Monday, November 14, 2016

This is your Christianity (pt 2)

Continuing our saga of stupid shit people say to justify their hate.
And my reply to that garbage,

First mistake is telling me to calm down, you see Mr. Jeremey, "Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry".  As I stated, I know how this game is played, I was part of the wheel for many years.  While it disgust me now to realize the part I may have played in fomenting this atmosphere, I take solace in that I will fight it with every last breath.

You Jeremey, like many others need a reminder that an individual believer is only but one cog.  While you claim you, Mr Trump, and those that voted for him are not racist,  tells me you need to look in the fucking mirror.  I take it history was not your strong suit.
And again I will ask, WTF does race have to do with the subject at hand?  The article speaks to Mr Blackwell's support for the use of reparative therapy and his appointment to the transition team.

As I stated earlier today in another posting, I will reiterate here.  I am against ideologies not individuals. What one believes in private I have no issue with. BUT bring those beliefs into the public sphere (ie legislating discrimination), I have issue. Organize those beliefs into an agenda, ie. the GOP party platform, I have a bigger problem.

I would strongly suggest you read the platform and go so far as to read various commentary concerning such.  I would also read the various articles concerning the men (and women) behind the discussions concerning said platform.  If you are as much of a "believer" as you say you are, you will be appalled at what you have voted for.  (I am assuming you voted for Trump and the ensuing GOP platform.)  You see when one votes for a candidate, you're not just voting for them, you are voting for the party and what they endorse.  The GOP is a party of extreme socio-religious nuts who only care for themselves; the rest of us peons be damned.

Since you tucked tail and ran, you never did justify a few points mentioned. 

1] How do you justify the repeal of the ACA knowing that millions will lose their healthcare;  some with pre-existing conditions that will no longer be covered?  Why is a complete repeal so important and not fixing the issue(s), leaving the base intact?  Why won't the GOP consider maintaining coverage for those with pre-existing conditions or means for the working poor to afford standard coverage?

I am going to assume you have private insurance and these issues are of no concern to you.  How else should I think, or are you voting against your own best interest out of misinformation? Please enlighten me as to what you will gain from a GOP victory as I have a fuck-ton too lose.  (Not that I can afford to lose much more.)

I will add this qualification,
After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to age 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.
While I may not respect the man, I do respect the office he will soon hold.  IF this article is accurate, this is the type of discussion that needs to take place.  At issue is whether the GOP controlled House and Senate will allow for such.

I have no qualms admitting there may be or are flaws in the ACA (not something I personally experience).  I have friends who have stated as much in regards to cost and to some degree what coverage they require.  What many are not aware though is the cost is not completely controlled by the ACA, that issue is your insurance company.

2] What is your justification for curtailing a program such as SNAP?  You do realize that over 50% that receive such are children, seniors, disabled and military

The Reich in their stupidity has tried to use 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 as justification; please don't make the same mistake as y'all have a tendency to argue out both sides.  You can't argue that Christ, in Matthew 25 is not speaking to the government, then turn around and say Paul is speaking to the government, in 2 Thessalonians; it's the same fucking book, kinda kills the consistency of message theme y'all tout.  To allow 14% of our citizens to be food-insecure is as Neolithic as your religion.

And I forewarn you, fraud is less than 3% and the notion of the welfare-queen is fallacious.  And as an FYI, I fully support the work requirement for single, non-disabled, childless adults to gain SNAP benefits.  The caveat, there has to be gainful employment available.  Under a GOP system, if history is our evidence, we know that is not possible.
Without going into much detail, the attacks on the system are just plain wrong. Food stamps fraud is rare and predominantly white-collar crime.  The system serves many and is under-enrolled.

Fact, the Reich wants to eliminate minimum wage, women's right to vote, and civil rights advances since 1964.  What I did not mention, a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or outright repeal of the First Amendment.  Much of what we see today was embolden by Hobby Lobby decision.
The Hobby Lobby case, of course, deals in part with the question whether the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)] was or is intended to benefit the owners of large, for-profit, nonreligious corporations. Hobby Lobby's interpretation that it does would open the floodgates to exempt every business owner in the United States from the anti-discrimination laws, because there is no real middle ground. The forces behind Hobby Lobby have tried to argue that the Court should hold for Hobby Lobby because it is "closely held," but that would not limit the holding to a few instances, because over 90% of corporations are "closely held." If the Court sides with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it will open the Pandora's box of corporate law.
Sad thing, none of this is new.  These attacks on our most basic rights have been occurring since the 30s.   Interest was renewed in the 60s and 70s.  With implementation of the Reich plan beginning in the 80s.

As I stated, Trump is not a theocrat; he is a conman.  IMO he has conned the Reich to get what he wanted, now he doesn't know what to do with the role he has acquired.  While he does hold ultimate veto power, the theocrats have that now firmly in their hands although not filibuster proof.  It will be individuals like Pence, Palin, Carson, etc. who will do the most damage; damage we will feel for generations.

No comments:

Post a Comment