02 Jul 2014

Some Salt in Liberals’ Hobby Lobby Wounds

, ,

AngryLib
Angry Lib

Kevin D. Williamson rubs it in.

So, liberal friends and neighbors, how’s everybody liking their one-size-fits-all, federally dominated model of health care this week? A wee bit less than you were liking it Monday morning, I’d wager. I understand, completely: Most of my problems are of my own making, too, so no judgment, no gloating, no schadenfreude (okay, maybe just a taste — dang, that felt good!), because I understand how these mistakes get made. You’re naturally inclined to want to put government in charge of everything because you forget — wishful thinking, maybe? — that there are a whole lot of us knuckle-dragging right-wingers in the world, and, every now and then, we’re going to win one.

I’m trying to be charitable, here, but I really can’t see how you keep failing to learn that lesson. I remember the presidency of George W. Bush, which wasn’t that long ago, and you people went macadamias-and-almonds over a few signing statements. But then — poof! — you decided that the president could unilaterally amend federal legislation on the fly, set aside great swaths of it, and effectively have Congress deputize him to fill in the blanks on a half-finished piece of legislation passed in a frenzy. Now that that precedent has been established, I invite you to think of a Republican president in 2017 named Rick; you can pick your own surname, but I guarantee that you will not think of one that’s going to make you happy.

In the wake of the Hobby Lobby case, suddenly liberals are wising up to the fact that it’s kind of stupid to have your health insurance tied to your employer who may — get this — have a whole different set of financial incentives and values than you yourself have. That’s not just obvious — it’s John McCain obvious. I myself like Sarah Palin, but I know how you guys feel about her, so sit down for a minute and quietly chew over the fact that the guy who put Sarah Palin on the 2008 Republican ticket figured out that employer-based health insurance was a bad idea a long time before it started dawning on you guys. …

[I]f a lot of mostly voluntary participation is a good thing, then universal and mandatory participation is an excellent thing, thus the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. But progressives are so used to getting their way in court that they sometimes forget that there are other laws, and that some of them, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by a near-unanimous Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton, are pretty plain. It’s hard to see how anybody familiar with both the English language and the text of the RFRA could have been surprised by the Hobby Lobby decision, but the Left was deliciously unhinged to such an extent that conservatives could very well have whiled away the afternoon mixing martinis out of their tears. (If that were the sort of people we were.) (Come to think of it . . . )

Read the whole thing.

StumbleUpon.com
4 Feedbacks on "Some Salt in Liberals’ Hobby Lobby Wounds"

SDD

My favorite response so far is Patty Murray (arguably the dimmest bulb in the Senate). She railed against the RFRA, WHICH SHE VOTED FOR in 1993. Uh, Patty, I guess you had to pass the law to see what was in it?



GoneWithTheWind

A caller into Rush the other day pointed out that Chuck Schumer sponsered the RFRA in response to a SCOTUS decision that Indians didn’t have a religious right to do peyote. The left was outraged because: 1. They were Indians and thus a protected group and 2. it’s drugs another left wing shrine. So the whole purpose of the RFRA was to poke a finger in the eye of SCOTUS for a right wing ruling. Isn’t it ironic that the Hobby Lobby issue so neatly fit the same law the left voted for unanimously when they wanted to show how wrong SCOTUS had been. The RFRA left SCOTUS no other choice.



Orcadrvr

Both of the above comments, and the article, are very well thought out and logical.
Unfortunately, logic cannot penetrate the force field of liberal emotion.
It is simply impossible to get past their emotional reactions; therefore, it is usually a complete waste of time to try to appeal to them on a logical basis.
Unfortunately, I cannot come up with any other way to get them to listen. Basically, I will only engage them in debate if there is someone listening who might have an open mind: Otherwise, it is just a waste of time.



SDD

Liberals are for choice. But only with respect to abortions.
Liberals are against discrimination. Except when it benefits one of their preferred classes.
Liberals are for diversity. Except diversity of opinion.
Liberals are for foreign interventions. Except when those interventions serve the interests of the United States.
Liberals think the tenth amendment does not apply. Except to whether states can legalize drugs or homosexual marriage.
Liberals think tolerance is a virtue. Except for conservative opinion.



Comments

Please Leave a Comment!




Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.













Feeds
Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark