Political Correctness -Conservative style

So since Rep. Nikkel voted her conscience and voted to be on the right side of history in voting to allow the legislation allowing civil unions regardless of sexual orientation to be voted on by the full house, she has been harassed by protesters at her church, greeted with billboards telling her that she is going to hell because of her vote, inundated with hate messages and tweets and further harassed by bigots who feel threatened by two people who want to be recognized by their commitment to each other. Guess conservatives feel she was not being "politically correct" according to their standards.

She had this to say:
again — not by protestors, but by a group of people celebrating her courage.
“I voted my conscience and I believe it was simply the right thing to do,” Nikkel said during a speech Thursday at the Jewish Community Relations Council’s “Leadership Luncheon” at Temple Emanuel where she was honored with the “Legislative Appreciation Award”.
“To me, the most timeless of conservative values is independence,” Nikkel continued. “And, the fact is — we are all Coloradans and giving equal protection under the law for those who do not have it is the fair thing to do.”
“I decided to support the civil unions bill because would’ve made life a little better for some people in our state,” Nikkel said Thursday. “During that process, I became acutely aware of the kind of intolerance and bigotry that some people possess. I saw it directed at the gay community and soon found a lot of it directed at me because of my decision to move the bill forward.”
A day after her vote, Nikkel recalled, she spoke on the House floor with Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Denver, whose grandparents were imprisoned during the Holocaust.
“I shared some of my experience with Rep. Kagan, of being bullied, maligned and intimidated through phone calls, messages, through emails and text messages — and even in person – from my own state senator.
“I told Rep. Kagan that a ‘connection’ — a light bulb clicked on in all of this and it finally dawned on me after my vote that I felt perhaps I finally understood just a tiny bit of the persecution that his grandparents — and the Jewish people – and those in the gay community, have gone through over time.”
http://kdvr.com/2012/05/17/gop-lawmaker ... -yes-vote/




Cheers for Rep. Nikkel. Too bad there are not more Republicans like her.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So since Rep. Nikkel voted her conscience and voted to be on the right side of history in voting to allow the legislation allowing civil unions regardless of sexual orientation to be voted on by the full house, she has been harassed by protesters at her church, greeted with billboards telling her that she is going to hell because of her vote, inundated with hate messages and tweets and further harassed by bigots who feel threatened by two people who want to be recognized by their commitment to each other. Guess conservatives feel she was not being "politically correct" according to their standards.

She had this to say:
again — not by protestors, but by a group of people celebrating her courage.
“I voted my conscience and I believe it was simply the right thing to do,” Nikkel said during a speech Thursday at the Jewish Community Relations Council’s “Leadership Luncheon” at Temple Emanuel where she was honored with the “Legislative Appreciation Award”.
“To me, the most timeless of conservative values is independence,” Nikkel continued. “And, the fact is — we are all Coloradans and giving equal protection under the law for those who do not have it is the fair thing to do.”
“I decided to support the civil unions bill because would’ve made life a little better for some people in our state,” Nikkel said Thursday. “During that process, I became acutely aware of the kind of intolerance and bigotry that some people possess. I saw it directed at the gay community and soon found a lot of it directed at me because of my decision to move the bill forward.”
A day after her vote, Nikkel recalled, she spoke on the House floor with Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Denver, whose grandparents were imprisoned during the Holocaust.
“I shared some of my experience with Rep. Kagan, of being bullied, maligned and intimidated through phone calls, messages, through emails and text messages — and even in person – from my own state senator.
“I told Rep. Kagan that a ‘connection’ — a light bulb clicked on in all of this and it finally dawned on me after my vote that I felt perhaps I finally understood just a tiny bit of the persecution that his grandparents — and the Jewish people – and those in the gay community, have gone through over time.”
http://kdvr.com/2012/05/17/gop-lawmaker ... -yes-vote/




Cheers for Rep. Nikkel. Too bad there are not more Republicans like her.

I wouldn't have voted in favor of civil unions, I would have gone to full marriage rights. There are a lot more conservatives who have no problem with this than you think... it's just that they can't afford to buy a political office.

Representatives are not elected to vote their personal conscience. They are elected to vote how the electorate desires.

Arlen wrote: Representatives are not elected to vote their personal conscience. They are elected to vote how the electorate desires.

Luckily some are able to rise above being just a sheep to become a leader.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Arlen wrote: Representatives are not elected to vote their personal conscience. They are elected to vote how the electorate desires.

Luckily some are able to rise above being just a sheep to become a leader.

They do not understand that they do not have the right to go against the will of their constituents. That is arrogant beyond forgiveness. But, again, they probably think that they are smarter than the voters.

We do not elect leaders, we elect representatives. Think about it.

So....if their constituents say they approve of gay marriage is their representative obligated to vote for gay marriage even if they are morally opposed to it? How about war...when the majority of Americans said they opposed the war in Iraq should Bush have pulled us out immediately?

Arlen wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Arlen wrote: Representatives are not elected to vote their personal conscience. They are elected to vote how the electorate desires.

Luckily some are able to rise above being just a sheep to become a leader.

They do not understand that they do not have the right to go against the will of their constituents. That is arrogant beyond forgiveness. But, again, they probably think that they are smarter than the voters.

We do not elect leaders, we elect representatives. Think about it.

"do not have the right to go against the will of their constituents"

What right? Is that some sort of law? And which of his his constituents, the majority, a minority? What if he is voted in by blatant racists? What if his constituents, because of some newly risen public opinion... are wrong? Is he legally obligated to follow their wishes?

A major difference between a republic and a democracy is immediacy. The Founders wanted laws made by representatives in order to put a buffer between popular passions and legislation. In a democracy, decisions are made in the heat of the moment, while periodic elections in a republic provide a cooling off period. To a great extent, democracies are ruled by feelings, while in a republic, the rule of law governs. In a republic, politicians can take principled actions that go against the will of many of their constituents with the knowledge that they will be judged by all the actions they take during their entire term in office. Political leaders are also given time to explain the reasons for their actions. [/b][/i]

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.co ... an-keep-it

What you speak of is a democracy... we don't have a democracy. If the majority does not like the decisions of a representative, you have a recourse.

Of course, if an elected official does something grievously offensive, then the voters can follow the advice of Alexander Hamilton, who in Federalist 21 wrote, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” When the people’s will is thwarted, regular elections give them the opportunity to dismiss their representatives and appoint new ones.

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.co ... an-keep-it

Think about it.

There are different types of rights. You have chosen only to highlight one definition.

We do not elect "benevolent kings".

And you choose to highlight any definition that will work for you when you agree with something or disagree with something as long as it suits your purpose.... And then turn around and try to cite global "dictionary" definitions that apply to all situations when it suits your purpose.

That's called "hypocrisy"....

Got it...

Arlen wrote: There are different types of rights. You have chosen only to highlight one definition.

We do not elect "benevolent kings".

We are talking about a Republican form of government and the foundational concepts that go along with it. The text I quoted above lays that out in very simple language... language developed and reiterated by our Founding Fathers.

Sorry Arlen... your proposition that representatives are somehow only obligated to vote their constituents is just plain wrong.