make the same challenge here. Show me the conservative equivalent of the type of intellectual intolerance and bigotry that has come to define modern academia. I'll wait.

 

[2aguy]

Actually it was the labour gvmnt who opened the floodgates to so many immigrants that they rendered the NHS unable to function without bringing yet more in as staff. The Labour Party admitted to doing this to get votes. As you well know.

The NHS was protected by labour. It is under threat from tory cuts because they would prefer to stop poor people getting healthcare. Why ? Because being poor is a crime in your book.

Labour destroyed the NHS by flooding the country with immigrants and through wasting huge huge amounts of money on PFI with cronyism thrown in and foundation trust status just for starters. Labour turned the NHS into a health care system that wouldn't be out of place in a third world nation.

I agree that pfi is a disaster. I cant agree with the rest of your ill informed racist rant though. Play another tune Eva.

We have people dying of dehydration and malnutrition in our hospitals. If that's not third world standards of care, I don't what is, boyo.

Do you have links, any proof?

I have posted those links in he past myself........the NHS is on life support......

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Any one able to make sense of the mass of assumptions and contradictions in that post?

No, I stopped reading after the 5th paragraph. Lib gets on a rant like that and you know it's just a tyraid of nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

The Affordable Care Act is not Left in the strict sense as I understand it except is the broadest sense that the government wants to make sure everyone get health care but doesn't everyone? You see, a left or socialist health system would not look at all like ACA because the American system is all about insurance coverage from private insurance corporations. True socialist health care is when the actual care is provided by the state with state-employed doctors in state-owned hospitals. By contrast the ACA is positively capitalist and the insurance corporations must love it.
Similarly, the American food stamp program gives vouchers to the poor but they are redeemed in private stores. The shop owners must love this. In a socialist or Left program the state would actually provide the food from state-owned warehouses. The American system is wrongly termed Left only because the government does not want to see the poor begging on the streets and dying but who does?

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Nobody in the UK would want an American system which relies on ability to pay.

I broke my ankle this time last year and was laid up for the best part of 6 months. I had excellent treatment from world class Doctors and I was not presented with a bill for any of it. I pay a small sum every month through my tax but I get a great deal from this.

Its amazing.

Even better, when I am fit and healthy, I know my contributions are helping my neighbour. Its community, we are bound together by mutual support and self interest.

The NHS is under threat from tories who want to bring in an American system despite the NHS being proven to be better value for money.

That's great... for you.
I don't want nothing to do with anything like that I would rather pay for my own way instead of dependent on someone else to pay for my own shit.
Keep your nanny state over there in Europe to yourself…

 

[Rustic]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

So it's a collective? Fuck that shit

 

[Maryland Patriot]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

I dont think it equal to compare a person that has lost their arms and legs needing some help and a fully able bodied adult woman paying for her own contraceptives.
You would be hard pressed to find even the most ignorant of anti social program people here that would so much as flinch at the thought of their tax dollars being spent to assist the truly disabled.
Take me, if you have a perfectly able person that is taking assistance because they are just too lazy to work, I do not have any problem cutting them off and letting the work or starve, but I will not be party to taking care away from someone that really is not able to care for themselves. And I sir, am most likely one of the most ignorant ones here when it comes to welfare and assistance.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

 

[Tilly]

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

Wow! God bless you, Sir

 

[Eloy]

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

It should not depend on the charitable kindness of strangers to help those in need. People, through their government policies, can do better than that.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The trouble starts with what is classified as essential. Contraception for example. Most people can already access free or very cheap contraception, yet others find themselves paying for the contraceptive pill for other people. Later they will find themselves paying for their STDs and their infertility.

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

It should not depend on the charitable kindness of strangers to help those in need. People, through their government policies, can do better than that.

We are not going to agree on this.
Government is open to abuse and fraud, the dollars spent are not going to be as effective as they are through private charity efforts.
In many cases one of the biggest issues that people in need have is a feeling of self worth and respect, the government can not build this in a person, it also can not reach out and make the person know that someone that does not have to, really honestly cares about them, cares about their health and their future. when has the government sat up with someone that is dope sick and just held their hand, gave them a cool cloth for their forehead when their tempurature spiked? made sure they were covered with blankets when the chills hit, cleaned them up countless times per night because they were throwing up non-stop.
the government is really great at handing out money, but when it comes to letting someone know that they are really cared for, that someone has committed to being there for them through the worst time in their life, the government cant touch a private individual.My daughter and I have taken turns spending the time with these girls while they suffer through the withdrawal. I have been thrown up on more times than a mother with triplets.

 

[Eloy]

Wow,you really hate women dont you ?
You have a sick selective attitude towards care. Most of us have two arms and legs so why should we subsidise the limbless ? - says Tilly.

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

It should not depend on the charitable kindness of strangers to help those in need. People, through their government policies, can do better than that.

We are not going to agree on this.
Government is open to abuse and fraud, the dollars spent are not going to be as effective as they are through private charity efforts.
In many cases one of the biggest issues that people in need have is a feeling of self worth and respect, the government can not build this in a person, it also can not reach out and make the person know that someone that does not have to, really honestly cares about them, cares about their health and their future. when has the government sat up with someone that is dope sick and just held their hand, gave them a cool cloth for their forehead when their tempurature spiked? made sure they were covered with blankets when the chills hit, cleaned them up countless times per night because they were throwing up non-stop.
the government is really great at handing out money, but when it comes to letting someone know that they are really cared for, that someone has committed to being there for them through the worst time in their life, the government cant touch a private individual.My daughter and I have taken turns spending the time with these girls while they suffer through the withdrawal. I have been thrown up on more times than a mother with triplets.

Socialist and Social Democratic governments in Europe do have remedies for people with drug habits, run by good administrators and staffed by caring workers. The Americans are far behind because the corporations there control the dogma of individual entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Growing up with so much right wing propaganda on TV and reinforced by the jingoism of capitalism, it is no wonder that young people are thoroughly sick of a broken democracy which has caved-in to Business.

 

[owebo]

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

It should not depend on the charitable kindness of strangers to help those in need. People, through their government policies, can do better than that.

We are not going to agree on this.
Government is open to abuse and fraud, the dollars spent are not going to be as effective as they are through private charity efforts.
In many cases one of the biggest issues that people in need have is a feeling of self worth and respect, the government can not build this in a person, it also can not reach out and make the person know that someone that does not have to, really honestly cares about them, cares about their health and their future. when has the government sat up with someone that is dope sick and just held their hand, gave them a cool cloth for their forehead when their tempurature spiked? made sure they were covered with blankets when the chills hit, cleaned them up countless times per night because they were throwing up non-stop.
the government is really great at handing out money, but when it comes to letting someone know that they are really cared for, that someone has committed to being there for them through the worst time in their life, the government cant touch a private individual.My daughter and I have taken turns spending the time with these girls while they suffer through the withdrawal. I have been thrown up on more times than a mother with triplets.

Socialist and Social Democratic governments in Europe do have remedies for people with drug habits, run by good administrators and staffed by caring workers. The Americans are far behind because the corporations there control the dogma of individual entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Growing up with so much right wing propaganda on TV and reinforced by the jingoism of capitalism, it is no wonder that young people are thoroughly sick of a broken democracy which has caved-in to Business.

We pretty much rejected your fascist crony capitalism here as evidenced by POTUS Trump....

Good luck in your camps.....

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Errr, no I really don't. There is no trouble getting hold of condoms in America if you really can't quit stuffing your face with pizza and coke and prioritise how you use your resources.. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for these people to have the contraceptive pill that doesn't even protect them from STDs, so that everyone else then find themselves funding the treatment for those too? What's so difficult about takin personal responsibility for your own sex life???

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

It should not depend on the charitable kindness of strangers to help those in need. People, through their government policies, can do better than that.

We are not going to agree on this.
Government is open to abuse and fraud, the dollars spent are not going to be as effective as they are through private charity efforts.
In many cases one of the biggest issues that people in need have is a feeling of self worth and respect, the government can not build this in a person, it also can not reach out and make the person know that someone that does not have to, really honestly cares about them, cares about their health and their future. when has the government sat up with someone that is dope sick and just held their hand, gave them a cool cloth for their forehead when their tempurature spiked? made sure they were covered with blankets when the chills hit, cleaned them up countless times per night because they were throwing up non-stop.
the government is really great at handing out money, but when it comes to letting someone know that they are really cared for, that someone has committed to being there for them through the worst time in their life, the government cant touch a private individual.My daughter and I have taken turns spending the time with these girls while they suffer through the withdrawal. I have been thrown up on more times than a mother with triplets.

Socialist and Social Democratic governments in Europe do have remedies for people with drug habits, run by good administrators and staffed by caring workers. The Americans are far behind because the corporations there control the dogma of individual entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Growing up with so much right wing propaganda on TV and reinforced by the jingoism of capitalism, it is no wonder that young people are thoroughly sick of a broken democracy which has caved-in to Business.

You can believe whatever it is that you wish, but Im telling you that government or even private treatment facilities can never compete with the help someone can get if they are lucky enough to find a private individual to help them out.
I say this after seeing these things first hand, what first hand experience do you have that lends credibility to your insight?
To be fair, before you respond with your qualifications to judge the success of these programs VS. real help from someone that really wants to help, wants to see the addicted person create a good life for themselves. I might not be the most qualified here to make the judgement either but I do work in the mental health industry with a focus on the mentally ill and chemically addicted segment of society.
I have studied the relapse rates of various programs to see what does and what does not work, Ive talked with those addicted, I have done research papers on the cycle of addiction based on age groups. etc...
Sometimes, an addict will get much more from a simple hug than they will get from hours of counseling. heroin addicts are human also.
private is much better than organized.

 

[Freewill]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

As with the exit polls, I am going to say that the right wing is the most intolerant. I do so because I don't want some ahole left winger trying to beat the crap out of me over my opinion.

 

[emilynghiem]

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Any one able to make sense of the mass of assumptions and contradictions in that post?

Anyone with a brain and an ounce of honesty can make sense of her post.

Dear Godboy
What's even more disturbing if not depressing, is the realization I had that the inability to explain the concept of "political beliefs" was not a matter of ignorance vs. education. The difference in mindset is as inherent as the mindset of a nontheist who will never see the world in terms of a personified God because their brains are not wired that way. No amount of explaining or showing examples can change that for people who just don't see things that way.

I finally accepted that the inherent "liberal political belief" that certain social things such as health care or marriage are "rights through govt" is how their brains or spirit are designed to think. Nothing can really change that, and I'm not sure which people are even Capable of being Aware these are beliefs and not absolute rights.

The liberals who seem insistent these are rights are equally convinced that Other People need to be "educated" and it's a matter of "ignorance or rejecting proof" similar to trying to change the mind of a nontheist humanist or Buddhist who just doesn't personify the forces or laws in life as a "personified God" . That is someone's personal or spiritual mindset, and who are we to try to abuse govt to Force a foreign mindset on someone where it conflicts with or violates their beliefs?


Both sides attempt to impose Political Beliefs and mindsets about what are natural or political rights, or not, by majority rule without the consent of the other whose brains or inherent spiritual/political beliefs are Opposed!

I was able to reach agreement with Sneekin to focus on research and proof of whether homosexual orientation reported as changed is really people inherently heterosexual to begin with or if they are suppressing their tendendencies that haven't changed.
But as for agreeing to recognize political beliefs, I can't seem to get very far with others like Faun Skylar and others who only see these as rights and not a choice of beliefs.
Some do see them as political beliefs but insist on imposing them on others by majority force instead of extending religious freedom to include political creeds, where I Argue that's a former of discrimination by creed abusing govt to punish or exclude people who can't help their beliefs!

What do we need to do here?
Have spiritual counselors address both parties and raise awareness what are political beliefs and not "absolute rights"? And "tolerance and acceptance" of people whose inherent mindset/beliefs cannot see these "beliefs" except as absolute rights, and not judge when that happens?

Do we need to pass an Amendment protecting people from each other's political beliefs being rammed through govt by partisan bullying and require conflict resolution on those issues?

If we just focus on research and Proof to stop the faith based arguments back and forth, wouldn't that solve both problems of content behind the arguments and the format or process of dealing with these "political beliefs/rights" in general?

I am curious and determined to know what the solution is. But exhausted and frustrated.

The mindsets are as set as you prolife friends who see right to life beginning at conception as a right backed by science, not a choice, not an optional belief, but treated as a faith based belief because this isn't provable science where spiritual identity and the start of human awareness and will remain "faith based" Now I'm arguing that LGBT orientation and identity are spiritual in nature, and beliefs either way about this as natural or as a choice of behavior, are beliefs that can't be regulated by govt either. But I'm running into these walls.

What is the difference between people like Sneekin who can agree to research to resolve these issues and people who insist these are rights and not beliefs that need to be proven to change perceptions by free will.

What IS going on with political beliefs people insist on as rights and can't see them any other way? Do we need to call a spiritual and political convention together to address this head on?

Both sides are tired of fighting for rights and principles that are apparently foreign to people of opposite political beliefs. Why not call a truce and ask how to manage these equally instead of bullying to cut each other out of the political process. Isn't conflict resolution a better way? Not everyone is like Sneekin but if those people are in charge would others get the difference between forcing beliefs and proving what is natural and what can or cannot change so we quit judging each other over that?

Thank you!
Emily Nghiem

 

[emilynghiem]

I dont live in America. I live in the Uk where teenage girls with abusive parents need all the support that they can be given.

I live in America where we have teenage girls with abusive parents that need support also, many of them have ended up on drugs due to living on the streets.
At any given time I might have 2 or 3 of them living in my house with me, my wife and my own daughter. I provide them counseling, treatment, medical care and compassion (nothing indecent)
I have one that I am paying for her college right now a she fights to get back on her feet.
I do not mind doing this or spending the money that is required to get them well both physically and psychologically.
And yet, I fight to keep from paying taxes to do this same thing. I think it should be up to citizens to take care of their own, it is the decent thing to do. It is not decent for me to decide that you can just afford to pay more and more to do this. There comes a point where forced charity can hurt those being forced to give.
I have no idea why my wife continues to let me and my daughter take on this roll in the community, last year the cost to me out of pocket was enough for me to have purchased a new BMW, instead I have 4 girls with a fresh start on life, that know there is someone that honestly cares about them,, and,, an old truck to drive.
And I also think that if the government stepped back a bit, people would feel more compelled to step up and help. I refuse to believe that people are not generally good hearted creatures that will take care of others to the extent that they are financially able.
I would love to be able to afford a huge house with lots of rooms in it where I could help more at once, but I cant.
For those interested in looking in to doing something like this (and its needed) you can talk to doctors like I did and find ones that have compassion and would be willing to offer their services at a greatly reduced cost, you can also find psychologists that are willing to do the same. I have one that comes to the house twice a week to talk with the girls in their own private rooms.
If you cant afford to do it all by yourself, see if you can find friends that are as compassionate that would be willing to chip in for the care.
I think there is a great benefit to the girls when the help comes in a personal way instead of through some faceless government program that wont remember them at holidays, christmas or their birthdays.
One thing that must be mentioned before anyone considers bringing kids like this into your home. Hide anything of great value, during the first month it is very possible that the thought of stealing from you and getting high one more time is going to be greater than the thoughts of staying clean and actually creating a real life.

It should not depend on the charitable kindness of strangers to help those in need. People, through their government policies, can do better than that.

We are not going to agree on this.
Government is open to abuse and fraud, the dollars spent are not going to be as effective as they are through private charity efforts.
In many cases one of the biggest issues that people in need have is a feeling of self worth and respect, the government can not build this in a person, it also can not reach out and make the person know that someone that does not have to, really honestly cares about them, cares about their health and their future. when has the government sat up with someone that is dope sick and just held their hand, gave them a cool cloth for their forehead when their tempurature spiked? made sure they were covered with blankets when the chills hit, cleaned them up countless times per night because they were throwing up non-stop.
the government is really great at handing out money, but when it comes to letting someone know that they are really cared for, that someone has committed to being there for them through the worst time in their life, the government cant touch a private individual.My daughter and I have taken turns spending the time with these girls while they suffer through the withdrawal. I have been thrown up on more times than a mother with triplets.

Socialist and Social Democratic governments in Europe do have remedies for people with drug habits, run by good administrators and staffed by caring workers. The Americans are far behind because the corporations there control the dogma of individual entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Growing up with so much right wing propaganda on TV and reinforced by the jingoism of capitalism, it is no wonder that young people are thoroughly sick of a broken democracy which has caved-in to Business.

You can believe whatever it is that you wish, but Im telling you that government or even private treatment facilities can never compete with the help someone can get if they are lucky enough to find a private individual to help them out.
I say this after seeing these things first hand, what first hand experience do you have that lends credibility to your insight?
To be fair, before you respond with your qualifications to judge the success of these programs VS. real help from someone that really wants to help, wants to see the addicted person create a good life for themselves. I might not be the most qualified here to make the judgement either but I do work in the mental health industry with a focus on the mentally ill and chemically addicted segment of society.
I have studied the relapse rates of various programs to see what does and what does not work, Ive talked with those addicted, I have done research papers on the cycle of addiction based on age groups. etc...
Sometimes, an addict will get much more from a simple hug than they will get from hours of counseling. heroin addicts are human also.
private is much better than organized.

Dear Maryland Patriot and Eloy
In both secular and faith based therapy and recovery programs that work, the common factors are forgiveness and overcoming fears that cannot be forced but only work by free choice. The spiritual healing I've seen work is outside the realm of what govt can regulate or require, though govt based medical research could study this to prove its effectiveness in healing people of both physical and mental conditions, as well as criminal illness and healing relationships around the person as well.
Secular nondenominational programs such as Alternatives to Violence Project insist on remaining separate from govt or they just don't work, they only operate based on free will, the person's uncoerced choice to change internally which is extremely sensitive and cant be from external conditions , and cannot be affected in any way by govt requirements.

The spiritual healing is what is missing from secularized medicine and mental health treatment. Ironically it's the key to freeing up the corporate monopoly on drugs, and prison industries profiting off crime and addiction instead of liberating people and saving resources for sustainable universal care that could reach and cover entire populations with the taxes already wasted on failed prison and mental health systems.

We need to focus research on the most cost effective methods of diagnosis and treatment. Spiritual healing and related alternatives are the key, but these are discriminated against by secularized science and politics.

See www.spiritual-healing.us

 

[hazlnut]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

Both are equally intolerant--especially at their base.