This is why you can’t talk to liberals:
In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision this week,
The Daily Kos posted
this article which showed up in my Facebook feed the next day with the
comment, “Okay Bible-thumpers, answer me this:”; the title of the Kos article
is “What if a Muslim Company Used the ‘Hobby Lobby’ Decision to Impose Its
Values on White Christians?”
Always up for a challenge, I clicked on the article
thinking I would read it and then respond to the Facebook query.
The first line of the article says:
The slide towards American theocracy was nudged one more step forward by today's Supreme Court decision in support of the "freedom" of corporations with "religious" beliefs to restrict the rights of their employees. In essence, religious "beliefs" trump the obligations, rights, and responsibilities that come with being members of the polity and a broader political community.
That sentence alone was as far as I had to
read.
Absolutely no one’s rights were restricted by the
Hobby Lobby decision. Period. Anyone that wants them can still go out and
purchase abortifacients if they want to.
The Hobby Lobby decision did not ban the drugs.
So, I responded to the person who posted the article
in my feed, I'll call her Miss Liberal, and simply said:
“The first line of the article says the decision ‘restricts the rights’ of the employees, which is erroneous. No employee rights are restricted. They can all go buy whatever abortifacients they want. The decision just means that the employer is not forced to buy them. Because the first line is a lie, the rest of the article means nothing.”
Am I wrong?
The response I got from Miss Liberal was:
“It does restrict the rights of employees that you do not comprehend does not make it erroneous” [sic]
(We’ll leave the issue of her grammar aside; I'll quit putting [sic] out there; you get the idea)
I don’t usually take the liberal bait, but I was a
passenger in a car zooming down the interstate and had nothing else to do besides
look at cows, so I thought, “Why not?”
I wrote:
“What rights are restricted?”
Response:
“Insurance was created as a way for employers to pay you less this allows employers to pay you less and give you less access to healthcare because they don’t BELIEVE in certain medications and what things they might be used for What and Why my doctor prescribes me medication Is no one’s fucking business except mine and my doctor’s.”
Uhhhmmmm, okay.
I’m shaking my head on that one.
Unwilling to get drawn into the weeds on the origins
and purpose of insurance, I’m sticking to my original question; I wrote:
“But can women still buy abortifacients?”
Simple enough, right?
Miss Liberal’s response:
“It’s none of your business what my doctor prescribes me”
(Apparently Miss Liberal doesn’t believe in end
punctuation.)
Again, trying to keep her on the path, I wrote:
“Not talking about you – I mean women in general. My point is that benefits and rights are not the same thing. Nobody’s rights have been taken away.”
Clear enough?
I’m trying to be non-hostile here, and to keep her on the original
question.
Miss Liberal’s response?
“you cannot see the forest for the trees.”
It’s killing me not to critique the grammar, but I
persevere.
It’s at this point that she begins to copy/paste her
comment about “Insurance was created…”.
Twice.
So I said,
“Is a person forced to work for Hobby Lobby? Does one still have the choice to choose a job with the benefit package they want?”
Miss Liberal:
“you’re an idiot”
She copy/pastes the insurance comment again. It’s getting funny now, really.
So I try one last time:
“So you can’t tell me what rights were taken away from me yesterday?
Miss Liberal:
“no. I just did. Twice. but you don’t have high enough order thinking skills to understand it. I’m sorry, honey. I’ll keep thinking on how to break it down for you.”
I can’t stand it anymore so I’m ready to get out of
this dialogue. I said:
“LMAO, okay. But you don’t have the higher order thinking skills to explain what single right the Supreme Court stripped from women yesterday. You’re assuming insurance is a ‘right’ rather than a benefit. A woman still has the ability to purchase the same drugs as before the decision.”
Miss Liberal:
“again I am sorry you cannot see what I’m trying to say it’s not thinking skills, kiddo it’s communication skills talking to idiots takes a lot of work”
My final comment:
“Amen to that.”
I left the conversation on that one.
The next comment that showed up in the feed was from
one of Miss Liberal’s liberal friends who posted a vulgar picture of a woman’s
spread legs and a one-fingered salute at her vagina with the caption: "A message to Republicans from women voters.”
And the next comment (because I continued to lurk a
bit after I quit commenting) was from another of Miss Liberal’s friends:
“This guy screaming about ‘abortifacients is cracking me up! What a loon! Lol!”
And yet another shows up and begins to complain
about “the All-Male Supreme Court” who “has implanted their demon seed into the
minds of conservatives everywhere…”
Oh, my.
I can’t even begin to go there. By the end of the dialogue they had everything but UFO's in there.
I know better than to try and talk to a liberal; I
really do. But, like I said, I was
killing time on the interstate and this one just looked so easy. Low hanging fruit. Obviously I never did get Miss Liberal to
answer the question as to what constitutional right was taken away, or even restricted, by the Hobby
Lobby decision. The usual liberal M.O.
is to resort to profanity and insults, in my experience, but I guess I still
keep hoping I can get through to one or two of them every now and then.
Not this time, I’m afraid.
