When Will Republican Voters Wake Up to Their Own Oppression?

Are you trying to say that voters who have Republican values should vote for Democrat values?

 

The phrase could a, would a, should a, comes to mind. Oh and the worst instinct and likely most common is to desire that which some one else has.

 

How have democrats made it more difficult to become a boss?

Also, how have they made it more difficult to terminate employment by an employee?

 

So should we ban churches( a violation of the first amendment btw) in response to the Catholic Church scandal? Well, either we write an amendment to augment the first amendment, or the churches have to do a better job of policing their own. I do agree that there's no place for the 'child beauty pageants'.

To the greater political point here, Democrats are massively pro-social security and medicaid, and even as early as Kennedy, Kennedy wanted to fix the programs(which, as you can imagine didn't win him favors with the Liberal part of the party.). Liberals have their own part to play in the situation, yet they never want to accept their part. The Liberals are pretty and innocent snowflakes who've done nothing wrong.

 

I didn’t say that — but there are already limits on what religious organizations are allowed to get away with. Freedom of religion only goes so far

If there was a mosque that was training terrorists I would be ok with the government stepping in and closing it permanently — not all of them but that one specifically. Would you be against this?

There is no liberal party — there is the Democratic Party which is disorganized and push half measures to only placate their base into not voting for Republicans.

 

No, I think voters should take enough time to look at each issue and vote for what is best for the country. American values over party values. We will can not become one nation again as long as people manipulate us into taking their word on what is good for us. The voter has a powerful tool and should not let someone else (media, candidates, parties) tell us how to use it. Example: Neather party is willing to work with the other in truly trying to help rework immigration policies. Each party wants to use it as a political tool to win elections. Both parties are doing what is best for themselves. If the were willing to work together and took a few steps in the right direction it would be better for this country.
Read the posts here to see what many have become; people more interested in complaning about others and calling them names than accomplishing anything positive.

 

Are you trying to say that voters who have Republican values should vote for Democrat values?

 

There are definitely limits, i think the important thing to discuss is those limits and how to practically achieve those goals. Also to point out that just because there were those in the clergy who abused power and betrayed trust, the vast majority of churches still remain a place of sanctity and worship. I just personally and morally want to protect the people of Faith and whatever church or place or worship it might be from unduly being responsible for the actions of others, who clearly acted in bad faith.

I wouldn't be against closing down a mosque teaching terrorist rhetoric, in fact I'd take it a step further and use the Hague for international war crimes.(we really don't want them in civilian population prisons, for a whole bunch of reasons. Bush was right about that.). The only issue is, at least as far as the world's concerned is that we're hypocrites when it comes to the Hague. We'd charge internationally when it's in our favor, but prefer domestic otherwise.

 

If this was only one or two instances of a single member of the church doing this I would agree — but that isn’t the case. These men were actively protected and moved to new churches after having raped young girls and boys by the leaders.

This doesn’t even take into account the levels of outright tax fraud that many of the places are committing while their preachers are living in multi-million dollar homes and flying around on private jets.

If it was discovered they were raping young children would you want zero action taken against the mosque?

 

That's a non-sequitor of a question, considering I've never said anything akin to that. But for the record, I would want law enforcement to take full action as required by law to not only remove children from a place of abuse, but to arrest the abusers and try them in a court of law. Now that said, the practicality of the church as a whole and our first amendment, is something we have to find solutions to. Instead of asking me if I'd want 'zero action', I think we should ponder what solutions the country could take when dealing with such issues.

Similarly, how we can regulate non-tax status, without violating said status in the first place since the whole gig is the separation of church and state. There's no black and white answers to these issues. I think we should look at the tax bracket of individual holders of the church as a whole and charge them as individuals for money laundering and tax evasion

 

No.
I am saying what I said.

 

That's funny because you asked me no more than 5 minutes before I replied that to you. I hear ginkgo biloba can help with that.

 

You basically said that everyone should think and want democratic policies and vote accordingly. For example, if they are diehard against abortion, you think they should vote democratic.

 

Its simple. Republican voters buy the product and ignore results. Just like Democrats.

 

No again I did not state that. I am saying that neither party is entirely right. I am saying that both parties need to relearn how to compromize. I am saying that getting even or rejecting an idea because it doesn't come from the right person is wrong. I say doing one's job as a legislator or as a voter is to try to solve problems. If you can't understand that then I don't know how to explain it to you.

 

Except for the fact that we are at an all time historic level of gridlock and partisanship. In other words, both sides are Borg collectives so in most elections you only have a choice of voting for the Republican Borg collective or the Democratic Borg collective. And, if you choose to vote for none of the above, you have thrown your vote away because it just helps one side of the Borg collective reach it's goals because your vote didn't count other than the fact you can claim you offered up a protest vote, while going home a loser and one of the Borg collectives winds up being the winner. The days are long gone when you size up both candidates and voting for the one you think would be better for the country because you can only vote for the Republican Borg Collective or the Democratic Borg collective.

 

Cute how this is blamed on "Republican-donor hedge funds" when the link provided shows Democrats such as Warren Buffet ALSO does the same thing. I fully agree that soaring rent has made things difficult for people like me. But to attempt to blame this solely on "Republican-donor hedge funds" is pure BS. But I guess this "Thom Hartmann" doesn't expect his reader base to do actual reading and research.

If I was a single issue voter this might make me vote Democratic Party. But it also ignores the fact that even red states have clinics where you pay according to how much you make, meaning I haven't had to pay more than $50 for a single visit and have yet to pay for medication above $20.

That's funny...wages have flatlined and yet I'm making more per hour now than I ever have in my life. I live in a red state.

Again, if I was a single issue voter....

Apples and oranges comparison. (and not wholly telling the story but irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is supposedly about "oppression")

In any case none of these is about oppression. Unless you believe that all of the above is a Right? Do I have a Right to Medical Care? Nope. Do I have a Right to someone else's Property or to buy someone else's Property? Nope. Do I have a Right to have someone else pay for a bill that I voluntarily signed up for? Nope. Though I'm sure socialists believe that these are Rights. They're not.

 

YEP.

 

i agree, and pile on distracting social issues

 

Economically, republican policies do not help the poor, as Reagan claimed. But poor or almost poor vastly outnumber the rich, especially with the shrinking middle class. So how do republicans solve that problem? By playing up cultural issues. Those immigrants are out to get you. Those gays are out to destroy your marriage. Those trans people are trying to seduce your kids into becoming freaks. You know, all of that fake stupid **** republicans are always peddling is to get poor dumb people to support smart rich people.

 

Rules and regulations by the thousands that make start ups vastly more expensive and take far longer to break even.

 

Are you trying to say that voters who have Republican values should vote for Democrat values?
Why can't you guys answer this question?
And, why do you think we should care about the lazy ass poor who are nothing but leeches on society?
The fact is, we could take better care of the truly needy if there weren't so many others defrauding the system.

 

You are vaguely answering one and not even remotely addressing the other

Try again

 

No one has a Right to another person's work. So, NO.

 

Is that how Australia does it?