Today's brand of conservatism in the U.S. is, in my view, a spiteful, vindictive ideology. Some examples.

-Under the proposed health care plan, many who are poor will probably not be able to get any insurance, while the wealthiest get huge tax breaks.

-GOP controlled states are always trying to find new and creative ways to demonize and humilate the poor. They will reduce or eliminate their food stamps and welfare if at all possible. They then consider and pass laws that tell the poor what they can and cannot eat using their food stamps. They pass laws mandating drug tests that was supposed to find out that the Welfare roles were full of druggies (and it hasn't). A proposed law in Tennessee a few years back would have mandated that anyone on welfare who won a lottery, use part of the winnings to pay back the government, and would have limited such a person to only $25,000 of any lottery won, even if it were worth millions.

-Today's GOP works to try and disenfranchise and intimidate voters who don't share their views.

-There is a concerted effort on the right to allow state-sponsored discrimination against LGBTQ's if someone feels they're being put-upon by such people because of their religiious views.

-Conservatives push right-to-work legislation and union-busting that would lead to the evisceration of the average worker by denying him/her collective bargianing, and which can lead to lower wages, less benefits and fewer safety protections on the job.

-Conservatives are pushing for a regulation-free enviromental policy, which would allow businesses to literally pollute our air and water at will. Case in point, the recent enaction of a law that allows coal ash to be dumped in rivers, streams and lakes.

These are all facts. But the question that no one seems to be able to answer is WHY today's conservatism hates most people, and only wants to protect the wealthy and corporations.

Why do they propose and enact policies that keep the foot of government on the poor and middle class, in an attempt to keep them where they are? Why do they continually want to protect the wealthy, powerfull and businesses at the expense of everyone else? Why do they want to destroy the enviroment?

What is the end game to all of this? I think the answer is clear,but I'll open the floor to the esteemed members.

Those who support this idea believe that they are not part of the poor people affected by this and they also believe if corporates can gain more money then they can also.

Hillis wrote:

What is the end game to all of this? I think the answer is clear,but I'll open the floor to the esteemed members.

At least tell us what you think.

KLDC10 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

What is the end game to all of this? I think the answer is clear,but I'll open the floor to the esteemed members.

At least tell us what you think.

I know what I think, I'd like to see what others' think.

I will try to address each of your points individually

Hillis wrote:

Today's brand of conservatism in the U.S. is, in my view, a spiteful, vindictive ideology. Some examples.

-Under the proposed health care plan, many who are poor will probably not be able to get any insurance, while the wealthiest get huge tax breaks.

Under the current law, insurance premiums continue to rise, many insurers are leaving the exchanges, and with the deductibles being so high, the poor cant afford to use the insurance that the law gives them. Clearly the law was bad and needs to be changed. That being said, I do agree that there are many concerns about this law.

Hillis wrote:

-GOP controlled states are always trying to find new and creative ways to demonize and humilate the poor. They will reduce or eliminate their food stamps and welfare if at all possible. They then consider and pass laws that tell the poor what they can and cannot eat using their food stamps. They pass laws mandating drug tests that was supposed to find out that the Welfare roles were full of druggies (and it hasn't). A proposed law in Tennessee a few years back would have mandated that anyone on welfare who won a lottery, use part of the winnings to pay back the government, and would have limited such a person to only $25,000 of any lottery won, even if it were worth millions.

One problem with the food stamps program is it is ripe for abuse. While we do need a safety net in place for people in case of unforeseen circumstances, if people are using food stamps to buy unhealthy food or use them for other things, it defeats the whole purpose of the program. And the big problem with these programs is it is often more beneficial to use these programs than to work. And that is not fair to those who work hard for a living.

Hillis wrote:

-Today's GOP works to try and disenfranchise and intimidate voters who don't share their views.

Got news for you bud, but the Democrats do this as well. I know too many examples to list.

Hillis wrote:

-There is a concerted effort on the right to allow state-sponsored discrimination against LGBTQ's if someone feels they're being put-upon by such people because of their religiious views.

The problem here is legislation shouldn't even be necessary. The first amendment clearly prohibits passing of laws that prohibit the free exercise thereof of religion.

Hillis wrote:

-Conservatives push right-to-work legislation and union-busting that would lead to the evisceration of the average worker by denying him/her collective bargianing, and which can lead to lower wages, less benefits and fewer safety protections on the job.

How does right to work deny someone the right to collectively bargain? Anyone is still free to join a union, or to set up a union shop at his work if there is enough support. The only thing right to work does is it does not compel someone in a union workplace to join the union. As a union member, I can tell you that I would still choose to pay union dues even if I was subject to right to work. I can tell you though that the Unions need to change the way they do things, because they don't have a lot of respect among non union people in this country, and I still do think that Unions are needed.

Hillis wrote:

-Conservatives are pushing for a regulation-free enviromental policy, which would allow businesses to literally pollute our air and water at will. Case in point, the recent enaction of a law that allows coal ash to be dumped in rivers, streams and lakes.

I agree with you that we do need some environmental regulation. Flint shows exactly why its needed. I think the issue is that a lot of regulation in the name of the environment has nothing to do with the environment and is just used by people in power as a way of keeping power. But certainly we need to protect the environment, and this is one area I think the GOP is wrong on.

Hillis wrote:

These are all facts. But the question that no one seems to be able to answer is WHY today's conservatism hates most people, and only wants to protect the wealthy and corporations.

Why do they propose and enact policies that keep the foot of government on the poor and middle class, in an attempt to keep them where they are? Why do they continually want to protect the wealthy, powerfull and businesses at the expense of everyone else? Why do they want to destroy the enviroment?

I don't think the intent of right leaning people is to keep the poor and the middle class down at the expense of the wealthy. I think what right leaning people want is for the poor and the middle class to be lifted out of poverty and to have a good life. And I think Left leaning people like yourself want this as well. The only way we are going to solve the problem is to stop insulting the other side, and actually go with the assumption that they are trying to do good. If we both believe that the other side has good intentions, we can work together for the common good. However, in the age where holding political power is a necessity, and the threat from the extremes of both bases is such where any hint of doing what I have said will result in being primaried, we don't have that, and wont have that for a while.

What is the end game to all of this? I think the answer is clear,but I'll open the floor to the esteemed members.[/quote]
I think the end game to this is going to be the states are going to be so fed up with Washington, even a republican congress, that you are going to see a constitutional convention, and there will be some major changes made there. No one in Washington has the balls to do anything these days, and that is true on both sides of the aisle.

Hillis wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

What is the end game to all of this? I think the answer is clear,but I'll open the floor to the esteemed members.

At least tell us what you think.

I know what I think, I'd like to see what others' think.

Yes, but you said, rather tantalizingly "I think the answer is clear"
So why not start the ball rolling and then we can all pitch in with alternative theories? I'm not trying to criticize you here, I'm genuinely interested to hear what your opinion is.

apodino wrote:

Hillis wrote:

-There is a concerted effort on the right to allow state-sponsored discrimination against LGBTQ's if someone feels they're being put-upon by such people because of their religiious views.

The problem here is legislation shouldn't even be necessary. The first amendment clearly prohibits passing of laws that prohibit the free exercise thereof of their religion

But there are literally thousands of laws in the US which prohibit free exercise of religion. The people of Utah were required to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of the then current LDS religion before they were allowed to become a state.

Conservatives daily call for new laws prohibiting the free exercise of Islam, yet also call for laws requiring me and you to support their preverted (IMHO) view of Old Testament Christianity.

I remember from my youth Christian preachers calling the placing of white and black kids in the same schools an illegal prohibition of the free exercise of their religion.

It was decided long ago that if a person chooses to engage in a public business, they cannot discriminate against classes of customers based on their religious views.

There are ways to engage in business with a limited clientele if a person chooses to only do business with people who support their religious views. They just cannot engage in business open to the general public.

Where I do draw the line is when a person holding a government position/ office says that upholding the laws of this nation is against their religious freedom.

If taking an oath of office puts a person in conflict with their personal religious views, then they have no business being in that office/ position.

apodino wrote:

I don't think the intent of right leaning people is to keep the poor and the middle class down at the expense of the wealthy. I think what right leaning people want is for the poor and the middle class to be lifted out of poverty and to have a good life. And I think Left leaning people like yourself want this as well. The only way we are going to solve the problem is to stop insulting the other side, and actually go with the assumption that they are trying to do good.

The Left only wants that if it is the government providing for the poor and the middle class, if they become self sufficient, the Left becomes irrelevant. The left needs victims to survive. There will always be the poor and unfortunate and we should help them but the left is not happy with just helping the poor, the real power comes from them making the middle class and masses depending on them.

afcjets wrote:

The Left only wants that if it is the government providing for the poor and the middle class, if they become self sufficient, the Left becomes irrelevant. The left needs victims to survive. There will always be the poor and unfortunate and we should help them but the left is not happy with just helping the poor, the real power comes from them making the middle class and masses depending on them.

The left wants opportunities for the poor and the middle class. Left to their own devices, the right would create a world of capitalistic domination which constantly caters to the rich, and then there would be real war. . If you are going to have a minimum wage that is below the liveable wage, then you will need to use public funds to keep the poor surviving. The alternative is poor people who have nothing to lose and everything to fight for, and that spells revolution.

Hillis wrote:

[...]What is the end game to all of this?[...]

You are such a perfect apologist of global imerialism! The USA are nothing else than a masonic conspiracy, just mislabeled as "democracy". Extremely naive and brainwahed sheeple disguised in the skins of liberals, lefties or do-gooders are the most useful idiots of that global imperialism.

But many have realised that there is something going on totally wrong. And in contrast to the mass media lies, almost none of them favours the infamous Manchester Capitalism system.

afcjets wrote:

apodino wrote:

I don't think the intent of right leaning people is to keep the poor and the middle class down at the expense of the wealthy. I think what right leaning people want is for the poor and the middle class to be lifted out of poverty and to have a good life. And I think Left leaning people like yourself want this as well. The only way we are going to solve the problem is to stop insulting the other side, and actually go with the assumption that they are trying to do good.

The Left only wants that if it is the government providing for the poor and the middle class, if they become self sufficient, the Left becomes irrelevant. The left needs victims to survive. There will always be the poor and unfortunate and we should help them but the left is not happy with just helping the poor, the real power comes from them making the middle class and masses depending on them.

That's stupid. The more self sufficient people there are, the more tax income there is vs payments being made to support people, which means then we can have nice things like dams that don't fall apart and bridges that don't collapse.

Hillis wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Hillis wrote:

What is the end game to all of this? I think the answer is clear,but I'll open the floor to the esteemed members.

At least tell us what you think.

I know what I think, I'd like to see what others' think.

First, show me yours and then I'll show you mine. It is no less than rabble-rousing to refuse to declare yourself from the get-go.

Your litany of claims (as fact) can be disputed in at least some cases.

You suggest that "Conservatism" consists of persons "higher" than the middle class.

Conservatives elected our current President and they constituted almost a plurality of voters.

I'm somewhat dismayed by this, but I am also dismayed by your approach.

BobPatterson wrote:

Conservatives elected our current President and they constituted almost a plurality of voters.

No sir. Conservatives didn't elect Trump. The states elected Trump. And three of those were won with such a razor-thin edge that it cannot, by any means, be said that it was all due to conservatives. We can easily say that liberals decided to stay home or support another candidate (whether Trump or third party), or independents who were swayed by Obama decided to back Trump this cycle. And a vote for one candidate/party doesn't mean they fully support all their proposals. It's why we're seeing backlash against the GOP for thinking about repealing ACA (which leads me to believe that people were more anti-Hillary than pro-GOP).

coolian2 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

apodino wrote:

I don't think the intent of right leaning people is to keep the poor and the middle class down at the expense of the wealthy. I think what right leaning people want is for the poor and the middle class to be lifted out of poverty and to have a good life. And I think Left leaning people like yourself want this as well. The only way we are going to solve the problem is to stop insulting the other side, and actually go with the assumption that they are trying to do good.

The Left only wants that if it is the government providing for the poor and the middle class, if they become self sufficient, the Left becomes irrelevant. The left needs victims to survive. There will always be the poor and unfortunate and we should help them but the left is not happy with just helping the poor, the real power comes from them making the middle class and masses depending on them.

That's stupid. The more self sufficient people there are, the more tax income there is vs payments being made to support people, which means then we can have nice things like dams that don't fall apart and bridges that don't collapse.

Yes, mock liberalism is stupid. They prefer controlling people over real estate however.

apodino wrote:

Under the current law, insurance premiums continue to rise, many insurers are leaving the exchanges, and with the deductibles being so high, the poor cant afford to use the insurance that the law gives them.

I have news for you. Insurance rates will climb no matter what. That's what happens when insurance is based on a free market. Each year the company wants bigger profits, and they do so in part with higher premiums. Rates were climbing before ACA. They'll climb if this American Health Care Plan passes. That won't change.

And, under this plan, the poorest will get less and less, because instead of basing health care coverage on what the local market is showiing, it'll be based on age and income. As the link above shows, they'll have far less for covering health needs.

apodino wrote:

Clearly the law was bad and needs to be changed. That being said, I do agree that there are many concerns about this law.

It isn't a bad law. It is, like most laws, flawed. More Americans are covered by Health Insurance now than ever before. That isn't a bad thing. Instead of being replaced, it should have been fine-tuned. But since Republicans put the moniker of "Obamacare" on it, they'd get rid of it even if they liked it, because, well, Obama. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You change the bathwater and keep the baby.

[quote=apodino"]One problem with the food stamps program is it is ripe for abuse. While we do need a safety net in place for people in case of unforeseen circumstances, if people are using food stamps to buy unhealthy food or use them for other things, it defeats the whole purpose of the program. And the big problem with these programs is it is often more beneficial to use these programs than to work. And that is not fair to those who work hard for a living.[/quote]

What kind of food they buy is their business, not yours, and not the government. There was never anything written into the law that says "you can only buy healthy food". The laws that have been passed in some states that say what kind of food can't be bought isn't an attempt to make the recipients eat healthier. It's an overt attempt to demonize and humiliate people on Welfare or Food Stamps. That's the only reason it is done.

apodino wrote:

Got news for you bud, but the Democrats do this as well. I know too many examples to list.

Well, then source one or two. If you can't do that, you're trying to blow smoke where the sun don't shine.

apodino wrote:

The problem here is legislation shouldn't even be necessary. The first amendment clearly prohibits passing of laws that prohibit the free exercise thereof of religion.

Sorry, but the Constitution was not designed to have the rights of one group be superior to another's. You have the right to worship as you please. The Constitution does not say you have the right to use your faith as an excuse to discriminate against others. The First Amendment says you have freedom of, and, by extension, freedom from, religion. You religion shouldn't be used when running a public business. If you think the right of some Holy Roller supercedes the right of a gay man or lesbian woman who wants to eat at a restaurant, you're seriously mistaken.

apodino wrote:

How does right to work deny someone the right to collectively bargain?

Right-To-Work doesn't deny collective bargaining. Union-busting does that. Read the whole paragraph. And in many GOP-run (into the ground) states like Wisconsin, Ohio, West Virginia, etc, laws have been enacted that stripped unions of public servants from collectively bargain. So, yes, collective bargaining is being eviscerated for many people.

apodino wrote:

Anyone is still free to join a union, or to set up a union shop at his work if there is enough support.

What Right-To-Work does is undercut Unions because non-union employees far more often than not work at shops that pay far less to their workers, have far fewer benefits, fewer employment protections, and fewer safety guidelines. When that happens, you have non-union people who aren't making what they should. So eventually, those higher-paying union jobs, which help the workers, and help the economy because the workers are better consumers, are going to be eliminated. Anyone should be allowed to vote on whether they want union represntation. But, as I mentioned, state workers in many states don't have that right anymore. It will slowly bring the wage-earning and consumer power of the middle class down even lower.

apodino wrote:

The only thing right to work does is it does not compel someone in a union workplace to join the union.

Then that person should get no benefits from the Union. When a new CBA is done, they're excluded. They should have to get their healt insurance on their own. It should not be a free ride simply because they don't want to pay dues.

apodino wrote:

As a union member, I can tell you that I would still choose to pay union dues even if I was subject to right to work.

You'll pay your union dues until you no longer have a job, because if you're competing against a non-union shop, that pays less, eventually you and/or others could find yourself unemployed because you were undercut.

apodino wrote:

I agree with you that we do need some environmental regulation. Flint shows exactly why its needed. I think the issue is that a lot of regulation in the name of the environment has nothing to do with the environment and is just used by people in power as a way of keeping power.

Then explain the law passed allowing coal ash to be dumped into rivers and streams, polluting them? Again, the GOP wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. They want to have ZERO regulations, if they can accomplish that. We'll go back to the days where our cities are smog-filled; our rivers catch on fire, and what is happening in Flint will happen everhwere. Stripping outdated or redundant laws is fine, but trying to undo all the progress that we've made in making the enviroment livable in an industrial age will end up being economic and enviormental suicide.

apodino wrote:

I don't think the intent of right leaning people is to keep the poor and the middle class down at the expense of the wealthy.

First of all you got that sentence wrong. The wealthy are being empowered and enriched at the expense of the poor and middle class. Take what has happened in Kansas. The government eliminated some taxes on businesses, and cut other rates drastically. Those big tax breaks for the wealthy left huge holes in the Kansas Budget, which, by law, must be balanced. So what happens? Infrastructure is left unrepaired; schools aren't funded; those on Welfare and Food Stamps see their benefits reduced. Then the state has raised taxes on items like cigarettes, alcohol and food, which affects the poor and middle class far more than the rich. The GOP wants to do anything except take back those big tax breaks for the wealthy and businesses. That tells me that, yes, they don't give a flying flip about the poor and middle class, and will do anything to protect the wealthy, and at any cost.

apodino wrote:

I think what right leaning people want is for the poor and the middle class to be lifted out of poverty and to have a good life.

I don't believe the right wants that at all. If you look at the evidence that I've presented, in how tax breaks for the wealthy are taken out of the butts of the rest of us, either by cuts in domestic programs, or with in the rasing of taxes on food or other goods, and in how the GOP is always trying to demean and humiliate the por, I say you're dead wrong. They need someone to have power over, and this is how they do it.

The poor and middle class, for the most part, are stuck where they are for one big reason, and that is higher education has become unaffordable for most averge people in this country. We live in a nation that demands our students and/or their parents go deep into debt to get a higher education. I guarantee you there are inner-city or rural children who are sharp as razors, and would love to be an engineer, or a scientist, or a doctor, but when that education is out of reach financially, then they have to literally settle for less.

Or, what they're starting to do, if they can, is leave this nation and study abroad. Many nations, like China, India and Germany are covering tuition 100%, even for students from other nations. And while that will benefit some Americans, most of the benefits are for those nations, who are churning out the engineers, scientists, doctors, etc, because their students don't have to worry about how the hell they'll pay for an education. They're turning this into a huge advantage, and the U.S. is falling behind because of it.

No disrespect intended, but I think you're highly naive about what's going on in this nation right now. What is going on is the modern version of how kingdoms of old were run, for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many. And that's often le

I've always thought there is an odd disconnect in US politics.

The wealthiest states tend to be ones with loberal majorities (ie California and New York) whereas the poorest ones are conservative strongholds. Why is that? If anything, the people voting for conservatives should be supporting libertarian candidates IMO rather than Republicans who seem to work against the interests of those that vote for them.

Maybe it's the God and guns stuff, maybe it's the social side of it. Just seems odd to me that turkeys are voting for Christmas in some places.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

Under the current law, insurance premiums continue to rise, many insurers are leaving the exchanges, and with the deductibles being so high, the poor cant afford to use the insurance that the law gives them.

I have news for you. Insurance rates will climb no matter what. That's what happens when insurance is based on a free market. Each year the company wants bigger profits, and they do so in part with higher premiums. Rates were climbing before ACA. They'll climb if this American Health Care Plan passes. That won't change.

And, under this plan, the poorest will get less and less, because instead of basing health care coverage on what the local market is showiing, it'll be based on age and income. As the link above shows, they'll have far less for covering health needs.

If the insurance market was truly a free market, you would have new competitors coming in who would help keep rates low, because everyone has to compete. But because the government allows so many mergers and you have created monopolies, what you say is true. Going to a single payer at the federal level isn't the answer either, because a single payer at the federal level would cost taxpayers conservatively 300 Billion dollars. Good luck finding money to pay for that.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

Clearly the law was bad and needs to be changed. That being said, I do agree that there are many concerns about this law.

It isn't a bad law. It is, like most laws, flawed. More Americans are covered by Health Insurance now than ever before. That isn't a bad thing. Instead of being replaced, it should have been fine-tuned. But since Republicans put the moniker of "Obamacare" on it, they'd get rid of it even if they liked it, because, well, Obama. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You change the bathwater and keep the baby.

There were a couple of good aspects to the bill. While I am glad more people are covered, I am not convinced the coverage that these new people are getting is that great, and it has caused a lot of heartache for people like myself who have seen costs rise and coverage decrease because of the red tape involved with this law. I fear that if congress does nothing, the law itself will collapse and these new people that received coverage will lose it.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

One problem with the food stamps program is it is ripe for abuse. While we do need a safety net in place for people in case of unforeseen circumstances, if people are using food stamps to buy unhealthy food or use them for other things, it defeats the whole purpose of the program. And the big problem with these programs is it is often more beneficial to use these programs than to work. And that is not fair to those who work hard for a living.

What kind of food they buy is their business, not yours, and not the government. There was never anything written into the law that says "you can only buy healthy food". The laws that have been passed in some states that say what kind of food can't be bought isn't an attempt to make the recipients eat healthier. It's an overt attempt to demonize and humiliate people on Welfare or Food Stamps. That's the only reason it is done.

I am not disagreeing with you here, but your statement about freedom from government is more consistent with republican thinking than democratic.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

Got news for you bud, but the Democrats do this as well. I know too many examples to list.

Well, then source one or two. If you can't do that, you're trying to blow smoke where the sun don't shine.

Well lets see, there was the new black panther party waving billy clubs outside a Philadelphia polling place during the Obama election that was clearly intimidation and Eric Holder did nothing about. You have the Milo protests in Berkley that got real violent. I know one pregnant woman who was shoved into the street during the Women's March just because she was pro life. There was the trump rally in Chicago that got cancelled due to violent protesters. It goes on and on and on.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

The problem here is legislation shouldn't even be necessary. The first amendment clearly prohibits passing of laws that prohibit the free exercise thereof of religion.

Sorry, but the Constitution was not designed to have the rights of one group be superior to another's. You have the right to worship as you please. The Constitution does not say you have the right to use your faith as an excuse to discriminate against others. The First Amendment says you have freedom of, and, by extension, freedom from, religion. You religion shouldn't be used when running a public business. If you think the right of some Holy Roller supercedes the right of a gay man or lesbian woman who wants to eat at a restaurant, you're seriously mistaken.

Let me just say that I don't believe any one should refuse to serve someone because they are gay, and I was actively opposed to laws like don't ask don't tell. That being said, the exact wording of the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't see the words freedom of religion there, or freedom from religion. It just says that we cannot have a national religion, and congress cant stop you from practicing your religion. It is true the 14th amendment was later ratified with the equal protection clause. But it is not farfetched to think that the supreme court could rule that this is the exact, literal text of the constitution, and thus some of these other laws are unconstitutional on that basis. Does that mean I like it? No. Does that mean I agree with it? No. But that is the law.

apodino wrote:

How does right to work deny someone the right to collectively bargain?

Right-To-Work doesn't deny collective bargaining. Union-busting does that. Read the whole paragraph. And in many GOP-run (into the ground) states like Wisconsin, Ohio, West Virginia, etc, laws have been enacted that stripped unions of public servants from collectively bargain. So, yes, collective bargaining is being eviscerated for many people.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

Anyone is still free to join a union, or to set up a union shop at his work if there is enough support.

What Right-To-Work does is undercut Unions because non-union employees far more often than not work at shops that pay far less to their workers, have far fewer benefits, fewer employment protections, and fewer safety guidelines. When that happens, you have non-union people who aren't making what they should. So eventually, those higher-paying union jobs, which help the workers, and help the economy because the workers are better consumers, are going to be eliminated. Anyone should be allowed to vote on whether they want union represntation. But, as I mentioned, state workers in many states don't have that right anymore. It will slowly bring the wage-earning and consumer power of the middle class down even lower.

Public sector unions are a double edge sword. One problem they create is that unions are often closely associated with political campaigns. Then when their guys get into office, they are negotiating with the very people they help get into office. The issue here is that most states require a balanced budget, and union negotiated contracts can tie a state down for years. Illinois is having major budget problems because of this. California isn't going to be far behind. I don't know what the answer is at the public level, because as a taxpayer I want my money used wisely, not so much for inefficiencies in government. But I also want the really good workers to get paid fairly. The issue is where and how do you strike that balance.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

The only thing right to work does is it does not compel someone in a union workplace to join the union.

Then that person should get no benefits from the Union. When a new CBA is done, they're excluded. They should have to get their healt insurance on their own. It should not be a free ride simply because they don't want to pay dues.

I agree with you here. These should be made a part of right to work laws.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

As a union member, I can tell you that I would still choose to pay union dues even if I was subject to right to work.

You'll pay your union dues until you no longer have a job, because if you're competing against a non-union shop, that pays less, eventually you and/or others could find yourself unemployed because you were undercut.

I am not worried about that because all our competitors are heavily unionized as well. And there are plenty of companies that are non union that still treat their employees right. If employers don't want to find themselves unionized, this is the best way to prevent it, IMO.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

I agree with you that we do need some environmental regulation. Flint shows exactly why its needed. I think the issue is that a lot of regulation in the name of the environment has nothing to do with the environment and is just used by people in power as a way of keeping power.

Then explain the law passed allowing coal ash to be dumped into rivers and streams, polluting them? Again, the GOP wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. They want to have ZERO regulations, if they can accomplish that. We'll go back to the days where our cities are smog-filled; our rivers catch on fire, and what is happening in Flint will happen everhwere. Stripping outdated or redundant laws is fine, but trying to undo all the progress that we've made in making the enviroment livable in an industrial age will end up being economic and enviormental suicide.

As I suspected there is way more to it than what is being reported. All the resolution that was passed did is revert back to rules the way they were for the entire Obama administration save the very last few days of it. Here is the fact check on this for more.
http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

I don't think the intent of right leaning people is to keep the poor and the middle class down at the expense of the wealthy.

First of all you got that sentence wrong. The wealthy are being empowered and enriched at the expense of the poor and middle class. Take what has happened in Kansas. The government eliminated some taxes on businesses, and cut other rates drastically. Those big tax breaks for the wealthy left huge holes in the Kansas Budget, which, by law, must be balanced. So what happens? Infrastructure is left unrepaired; schools aren't funded; those on Welfare and Food Stamps see their benefits reduced. Then the state has raised taxes on items like cigarettes, alcohol and food, which affects the poor and middle class far more than the rich. The GOP wants to do anything except take back those big tax breaks for the wealthy and businesses. That tells me that, yes, they don't give a flying flip about the poor and middle class, and will do anything to protect the wealthy, and at any cost.

No I did not get that sentence wrong. Secondly, what you are saying about the wealthy has been true for years and its one of the reasons Donald Trump is President of the United States. The wealthy have been empowered for years, and its not just republicans who are doing it, but the democrats have done their fair share of contributing as well. Look at California for example. Real Estate in San Francisco is so expensive that only the wealthy can afford to live there anymore, and the poor are suffering big time, and the middle class can't make a living. In Illinois, the south side of Chicago has been neglected for so long in favor of the suburbs and the Northside, that people are desperate for change. This is one area where Obama really disappointed me. I felt he was in a great position to have a positive influence in this area, and he didn't do it.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

I think what right leaning people want is for the poor and the middle class to be lifted out of poverty and to have a good life.

I don't believe the right wants that at all. If you look at the evidence that I've presented, in how tax breaks for the wealthy are taken out of the butts of the rest of us, either by cuts in domestic programs, or with in the rasing of taxes on food or other goods, and in how the GOP is always trying to demean and humiliate the por, I say you're dead wrong. They need someone to have power over, and this is how they do it.

The poor and middle class, for the most part, are stuck where they are for one big reason, and that is higher education has become unaffordable for most averge people in this country. We live in a nation that demands our students and/or their parents go deep into debt to get a higher education. I guarantee you there are inner-city or rural children who are sharp as razors, and would love to be an engineer, or a scientist, or a doctor, but when that education is out of reach financially, then they have to literally settle for less.

Or, what they're starting to do, if they can, is leave this nation and study abroad. Many nations, like China, India and Germany are covering tuition 100%, even for students from other nations. And while that will benefit some Americans, most of the benefits are for those nations, who are churning out the engineers, scientists, doctors, etc, because their students don't have to worry about how the hell they'll pay for an education. They're turning this into a huge advantage, and the U.S. is falling behind because of it.

No disrespect intended, but I think you're highly naive about what's going on in this nation right now. What is going on is the modern version of how kingdoms of old were run, for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many. And that's often le

There is little doubt that higher education has gotten way out of control cost wise. There are several reasons for this in my opinion. For one thing, Pell grants and federally backed Student Loans have been available for years, and these are very well meaning programs. What happened though is that as this money became available and more people were going to college, college administrators saw this as a gravy train and simply raised tuition realizing they could make even more money and look good by building new infastructure. A second reason is that college athletics have become uber competitive. I have a major issue with the fact that in about 80 percent of the states, the highest paid public state employee is either a College Football or Basketball coach. Its as though the purpose of many colleges is to win national championships, not to educate students. I know Bernie Sanders would like to take us into a direction like some of the other countries you mention, but I am not sure where the money comes from.

Another issue is even before college. If you are the child of wealthy parents, they can send you to the best schools. I would like to see all children have that opportunity. You shouldn't have to settle for a bad school because of who you were born to. That is one reason I am such a proponent of vouchers. Let parents decide what school is best for their children, not government bureaucrats. The current system makes children suffer because of who their parents are. That is not right.

As for people having power over us. If you are relying on government programs, then in my opinion the government already has too much power over you.

Anyways..I have more thoughts on this, but I need to catch my breath.

apodino wrote:

That being said, the exact wording of the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't see the words freedom of religion there, or freedom from religion.

If you take that literally, then Atheiests aren't protected by the Constitution. You are allowed to freely exercise any faith, and that also means if you don't want to worship any diety, you're free to do that as well. What conservatives want to do is to allow the rights of "people of faith" (and, by that, they specifically mean Christians), to supercede the rights of gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. The Constitution didn't set a heirarchy whose rights were superior to soemone else. You religious freedom stop when it interferes with my rights or someone else's rights under the Constitution.

What is conservatism at this point? Nativism and protectionism with a healthy dose of white supremacy? Sucking up to an evangelical sexual predator and whatever he misspells in a tweet on a daily basis? The right is finding out what they're for with every self induced crisis and retroactively rationalizing it. Oh big infrastructure spending? We're into that now right? Yes? Bueller? And paid family leave? Uhhh yeah we like that now I think.

Can a "conservative" explain something please? You all scream about smaller government and lower debt and deficit but, every chance you all are in charge, none of that happens. The opposite, in fact. Explain.

seb146 wrote:

Can a "conservative" explain something please? You all scream about smaller government and lower debt and deficit but, every chance you all are in charge, none of that happens. The opposite, in fact. Explain.

Most conservatives actually ask the same question. And many of them are fed up with the GOP as a result. It's why the tea party was started. It's why Eric Cantor was primaried a couple of years ago. And its why most republican voters gave a big fat middle finger to the Establishment during the GOP primary this year, and arguably, its why Donald Trump got elected.

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Can a "conservative" explain something please? You all scream about smaller government and lower debt and deficit but, every chance you all are in charge, none of that happens. The opposite, in fact. Explain.

Most conservatives actually ask the same question. And many of them are fed up with the GOP as a result. It's why the tea party was started. It's why Eric Cantor was primaried a couple of years ago. And its why most republican voters gave a big fat middle finger to the Establishment during the GOP primary this year, and arguably, its why Donald Trump got elected.

And all he's going to do is is explode the economy by cutting taxes-again-for the wealthy, while greatly increasing the defense budget. If you voted Trump, apodino, because you thought he'd make government smaller, you have been conned.

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Can a "conservative" explain something please? You all scream about smaller government and lower debt and deficit but, every chance you all are in charge, none of that happens. The opposite, in fact. Explain.

Most conservatives actually ask the same question. And many of them are fed up with the GOP as a result. It's why the tea party was started. It's why Eric Cantor was primaried a couple of years ago. And its why most republican voters gave a big fat middle finger to the Establishment during the GOP primary this year, and arguably, its why Donald Trump got elected.

And all he's going to do is is explode the economy by cutting taxes-again-for the wealthy, while greatly increasing the defense budget. If you voted Trump, apodino, because you thought he'd make government smaller, you have been conned.

I didn't expect Trump to make government smaller based on his campaign speeches. And I didn't vote for Trump. As I have stated in many other threads, I did not think that either candidate was qualified to be president, and I voted third party. I would have voted for Joe Biden had he run instead of Trump.

apodino wrote:

Hillis wrote:

apodino wrote:

Most conservatives actually ask the same question. And many of them are fed up with the GOP as a result. It's why the tea party was started. It's why Eric Cantor was primaried a couple of years ago. And its why most republican voters gave a big fat middle finger to the Establishment during the GOP primary this year, and arguably, its why Donald Trump got elected.

And all he's going to do is is explode the economy by cutting taxes-again-for the wealthy, while greatly increasing the defense budget. If you voted Trump, apodino, because you thought he'd make government smaller, you have been conned.

I didn't expect Trump to make government smaller based on his campaign speeches. And I didn't vote for Trump. As I have stated in many other threads, I did not think that either candidate was qualified to be president, and I voted third party. I would have voted for Joe Biden had he run instead of Trump.

Yes, Biden would have been a great choice. But, he was not running. Hillary is much more qualified.

My main point about the size of government is that Republicans constantly go on and on about how only they know about small government and care about small government and want small government but do everything they can to expand government.

apodino wrote:

Hillis wrote:

-There is a concerted effort on the right to allow state-sponsored discrimination against LGBTQ's if someone feels they're being put-upon by such people because of their religiious views.

The problem here is legislation shouldn't even be necessary. The first amendment clearly prohibits passing of laws that prohibit the free exercise thereof of religion.

But here's the thing with that:
When the 1st Amendment butts heads with the 14th Amendment (or to a somewhat lesser extent, the 5th), the 1st Amendment will lose essentially every time.

That's the whole POINT of the Equal Protection clause(s).
Otherwise, "you" could basically deny anyone anything, by simply claiming "...that's against my religion!"

Equal protection has basically shrunk the "my religion!" excuse down to extending about as far as an individual's nose.
And that excludes privately-held businesses that avail themselves to the public, as well. Which is why those moronic cake bakers got caught with their pants down.

If you look at the Budget that 45 has produced, the "why" becomes quite apparent. He wants to build walls and expand the military. He wants to cut funding for the arts, for school meals, for meals for the elderly, and for the enviornment. The Republican Insurance Plan (RIP), would make it difficult, and sometimes almost impossible for the poor and the elderly to get decent healthcare.

So, what will be left to defend when everyone is eating table scraps, no one can get a decent job, and are dying because their government denies them basic dignities?

LAX772LR wrote:

.
And that excludes privately-held businesses that avail themselves to the public, as well. Which is why those moronic cake bakers got caught with their pants down.

Please get back to me when a gay couple targets a MUSLIM bakery.

afcjets wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

.
And that excludes privately-held businesses that avail themselves to the public, as well. Which is why those moronic cake bakers got caught with their pants down.

Please get back to me when a gay couple targets a MUSLIM bakery.

YOU get back to US when that happens, because it isn't going to happen.

Hillis wrote:

YOU get back to US when that happens, because it isn't going to happen.

Of course it's not.

afcjets wrote:

Please get back to me when a gay couple targets a MUSLIM bakery.

I'm guessing you have some manner of point with this hypothetical, but not sure what it is... so just be direct: what are you trying to say?

That they'll be met with violence?
Perhaps. But that does nothing to change the constitutional issue at hand. So again, what's your point?

LAX772LR wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Please get back to me when a gay couple targets a MUSLIM bakery.

I'm guessing you have some manner of point with this hypothetical, but not sure what it is... so just be direct: what are you trying to say?

That they'll be met with violence?
Perhaps. But what does that have to do with the legal issue at hand?

I actually never thought because of fear of violence from a Muslim (but you can probably get away with saying that being a good liberal and all). My point is the organized Left would never target Muslims regarding baking a gay wedding cake because of their religion, only Christians because freedom of religion matters to them when it is Islam but not so much when it is Christianity.

afcjets wrote:

I actually never thought because of fear of violence from a Muslim (but you can probably get away with saying that being a good liberal and all). My point is the organized Left would never target Muslims regarding baking a gay wedding cake because of their religion, only Christians because freedom of religion matters to them when it is Islam but not so much when it is Christianity.

So in other words, you had no point.
I suspected as much, but figured I'd ask anyway.

But by all means, go ahead and tell us all about this "organized Left," and why you seem to have information as to "targeting" beyond that which the court in matter dismissed as unsubstantiated?

Because that issue was specifically addressed-- which you'd know, if you actually did the slightest bit of research on what ACTUALLY occurred, as opposed to what you imagine (for whatever inane reason) took place.

LAX772LR wrote:

afcjets wrote:

I actually never thought because of fear of violence from a Muslim (but you can probably get away with saying that being a good liberal and all). My point is the organized Left would never target Muslims regarding baking a gay wedding cake because of their religion, only Christians because freedom of religion matters to them when it is Islam but not so much when it is Christianity.

So in other words, you had no point.
I suspected as much, but figured I'd ask anyway.

But by all means, go ahead and tell us all about this "organized Left," and why you seem to have information as to "targeting" beyond that which the court in matter dismissed as unsubstantiated?

Because that issue was specifically addressed-- which you'd know, if you actually did the slightest bit of research on what ACTUALLY occurred, as opposed to what you imagine (for whatever inane reason) took place.

Not sure what case you are talking about considering there have been several. Is it this one by chance?

"(Oregon) Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian was defeated by Republican Dennis Richardson in his bid to be Secretary of State.

It's the first time a Republican has been elected to a statewide office in Oregon since 2002.

So consider this – Avakian was too liberal for what is arguably one of the most liberal states in the country.

Avakian launched a very public and very ugly assault on the Klein family – alleging they had discriminated about the lesbian couple.

They faced boycotts and picket lines and other wedding vendors were threatened with similar action if they did business with Sweet Cakes.

The family’s young children received death threats and the store’s social networking platforms were overrun by militant LGBT activists posting obscene and profane messages."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/ ... ction.html

afcjets wrote:

Not sure what case you are talking about considering there have been several. Is it this one by chance?

Nope, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.

LAX772LR wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Not sure what case you are talking about considering there have been several. Is it this one by chance?

Nope, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.

LAX772LR wrote:

Because that issue was specifically addressed-- which you'd know, if you actually did the slightest bit of research on what ACTUALLY occurred, as opposed to what you imagine (for whatever inane reason) took place.

OK, I did some research on that one too. Do you think this baker imagined the death threats he claims to have received?

Ironically in this case, more gays actually supported his decision not to bake the wedding cake, which demonstrates perhaps gays are not as monolithic as the Left demands from all minorities, and just as women can be pro-life, gays can believe in traditional marriage, or at least respect those who do.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/chris ... es-143360/

afcjets wrote:

Do you think this baker imagined the death threats he claims to have received?

Well, they certainly imagined that they were acting out of anything other than discriminatory intent.

The court gave them the opportunity to show even ONE incident, in their entire existence, of denying anyone for anything based on "Christian values" other than gay people. They couldn't. Case closed. They lose.

Original poster is a race baiting troll. He/she is not interested in a discussion. He/she is only interested in insulting those with views he/she does not agree with. It's a waste of time to engage with him/her.

socalgeo wrote:

Original poster is a race baiting troll. He/she is not interested in a discussion. He/she is only interested in insulting those with views he/she does not agree with. It's a waste of time to engage with him/her.

Well you've learned to take everything that's been truthfully said about you and use it inappropriately against others, that would give your shtick at least an appearance of veracity to someone reading you for the first time. But unfortunately for you, most people reading here know what an unethical ignoramus you are.

Much of this has been discussed recently by Tugger in a different thread.
viewtopic.php?p=19420191#p19420111

LAX772LR wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Do you think this baker imagined the death threats he claims to have received?

Well, they certainly imagined that they were acting out of anything other than discriminatory intent.

The court gave them the opportunity to show even ONE incident, in their entire existence, of denying anyone for anything based on "Christian values" other than gay people. They couldn't. Case closed. They lose.

Nope, you can argue stories in the Bible were imagined, but their intent to honor what it says about marriage was not. Also, it wasn't about turning away gay people, they said they would have been happy to sell them anything they just did not want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

The article states they quit doing wedding cakes period, which was 40% of their business. I am guessing the other 60% was birthdays, holidays, graduation ceremonies, anniversaries, retirements, baby showers, etc. and generic bakery sales without custom cake writing. So barring Halloween (which most Christians celebrate) there most probably was not ONE other incident where they were in conflict with their religion, if this was their first gay wedding cake request.

More importantly, since when does the burden of proof fall on the accused? Had the court presented them with evidence which shows they baked a birthday cake which said "Happy Birthday, Mistress!" I would see your point.

afcjets wrote:

So barring Halloween (which most Christians celebrate)

Halloween is catholic Irish ( and probably due some celtic christian overlay?)
the Irish then brought it to America.

America turned it commercial and pushed it on the world.

Even the real thing "Festum Omnium Sanctorum" is catholic only afaik.

afcjets wrote:

Nope, you can argue stories in the Bible were imagined, but their intent to honor what it says about marriage was not.

The problem with that, is that they only seemed to want to "honor what it says" when it came to marriage, and those whom that would affect.

You can't do the holy-rolling bullshit on one one issue, affecting one type of person; while ignoring the same religious edicts, from the same books/chapters/versus, for everyone else. There's a word for that: discrimination.

That they've chosen to believe/apply those religious aspects in such a manner is irrelevant: 14th Amendment trumps the 1st.
THAT was the whole point, and THAT was why they lost.

afcjets wrote:

More importantly, since when does the burden of proof fall on the accused?

So in other words, you don't understand the difference between civil procedure and criminal?
Burden can/does shift in civil actions....