General Discussion

herding cats

(20,051 posts)

76. Intentional or not, their posts here are condescending.

Sun Jul 6, 2014, 09:25 PM

Jul 2014

To assume we cannot understand the larger picture of what is taking place, when they haven't even begun to touch on the full ramifications of this ruling, is insulting. I touched on the reasons why it was in all our best interest to hold Hobby Lobby culpable in my post they replied to above. They ignored my words and replied with a comment which skirted the real issue and addressed something not in question. Never touching on their false assertion that protesting at the SCOTUS would have been more effective, ignoring my reasons why they wouldn't have cared. I agree, that's insulting and crap.

For the most part I believe more of those active here have better political activist history than the majority of those who bother to turn out to vote. We are the people who care, who volunteer our time and know what needs to be done to create change in our government. We may disagree on some matters, but the SC is one issue we seem to be by majority be united on. This OP is either preaching to the wrong group, or as you said is just insulting crap. We'll keep on doing what's right and working our fingers to the bone to change things. It's just another day in another election cycle, and there's work to be done.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sorry but I want to scold you. [View all] zeemike Jul 2014 OP

Thank you... theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #1

Yep, what she said. Small Accumulates Jul 2014 #2

Well I knew it would draw anger. zeemike Jul 2014 #3

Sure you would. theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #5

I do not think a figurative call to arms against creeping fascism should deserve such derision. Fred Sanders Jul 2014 #9

That's not the problem. Like she said, it's the condescension that's at issue. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #68

Good luck doing it your way yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #10

Yes, let me know when you've scheduled that protest at the steps of the SC theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #12

I never said the OPs way is right yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #15

Thanks for the "heads up" Lifelong Protester Jul 2014 #4

Well I am not here to tell anyone what to do. zeemike Jul 2014 #13

I for one... liberalmuse Jul 2014 #6

Well this is not about women. zeemike Jul 2014 #55

All 5 justices in the majority decision were male. 3 of the 4 dissenting justices were female. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #69

Don't you get it, the very real outcome of this discriminatory ruling against women boston bean Jul 2014 #72

It certainly isn't hurting the "larger cause" of fighting encroaching theocracy. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #74

I think the Godwin reference has hidden truths about those who seek to influence the conversation Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #109

Very true. n/t nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #112

+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #100

Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #7

Self-Delete. liberalmuse Jul 2014 #14

*ahem* Texasgal Jul 2014 #8

You seem to treat them as if they were actually persons. zeemike Jul 2014 #20

HL made it personal Texasgal Jul 2014 #22

And look where playing nice got us theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #28

If Middle America is truly on the side of the theocrats - which is by no means a sure thing - then nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #70

You have your point, although it doesn't seem to be shared by many. randome Jul 2014 #11

Again though, punishing the wrong people. zeemike Jul 2014 #23

Yes but the SCOTUS is the SCOTUS. randome Jul 2014 #26

Well protest is more about media attention than shaping what the court does. zeemike Jul 2014 #64

LOL! Sheldon Cooper Jul 2014 #16

That reminds me of someone I know. zeemike Jul 2014 #52

Hobby Lobby seeks to benefit by a flawed SCOTUS decision. madamesilverspurs Jul 2014 #17

Civil rights activists shouldn't have sat at lunch counters boston bean Jul 2014 #27

Well I guess you missed the point of that one then. zeemike Jul 2014 #50

Yes ... chipping away at the rights of women ... LisaLynne Jul 2014 #18

Yep, tell those wimmin to sit down and we'll tell them how it's done theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #24

yup mercuryblues Jul 2014 #59

That... and we stopped asking for permission. theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #63

fer sure mercuryblues Jul 2014 #65

+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #101

There's more than one villain. jeff47 Jul 2014 #19

Well of course you are right. zeemike Jul 2014 #29

That's a really desperate attempt to exonerate Hobby Lobby. jeff47 Jul 2014 #77

O fuck that shit, I am not defending HL... zeemike Jul 2014 #80

The solution is to get better at writing. jeff47 Jul 2014 #82

Unpopular ideas will always be misunderstood. zeemike Jul 2014 #107

That's a rather lame cop-out. jeff47 Jul 2014 #108

Well pardon me for not coming up to the writing skills of Jonathon Swift. zeemike Jul 2014 #111

Corporations are not people...thats the sign and bottom line... Drew Richards Jul 2014 #21

Yep, that is the best one. zeemike Jul 2014 #30

Rather like the message on this sign... theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #35

And yet, 90% of this forum use the personal relative pronoun "who" for corporations, Art_from_Ark Jul 2014 #96

Sorry, but I don't think you are sorry Curmudgeoness Jul 2014 #25

Oh yes they did. zeemike Jul 2014 #32

So you're not sorry for scolding us like we were children? theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #36

It sounds like you are calling HL the victim here. Curmudgeoness Jul 2014 #37

+1 theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #38

No they are the complainant...there is no victim in a civil case. zeemike Jul 2014 #61

Lemme raise a couple of points here. Jackpine Radical Jul 2014 #31

Yes, it was Hobby Lobby that initiated the lawsuit zeemike Jul 2014 #42

Disagree..."HL" SHOULD BE PUBLICLY SHAMED! KoKo Jul 2014 #49

I take it it's not me you're disagreeing with. Jackpine Radical Jul 2014 #51

"Stories like this don't come with only one villain." Well said. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #73

This is part of HL's brand now. xfundy Jul 2014 #33

Hobby Lobby isn't responsible for being the tool used bring down the BC mandate in the ACA? herding cats Jul 2014 #34

Well elections is what this is about. zeemike Jul 2014 #47

I've no idea what your reply means. herding cats Jul 2014 #58

We shouldn't be bothering our pretty little heads with things like politics theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #66

Intentional or not, their posts here are condescending. herding cats Jul 2014 #76

+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #97

I think folks might be shooting at what they can aim. The court is not realistically addressed by TheKentuckian Jul 2014 #39

I Really Want to Write A Reply to You Which Would Get Hidden, However. dballance Jul 2014 #40

It is exactly for you that I wrote the warning. zeemike Jul 2014 #44

And it's exactly for YOU that I wrote the response. dballance Jul 2014 #45

Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #98

Hold it. Is this what's called "mansplaining"? MohRokTah Jul 2014 #41

Actually I just heard that word for the first time yesterday. zeemike Jul 2014 #43

THIS is the very definition of "mansplaining" smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #99

Thanks, that was real helpful. LeftyMom Jul 2014 #46

SCOTUS isn't susceptible to public opinion BainsBane Jul 2014 #48

I personally think putting HL out of business along with massive protests Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #53

Well that is a great goal. zeemike Jul 2014 #56

Well chick-fil was one level, this is a real different level. Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #57

Many successful boycotts in our history... why would is this one specifically doomed? LanternWaste Jul 2014 #84

Well lets look at the first one and judge for yourself. zeemike Jul 2014 #86

And the others are dismissed due to their inconvenience to your premise. LanternWaste Jul 2014 #90

Well I guess you did not get that the scolding was tung in cheek. zeemike Jul 2014 #91

Hence, the successful boycotts did not negatively impact the liberal brand in these instances...? LanternWaste Jul 2014 #92

Well it did not negatively impact it because zeemike Jul 2014 #93

so a successful boycott always has a negative result for the boycotter? LOL. And you think you bettyellen Jul 2014 #95

The sandwich guy TOTALLY backed down and he said as much. MADem Jul 2014 #102

This message was self-deleted by its author taterguy Jul 2014 #54

Protesters couldn't get close enough to the Supreme Court to make a difference. MADem Jul 2014 #60

Protests are pass� GeorgeGist Jul 2014 #62

I clicked on this thread and could not believe it! Generic Brad Jul 2014 #67

I will accept a scolding but I think I disagree. Protesting at the SCOTUS will rhett o rick Jul 2014 #71

Well we shall see if it hurts their bottom line. zeemike Jul 2014 #79

I see your point. Make it a media event maybe to energize Democrats to GOTV. nm rhett o rick Jul 2014 #81

Exactly greatlaurel Jul 2014 #83

People's anger clouds their judgement Harmony Blue Jul 2014 #75

Really. You think the public is unfamiliar with birth control. jeff47 Jul 2014 #78

thank you- cannot believe how people pretend to not get it. bettyellen Jul 2014 #94

No it's not, it's exactly right. ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #85

Not at all unbearable. zeemike Jul 2014 #88

*sigh* ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #89

both HL and SCOTUS were wrong fishwax Jul 2014 #87

But, Hobby Lobby is not blameless. Neither is any corporation merrily Jul 2014 #103

I like the later, psychedelic beatles better Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #104

Is that what they were saying? zeemike Jul 2014 #106

Chastisement received. defacto7 Jul 2014 #105

Go scold yourself. Tanuki Jul 2014 #110