|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 2, 2014 14:26:44 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". Lauren you've been around long enough to know that most liberals on the NSBR quite enjoy debating politics with conservatives, even when we vehemently disagree. Kallie has struck of nerve because of her delivery. The fastest way to alienate others in these political discussions is to announce that you, and you alone, are the most well-read on a topic and that you, and you alone, have all of the FACTS - and that no one else who has read what you've read, and know what you know, could possibly come to a different conclusion. And that is what Kallie is doing, and it IS obnoxious. I've debating politics with many of you for a long, long time - minds and opinions may not change, but (for me at least) I've learned how to accept and respect different perspectives over time because the conversations are measured and couched under the mutually understood sentiment of "I believe this to be true because of X". What Kallie is stating is "This is FACT because I believe it to be" - it's a much more abrasive tone, and a disrespectful way to become a part of the conversation.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 2, 2014 14:26:50 GMT
Oh, c'mon. I disagree that liberals are trying to chase justkallie off the board. The detractors are reacting to both her tone and her assumptions about our knowledge base - just as I am. Honestly, I welcome a strong, informed conservative voice on this board. I look forward to reading the contributions of people like Jodster, Jonda, Lefty, and others with a similar discussion style. Sometimes they make me reconsider; if not, they help me understand. They don't make me want to dig my heels in deeper. THEY INFLUENCE ME. What IS the point of debate, if not that? (Well, there's competitive debating, I suppose, but there's no scoreboard here...unless Fairy Podmother wants to install one. ) But I'll say this for justkallie: she used a logical syllogism ("geometry proof"?) in an argument, which made my heart leap. (Don't think I'm not serious.) We need more logic here. But less snark, please. Maybe fewer civics lessons. But definitely more logic.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 2, 2014 14:41:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 2, 2014 14:50:12 GMT
Oh, c'mon. I disagree that liberals are trying to chase justkallie off the board. The detractors are reacting to both tone and her assumptions about our knowledge base - just as I am. I am the first one to admit that there are SO many things in this world that I do not know. However, one thing I do know? I do not appreciate being patronized-which is how I have felt reading some of the posts in this thread. I found it slightly insulting the assumptions about what I (we) know. I have actually learned some things on this thread that have led me to consider and reconsider my original opinions. I will be honest though, about the time I hit the post about the paying better attention to civics classes, the importance of the Supreme Court (and the judges on the bench) and why my vote counts, I almost laughed out loud. As I have said, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I get why who sits on the SC bench is important. I thought it a bit arrogant to making such a sweeping judgement about my (our) ability to understand why it matters. So no, not really thinking go away...more like thinking don't assume that we are all 1950's silly little housewives who have to be told how to vote or which laundry detergent to buy to please our man.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 14:57:11 GMT
You don't have to like what I say, but I disagree that there can ever be enough talk about Civics and civic responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jul 2, 2014 15:11:14 GMT
I was talking about Mirena, not copper coils. Mirena is not to be used as emergency contraception. But it can be, Who says it is not to be used? It works in exactly the same way as a copper IUD. Rather than having copper it had a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone it it. To say that it has the possibility of stopping sperm getting through the cervix is irrelevant when you need emergency contraception......the horse has already left the stable! All contraceptive coils work in the same way whether they have copper in them or progesterone as in the Mirena......which is to prevent the womb wall from thickening,therefore preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself. The same way that it's used to regulate and prevent heavy periods. the wall of the womb isn't so thick, therefore there's less to come away each month. So I can understand why they've included the IUD/IUS. There is the possibility that there could be a fertilized egg, not yet attached to the lining of the womb when someone needs emergency contraception. The point I'm trying to make about the Mirena is that it is not the same as the copper coil when inserted for traditional contraception. I understand it would work the same way as the copper coil if it were to be used as emergency contraception. You can do a quick Google and see that Mirena (an IUS) isn't to be used that way. So, as a traditional contraceptive, the Mirena doesn't work the same way as a coil. Plus there are many other therapeutic (medical) uses for the Mirena, thanks to the hormonal component. That's why I think it should be covered. I tried it myself for a medical reason, unfortunately it didn't work for me and I needed a hysterectomy.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2014 15:29:39 GMT
Sorry, Rebel, but other than you, every person on this thread who has complained that Kallie is condescending or is too strong in her delivery is or has been exactly the same in this thread or others. I-95, Lucy, Kelpea etc are equally condescending about their opinions and what *is* the right thing on every controversial issue. Their opinion is the correct one period, whether it's gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration or whatever. Anyone who doesn't think like they do is wrong, again, period. Some of us on the other side of issues are too, including me. Kallie is no more condescending or arrogant than anyone I've named in this post.
These people cannot call her a nut (like they call Skybar or Lynlam) or other names (like they do Enough) because she writes far too rationally. So instead, they call her condescending or arrogant. It's all an attempt to dismiss what she has to say because they disagree with it but really have no way to actually contradict what she says.
ETA.. wonder how long it will be before someone accuses me of being Kallie. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:37:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 16:06:12 GMT
Well, first of all, context is everything. Several of those quotes I am very familiar with, and they are taken out of context and twisted to mean something that they never meant. A favorite ploy of liberal bloggers. Secondly, not a single one of those quotes "infuriates" me, because I have educated myself on the founding fathers and the constitutional convention. I am awe of the men who wrote that document. They felt it was equally important to keep government out of religion as it was to keep religion out of government. But that is different from disconnecting entirely government from morals based in religion/belief in a God. For they believed (rightly) that only through the understanding that our liberty comes from a higher power and not a man made government, could we ever maintain and revere that freedom. Collusion between religion and government is not the same as "religious" morals being the basis of governing principles.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 2, 2014 16:09:38 GMT
You don't have to like what I say, but I disagree that there can ever be enough talk about Civics and civic responsibility. Honestly? I actually don't have an issue with what you say, and don't even necessarily disagree with some of what you are saying. (I have a background in history, in an area that requires a broad knowledge of how comparative governments operate so "civics" is kind of near and dear to my heart.) I do, however, have an issue with how you are saying it-or at least on that particular post. I just do not care for being patronized or seeing broad sweeping judgments about our abilities to understand the processes.
|
|
|
Post by gypsymama on Jul 2, 2014 16:43:14 GMT
^^agreed, especially someone who shows up out of the blue with no history and is very vague about herself... just rubs me the wrong way. i don't like being spoken to like i'm too stupid to breathe, that's not a conversation that's a lecture.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 2, 2014 17:15:39 GMT
" For they believed (rightly) that only through the understanding that our liberty comes from a higher power and not a man made government, could we ever maintain and revere that freedom."
Respectfully disagree, Lynlam. Historians are continuing to find evidence that many many many of our forefathers were NOT religious at all, and in fact were doing their damnedest to prevent religion from mixing with government.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 17:16:15 GMT
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!As are non-religious people. Non-religious people are not required to honor the tenets of the majority religion in this country. They get to decide on their own beliefs. We don't burn heretics anymore.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 2, 2014 17:27:51 GMT
Lauren, please note how many different conservatives and liberals have posted on this thread so far. We on the left have managed not to get pissy with you, Jenny, Lynlam, Rainbow, or anyone else that I recall besides Kallie. That doesn't mean we don't disagree with you. It means you are talking to us like normal people, not like a middle school civics teacher. Does she really think any political pea needs an explanation about how powerful the Supreme Court is or that getting involved is a good thing?
I registered to vote on the day I turned 18 and I haven't missed an election since. I have a degree in U.S. history from a major university. I know how to read and, contrary to what some of you may believe, I know how to reason things through. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 2, 2014 18:23:54 GMT
"including the implementation of the ACA in the first place." Where's the "beating a dead horse" emoticon when you need one because you already know from countless previous threads ACA was introduced by previous administrations?! Lol. And Lauren, I've been quite civil on this forum, dearie! heh heh. I've yet to even correspond with Eno; I mean, the new person you so admire. As Lucy has noted, none of us have really been disrespectful to ANYone on this forum. But I shall take your heed to heart. Thank ya!
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2014 19:54:48 GMT
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree. IMO, calling somebody condescending and arrogant is not have a civil discussion. And i think you know that. And I really think you're grasping at straws Lucy about the whole "what does she think she is, a civics teacher thing.". But, it's clear that Kallie can take care of herself. She's articulate, knowledgeable and firm in her ideas. And she's got the most necessary characteristic for interacting with this board; a thick skin.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2014 20:03:28 GMT
Why in the world does she have to tell you anything about herself in order to post or express her opinion?
|
|
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 21:12:36 GMT
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! As are non-religious people. Non-religious people are not required to honor the tenets of the majority religion in this country. They get to decide on their own beliefs. We don't burn heretics anymore. You are right, you don't have to honor the tenets of any religion, and by the same token religious people are free to honor the tenets of their religion. Win-win.
|
|
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 21:15:27 GMT
Why in the world does she have to tell you anything about herself in order to post or express her opinion? She knows how the peas are and is smart enough to keep her private life away from here.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 2, 2014 21:39:53 GMT
Why in the world does she have to tell you anything about herself in order to post or express her opinion? She doesn't have to tell us a thing about herself, of course not. However, she claimed not to live in the US, so I think people are going to wonder just how much she knows about American politics, and why she has such a vested interest. And again - you've been around long enough (and talking politics with us all long enough) to know that we all get a bit...skeptical?...when a brand-new pea comes charging in with very specific opinions and lectures the board on history, civics, and government. It wouldn't go over well with a liberally skewed pea, and it's not going over well with a conservative one in this case. There are a lot of smart women who participate in these discussions, and acting as though one is THE authority doesn't score any points.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 2, 2014 21:42:04 GMT
I don't worry about points. I know what I know and I am comfortable in my own skin. I don't need to impress anyone and you can disregard what I have to say. But that doesn't mean I have to share any information about me, and given some crazy people on another thread, I think that is a very wise decision...
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 2, 2014 22:07:23 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. Too bad this law (actually, it's a TAX according to the 2011 SCOTUS ruling) creates so much entanglement with Constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps the SCOTUS should have done better and ruled the entire mandate unconstitutional. It was a slippery slope to begin with and it's only going to get worse. And I agree entirely with Lynlam. You can't demand that the government and your employer take charge of covering your health care and then demand they stay out of your health care choices. Either you're empowered and liberated and responsible for your own body and your own choices, or you hand over that responsibility and power and sacrifice your liberty in order to have your health care mandated by your government and paid for by your employer.
|
|
ingrid
Full Member
Posts: 490
Jun 26, 2014 0:52:41 GMT
|
Post by ingrid on Jul 2, 2014 22:39:57 GMT
I know plenty of lawyers who spend the bulk of their time or live in another country because they work for humanitarian aid organizations and overseas corporations, so I just assumed that could be the case with her.
Whether or not people appreciate her delivery, the stuff she's said is pretty spot-on. Especially as far as encouraging people to educate themselves about the laws and amendments that influened the ruling in question.
It isn't as simple as trotting out the first amendment to justify feeling like this is all wrong. The Constitution is a living, ambiguous document and things like strict scrutiny need to be understood on some level to understand if a ruling is just or not. I'm not saying I'm a fan of what's happened or that I am, but people seem to be interpreting acts and amendments solely motivated to make their case and out of context and oversimplifying the whole thing. It just doesn't work that way and it's why I have a lot of respect for people who understand our judicial system so well.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:37:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 22:40:28 GMT
"Respectfully disagree, Lynlam. Historians are continuing to find evidence that many many many of our forefathers were NOT religious at all, and in fact were doing their damnedest to prevent religion from mixing with government." ---------
I am not disputing that. They all wishes to see religion and government remain separate. All of them. They knew what happened when the two colluded. Nothing good, and liberty was crushed.
There is a difference between being religious and believing in a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive. I believe almost all of our FFs believed in a higher power and believed that society must be founded upon a knowledge that all rights and repsonsibilities come from a power higher than a man made government.
It is indisputable that they drew from many ancient documents and tenants when drafting our founding documents. Christianity was in the forefront. Not because they thought everyone should be Christian, but because those tenets were most compatible with the tenents of human liberty.
|
|
|
Post by dynalady on Jul 2, 2014 23:02:37 GMT
Those tenents are not, however, exclusive to Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 2, 2014 23:10:35 GMT
"Whether or not people appreciate her delivery, the stuff she's said is pretty spot-on."
Spot on, according to the 5 that ruled in her preferred favor. But here's the thing - there isn't a clear "right" or "wrong" in this case because the heart of the matter is ideological. One person - ONE judge - decided the way this ruling would go. You have four very educated individuals on the right, and 4 on the left, who know our judicial system inside and out, and they came to entirely separate conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Jul 2, 2014 23:23:18 GMT
you make a very good point, Rebel, which is why I mentioned the 5-4 numbers at the beginning of this thread.
|
|
ingrid
Full Member
Posts: 490
Jun 26, 2014 0:52:41 GMT
|
Post by ingrid on Jul 2, 2014 23:28:07 GMT
I probably could have been clearer. I meant that in the face of being questioned about where she lives and her level of investment, she has a handle on how or when certain rights or laws are applied to reach a decision like this one. Obviously, we aren't all attorneys or political science professors here, which is totally fine. Maybe even preferable on a social level But in comparison to some of the comments I've seen here on both sides of the issue, she seems to have a more accurate understanding on how the law is applied in these cases and has based her opinion off of 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 23:46:50 GMT
Just the name of the link tells me it's childish and full of BS.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 2, 2014 23:52:42 GMT
Interestingly, it was a 5-4 decision as well that voted in favor of prohibiting the ten commandments being displayed in courtrooms. Not to mention the ACA rulings previously mentioned. It's interesting to me, that "legislating from the bench" has always seemed a tea party cry and now, when the issue is on the other side....
I'll trust the process, as it is the best process we have. Three branches. All equal. Check and balance. Some of us will like some decisions. Some of us won't. But the process of majority decisions are just that. Majority decisions. They are what we operate under now. Doesn't mean it won't be challenged or changed in the future. I agree with Rebel, in that, there is no right or wrong, and it is interpretation. As are all the decisions in my mind of the SCOTUS. Their interpretation. It's what they do. We all can whine, thrash and have opinions, but at the end of the day, that's the framework we operate under. And well, I'll take it because its worked pretty good so far.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 2, 2014 23:59:50 GMT
a dangerous decision, considering the fact that this could lead to ignorant decisions regarding blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc. It's a domino effect that I would venture many have not considered. ---------- And this would be challenged as well. Probably all the way up at some point and then further clarified. All decisions, either from SCOTUS, President, Congress, have implications. Some intended, some unintended. I mean for goodness sake. Look at some of the unintended consequences of the ACA. Slippery slope arguments hold value only to the point of risk in my mind. That's the process. If the risk proves true, and at some point deemed unconstitutional, then it will also be ruled on, because people with push back. Again. The process. I trust it. ETA: because at the end of the day....what else do we have? Argue it out on digital media?
|
|