|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 10:00:32 GMT
JustKallie said: "You are interpreting a factual statement as condescending?"oh, she's not the only one. I just read the last six pages of this thread in one sitting, and it wasn't easy. I haven't seen such a smug attitude or such patronizing condescension at the pod in years. Did you ever tell us what your 2peas name was? And I will add that you yourself stated earlier in the thread that you do not live in the U.S. It is natural, when you've been waving around your vast knowledge of the history and legal traditions of the U.S. as you have been, that someone might question where you do live and/or if you are a citizen. Smug? No. Confident in my knowledge and interpretation of the Consitution? Yes. Confident in who I am and what I stand for? Yes? Knowledgeable about US and World Events? You betcha? Willing and able to express my opinions in the face of name-calling? Absolutely. Again - what does my citizenship have to do with anything? Does that give me less of a right to express my opinion? That would be discrimination, wouldn't it? And why would I need to have a 2peas name? Is this forum only open to people who were a part of the original forum or are new people not allowed? I didn't get that the memo. There are plenty of ways to express your knowledge and opinions without pissing off the people you're debating because you're being annoying. You might start by studying Jodster's post above. Your citizenship doesn't matter a damn bit to me, but when you yourself bring up the subject and then get huffy when someone else asks for details ... why did you even mention it if you didn't want to talk about it? And you're being melodramatic about whether we "allow" new people or not. I asked because I am interested in knowing if you're someone I've interacted with in the past.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 10:04:06 GMT
JustKallie: let me repeat myself. That is a construct invented by the right. Freedom from religion does not mean what you think it means, no matter how many words you use to try to convince me. You and I have a different interpretation of the Consitution - but the only one that really matters is the Supreme Court's interpretation - and well, they interpreted, didn't they? Well, they certainly didn't rule directly on freedom FROM religion, not yesterday, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 10:12:49 GMT
I will add that I hope this spurs a new interest in Civics for many Americans and they learn to understand where the real power of the law of the land lays. Most people think the Congress and the President make the laws and that is where the power is. No, the real power in in the interpretation, application and constitutionality of law - and that is in the judicial system and the Supreme Court.
Since a Supreme Court juror receives a LIFETIME appointment, it should be the most important, most researched, most analyzed and most thought out decision our President and Congress makes, and citizens should know who is being appointed and burn down their congressman and senators phone lines and social media if someone is being appointed who may not have the same interpretation of the Constitution as you do.
For better or worse right now, there are 4 judges with conservative interpretations of the Constitution (Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia), 4 judges with more liberal interpretations of the Constitution (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) and 1 swing judge who pretty much holds the all the power and is the one that needs to be won to your cause - Kennedy.
There are two judges on the court that could quite possibly step down sometime during the next presidents first or second term - but the most likely next one to retire is Ginsburg. Who controls the presidency and who controls Congress has control of who is appointed to the Supreme Court - if conservatives are in control of the next presidency and next Congress, there is this possibility of an upset in the judicial makeup of the Supreme Court that can have lasting affects for generations to come.
This is why politics are important. This is why your votes matter. And this is why facts and knowledge are crucial to make informed choices where the lasting affects can be felt for generations to come.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Jul 2, 2014 11:17:41 GMT
My thoughts exactly. I also think that if the administration had been less heavy handed this would never have happened.
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jul 2, 2014 11:30:31 GMT
Yeah, no, not so much. When I visited the Soviet Union, we visited tons of obviously active churches and a monastery or two- lit candles, listened to singing, etc. The USSR was NOT free of religion or religious expression.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 11:32:43 GMT
Yeah, no, not so much. When I visited the Soviet Union, we visited tons of obviously active churches and a monastery or two- lit candles, listened to singing, etc. The USSR was NOT free of religion or religious expression. When did you visit? The Soviet Union stopped existing on December 26, 1991.
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jul 2, 2014 11:42:33 GMT
I said the Soviet Union and USSR, which I know are not the same thing as Russia, contrary to your implication. I visited the Soviet Union while it was still the Soviet Union - prior to its demise. But, since you're not fond of providing specifics about yourself, I'm not going to bother going to look up the exact dates of my trip for you.
But I'm sure you don't think it's condescending to imply I don't know what county I visited. Whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 11:43:43 GMT
Oh Lynlam.....this is not about women demanding that someone else pay for their choices, or about personal responsibility, it's about the fact that under the ACA BC, and the 4 drugs that HL is whining about, is covered in the basic package. It's the LAW. Women don't have to demand anything. It's irrelevant whether anybody paid for their own BC under their old insurance, or whether 30 years ago nobody covered it. This is not even about birth control pills. This lawsuit was about HL wanting to be excluded from a law, that all other companies have to abide by, on religious grounds. The only people it effects, right now, are the 13,000 who work for HL and are having their right to freedom from religion, violated. That could change with this court ruling. Were you as equally "freaked out" about the LAW when Obama was giving out exemptions from ACA left and right (but of course mostly to unions and those that supported him and the passage of ACA) or when Obama summarily made changes to this LAW without Congressional approval?
link
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 11:54:31 GMT
I said the Soviet Union and USSR, which I know are not the same thing as Russia, contrary to your implication. I visited the Soviet Union while it was still the Soviet Union - prior to its demise. But, since you're not fond of providing specifics about yourself, I'm not going to bother going to look up the exact dates of my trip for you. But I'm sure you don't think it's condescending to imply I don't know what county I visited. Whatever. Nope. I asked a simple question. Choose to react how you wish - I am forcing nothing on you. I would post a link to the horrible persecution played out on the Russian people and their religions - but then you would find something wrong with that. If you believe that the USSR was a model for religious freedom and that religion was not controlled by the State - I got nothing for you.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 11:58:02 GMT
OK, you don't like smug, how about pretentious and condescending.....that's the way you come across, even though you just copy and paste from Wikipedia and other websites. Any time you plagiarize you run the risk of coming across with the attitude of the author of those words.....
Does your citizenship matter? I have no problem trading opinions with a foreigner, it happens all the time on 2Ps, but when you present yourself as someone who lives abroad, then why not just answer the question? I asked because you don't meet too many foreigners with your purported knowledge on everything from Constitutional law to American Corporate law, and rarely do you meet a foreigner who feels so confident that they are comfortable lecturing citizens. It also tends to piss off the citizenry.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 11:59:44 GMT
Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:08:29 GMT
I think people (mostly our lefty friends) have issues with Justkallie because regardless of where she's coming from, she certainly seems to know her shit. I don't see her posts as smug, pretentious, OR condescending but can certainly see how people on the left would feel that way simply because they don't like what she has to say. I think people on the left would love nothing more than to run her off of this board so that they no longer have to deal with what she has to say in a factual and intelligent way.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:09:34 GMT
Well fortunately for you, Hobby Lobby went through the Supreme Court to get their exemption.
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jul 2, 2014 12:10:59 GMT
I never said (and don't believe) it was. You, however said:
which isn't true.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2014 12:16:01 GMT
You've obviously struck a nerve with some of our more outspoken liberals, Kallie; hence the name calling. Most of us find your comments to be thoughtful, well written and free of emotion. Since they can't argue with your logic, their only recourse is to try to dismiss your comments by calling you "smug" or "condescending".
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 2, 2014 12:38:32 GMT
Here's the actual text from our First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The way I interpret it is to say Congress is not making ANY laws to respect the religion and that it should NOT be the reason for decisions being made such as the debacle of HL. Further, I believe HL is wrong in that they are choosing to prohibit certain BC methods as THEY interpret them to be "abortion" methods, which is wrong on their part. Once again, separation of church and state and all that.
Our forefathers are rolling in their collective graves as we speak.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 12:38:50 GMT
Then you'd be wrong. At least from my POV. If we didn't have people who differed in opinions, what would be the point of these threads? It would be counterproductive to run someone off who disagreed. I don't care whether someone is on the right, or the left, or with their head up their ass, if they express themselves without being condescending then great. You may not feel that JustKallie is not condescending, but I do, that doesn't mean I wish she would leave. That's just silly. It would be nice if she gave credit to the people who actually wrote a lot of the stuff she said in a factual and intelligent way. A lot of what she has posted hasn't been her words so it's hard to tell what her knowledge base is, other than mad Googling skills and copying and pasting from articles and Wikipedia. I hope she does stay....but I'd still like to know if she's a citizen
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 2, 2014 12:39:55 GMT
Ah, where's Mrs T. when you need her. She was our self proclaimed Constitutional expert. I'm sure she could sort things out for us ;*
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:45:10 GMT
Ah, where's Mrs T. when you need her. She was our self proclaimed Constitutional expert. I'm sure she could sort things out for us ;* Because this isn't at all condescending is it?
(edited to add...one minute you're lecturing someone about being condescending, and literally, the very next minute, you're being condescending to someone else. Do you not see the pure awesomeness in this?)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:48:44 GMT
Oh Lynlam.....this is not about women demanding that someone else pay for their choices, or about personal responsibility, it's about the fact that under the ACA BC, and the 4 drugs that HL is whining about, is covered in the basic package. It's the LAW. Women don't have to demand anything. It's irrelevant whether anybody paid for their own BC under their old insurance, or whether 30 years ago nobody covered it. This is not even about birth control pills. This lawsuit was about HL wanting to be excluded from a law, that all other companies have to abide by, on religious grounds. The only people it effects, right now, are the 13,000 who work for HL and are having their right to freedom from religion, violated. That could change with this court ruling. You are right, it is about the law. And the over reaching tryrannical government that is imposing that law on businesses. But to listen to the femminists and the likes of Pelosi and Hillary, women are being thrown back into the stone ages and HL is ushering something worse than sharia law. The left seems to believe that no woman will be allowed access to BC now. It's horse shit and it's so degrading to me as a woman. And if you are as freaked out by the myriad of exemptions granted by Obama and his pen...then you should be standing with the SC on this, because the fact that the POTUS can pick and choose which parts of the laws to enforce and what favored groups he can exempt....is terrifying. EVERYONE should be exempt of he can't implement it the way it was written.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2014 12:50:04 GMT
You and I have a different interpretation of the Consitution - but the only one that really matters is the Supreme Court's interpretation - and well, they interpreted, didn't they? Well, they certainly didn't rule directly on freedom FROM religion, not yesterday, anyway. That's because there is no "freedom from" it's "freedom of" and I'm thankful that religious people are FREE to exercise their right!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 12:50:15 GMT
Ah, where's Mrs T. when you need her. She was our self proclaimed Constitutional expert. I'm sure she could sort things out for us ;* Because this isn't at all condescending is it?
(edited to add...one minute you're lecturing someone about being condescending, and literally, the very next minute, you're being condescending to someone else. Do you not see the pure awesomeness in this?)
Feels like home.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 2, 2014 12:52:02 GMT
I think people (mostly our lefty friends) have issues with Justkallie because regardless of where she's coming from, she certainly seems to know her shit. I don't see her posts as smug, pretentious, OR condescending but can certainly see how people on the left would feel that way simply because they don't like what she has to say. I think people on the left would love nothing more than to run her off of this board so that they no longer have to deal with what she has to say in a factual and intelligent way. Oh, I don't know, I thought that her little lecture on the Supreme Court was a tad condescending. "Remember, citizens, that Justice Kennedy is a dickens! You must persuade him!" i hope that she does stick around. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2014 12:55:18 GMT
I think people (mostly our lefty friends) have issues with Justkallie because regardless of where she's coming from, she certainly seems to know her shit. I don't see her posts as smug, pretentious, OR condescending but can certainly see how people on the left would feel that way simply because they don't like what she has to say. I think people on the left would love nothing more than to run her off of this board so that they no longer have to deal with what she has to say in a factual and intelligent way. Exactly. 100%
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 13:00:41 GMT
And this from Hillary...makes her look like a screeching fool.
“I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction,” Clinton said. “It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."
1) There are still 16 forms of contraception that an employee at Hobby Lobby can get through their healthcare plan.
2) Most forms of contraception is not "pretty expensive".
3) It's not true that HL doesn't think its employees should not be using contraception. There are just 4 that they don't want to pay for. Choose one of the other 16 or pay for it yourself. HL isn't stopping you from getting ANY contraception.
I know she's trying to rally a base of women with this war cry but her words are simply NOT TRUE.
Edited to add...I guess even $4 or $8 a month is "pretty expensive" when you come out of an 8 yr stint in the White House "dead broke".
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2014 13:05:41 GMT
Here's the actual text from our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The way I interpret it is to say Congress is not making ANY laws to respect the religion and that it should NOT be the reason for decisions being made such as the debacle of HL. Further, I believe HL is wrong in that they are choosing to prohibit certain BC methods as THEY interpret them to be "abortion" methods, which is wrong on their part. Once again, separation of church and state and all that. Our forefathers are rolling in their collective graves as we speak. Frankly, I think they'd be cheering. And your interpretation is wrong because you can't make stuff up about it. It clearly says that there will be no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof religion, and SCOTUS agreed citing Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was a product of DEMOCRATS. You gonna dismiss the views of all these people? Really?
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 13:06:39 GMT
You've obviously struck a nerve with some of our more outspoken liberals, Kallie; hence the name calling. Most of us find your comments to be thoughtful, well written and free of emotion. Since they can't argue with your logic, their only recourse is to try to dismiss your comments by calling you "smug" or "condescending". I thank you for your kind words, but trust me, I have marched to my own drummer long enough to not be bothered by those who resort to insult to get a point across. At the end of the day, the longer this thread progresses, the further it gets from the original intent. The Supreme Court struck a mandate down from the ACA that was found to be in violation of the Constitution and already enacted legislation. There will be people happy for religious, business and political reasons, and there will be people unhappy for political, health and women's rights issues, and there will be people like me who think that it was the right decision legally, but that the administration totally screwed this up and ramifications will be seen for many years an a new precedent that should have never made it to the court in the first place. The thing I always ask my kids - is this your Waterloo? Is this the issue where you are going to make your stand or "die trying"? To me, the administration made this mandate its Waterloo and was willing to risk it up to the Supreme Court - and guess what? We now have another ruling, besides Citizens United, that reinforces Corporate Personhood (which I do not agree with), which will make it that much harder to change because we have precedent times two. And to me, it wasn't the issue to make that stand, because I also agreed that the mandate was in violation of the Constitution. So, for me, it was a lesser of two evils - protect the rights of freedom of religion at the expense of reinforcing Corporate Personhood. I hardly feel like it is a 'win' - more like a draw. All I can say is this - I live in a land scarred by war both physically and emotionally. There were people who suffered and died under regimes where they had neither freedom nor a voice. If you want change, take your freedom and use it. It only takes one to get a ball rolling. Call your Congressman. Join your local civic league. Vote. Heck run for office! Exercise the freedom you have to do something about it.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2014 13:09:48 GMT
And this from Hillary...makes her look like a screeching fool.
“I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction,” Clinton said. “It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."
1) There are still 16 forms of contraception that an employee at Hobby Lobby can get through their healthcare plan.
2) Most forms of contraception is not "pretty expensive".
3) It's not true that HL doesn't think its employees should not be using contraception. There are just 4 that they don't want to pay for. Choose one of the other 16 or pay for it yourself. HL isn't stopping you from getting ANY contraception.
I know she's trying to rally a base of women with this war cry but her words are simply NOT TRUE.
Edited to add...I guess even $4 or $8 a month is "pretty expensive" when you come out of an 8 yr stint in the White House "dead broke". When is the last time she ate Ramen Noodles? Speeches at $250,000 a pop could get her a few packages...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:04:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 13:13:28 GMT
Here's the actual text from our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The way I interpret it is to say Congress is not making ANY laws to respect the religion and that it should NOT be the reason for decisions being made such as the debacle of HL. Further, I believe HL is wrong in that they are choosing to prohibit certain BC methods as THEY interpret them to be "abortion" methods, which is wrong on their part. Once again, separation of church and state and all that. Our forefathers are rolling in their collective graves as we speak. Well I suppose you need to petition to get on the Supreme Court because they disagreed with your interpretation. In addition, I believe our forefathers have been rolling in their collective graves for a while, including the implementation of the ACA in the first place. I don't at all believe that they felt every person HAD to have health insurance nor do I believe that they would agree that we should be forced to purchase a product or be taxed.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2014 13:28:07 GMT
Here's the actual text from our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The way I interpret it is to say Congress is not making ANY laws to respect the religion and that it should NOT be the reason for decisions being made such as the debacle of HL. Further, I believe HL is wrong in that they are choosing to prohibit certain BC methods as THEY interpret them to be "abortion" methods, which is wrong on their part. Once again, separation of church and state and all that. Our forefathers are rolling in their collective graves as we speak. Well I suppose you need to petition to get on the Supreme Court because they disagreed with your interpretation. In addition, I believe our forefathers have been rolling in their collective graves for a while, including the implementation of the ACA in the first place. I don't at all believe that they felt every person HAD to have health insurance nor do I believe that they would agree that we should be forced to purchase a product or be taxed. Yep.
|
|