Scalia On '60 Minutes'

A. Crowley · #**171** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 11:56 PM

"Mr. Crowley. I am a bit disapointed that you started without me regarding your question of what is a patriot. I see that you have not shared your opinion yet so I assume that our deal is still on.

When you posed your question I was thinking that I would provide you with a long winded answer but it does not require it.
I do not think it as simple as the Definition that amazed as shared though it is short and sweet. While true it is one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests. The intersests of a country include the people who live there. All the people, whether you agree or disagree with them, regarless of their religion or color or beleifs. In the US, unless you are a native american, you came from some other land. We all live here. Some want change and some want it to stay the same. But we all need to respect each other and stand up for each other against those that wish to harm our our fellow country men.
This includes protecting our way of life wich includes protecting resources needed to sustain that way of life (such as oil). If this means we must rattle swords then so be it. We can prevent this from occuring by reducing our need for oil and depending on ourselves. But a patriot will let it be known that you screw with us, resources that we need we will drop bombs on your hut. But now I am getting into perhaps another areas of discussion.
A patriot does not necessarly follow blindly. It is not necisarilly my country wright or wrong. Our country has made mistakes before, currenly and will make them in the future. A patriot will question stances his country takes and actions taken. But when it get down to it the patriot will defend any fellow countrymen against harm from others."

No argument here, citizen.

nosmoke · #**172** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 12:48 AM

crawly=polesmoking raghead.

Jetblast · #**173** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 12:52 AM

Notice they couldn't answer simple points about the right's damage to the Constitution without diverting the argument, once again, to overly vague overviews that never attempt to answer my points.

Dom1 · #**174** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

True, but what about the other way. The right calls democrats unpatriotic and terrorists. Is that ok? Scalia calls non orginalists "idiots." Robertson calls them homos. Both sides do it.

What did we learn as children before we learned we were democrats or republicans? Two wrongs don't make a right. If you dont have anything nice to say.

What is the effect of people calling names all the time?

I don't call Democrats unpatriotic nor to I call them terrorists.

What is the effect of calling the "other side" names? I don't call all on the other side names, just the looney far left. They deserve it. IMO they are fucking idiots. I offer no retractions for that statement. As for the effect, I don't look for any, I am just being honest, no effect is needed by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

Even though we have had nobel laureates who were liberal. We have rhodes scholars who are liberal. We have had presidents who were liberal. Religious leaders who were liberal.

ALL of them share this trait you speak of.

I don't think all republicans share a single trait.

I'm liberal though, so I must be, "Much like an abuser who uses others to try and make himself feel better"?

Wouldn't that make the Republicans the Big Tent party then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARK

radical left wing fuckheads

Yep. Although I didnt' really need to add the fuckheads part, because the radical left wing part indicated that they were already fuckheads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Second, what has Scalia done to destroy the Constitution?

Yeah, haven't heard that yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

Notice they couldn't answer simple points about the right's damage to the Constitution without diverting the argument, once again, to overly vague overviews that never attempt to answer my points.

Simple question? You were asked a simple question of how Scalia destroyed the Constitution. If the argument is how Scalia is destroyong the Constitution then shouldn't you be able to tell how he is doing so?

smart makes a comeback · #**175** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 10:09 AM

No need to overcomplicate things when it comes to Scalia.
Everyone has been looking for some deep philosophical tendency since the day he was nominated, and those who do are looking way too deep

. While he obviously had the capacity to absorb enough to pass the bar exam, his success was achieved not because of his legal prowess, but because he was an urban ethnic catholic, who could parrot the principles of textual interpretation to the tee. To those of the right wing extremist ilk, he was a prize pig token. Once again, this ability was not based on great aptitude, it was based in his inability to look any further that paper thin coating of Constitutional questions.

Scalia is clearly a bitter angry man, who is obviously educated far beyond his natural intelligence, and his decisions read as such in spades

That bitterness and lack of inborn intellect however is was just the combination the right always looks for in the judiciary

This makes the fact that Clearance Thomas has attached himself to Scalia hip, all the more pathetic. The token nit seems, has found his own token

Super Patriot · #**176** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

No need to overcomplicate things when it comes to Scalia.
Everyone has been looking for some deep philosophical tendency since the day he was nominated, and those who do are looking way too deep

. While he obviously had the capacity to absorb enough to pass the bar exam, his success was achieved not because of his legal prowess, but because he was an urban ethnic catholic, who could parrot the principles of textual interpretation to the tee. To those of the right wing extremist ilk, he was a prize pig token. Once again, this ability was not based on great aptitude, it was based in his inability to look any further that paper thin coating of Constitutional questions.

Scalia is clearly a bitter angry man, who is obviously educated far beyond his natural intelligence, and his decisions read as such in spades

That bitterness and lack of inborn intellect however is was just the combination the right always looks for in the judiciary

This makes the fact that Clearance Thomas has attached himself to Scalia hip, all the more pathetic. The token nit seems, has found his own token

INTERPRETATION: Scalia is a conservative so he's either dumb or somehow flawed as a human being.

...and you libs still insist on tolerance. Seems to me you tolerate everything except those who disagree with your collectivist, defeatist, anti-American bilge.

smart makes a comeback · #**177** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super Patriot

INTERPRETATION: Scalia is a conservative so he's either dumb or somehow flawed as a human being.

...and you libs still insist on tolerance. Seems to me you tolerate everything except those who disagree with your collectivist, defeatist, anti-American bilge.

Not even close to what I said...did you even read it ?

First off, lets get the terms correct:

Scalia is NOT a Conservative. A REAL (pre 1980) "Conservative" would detest all Scalia stands for. In all of Politics today, the number of actual " CONSERVATIVES" could fit in a mid size banquet room

Textual interpretation is NOT Conservatism or even constructionist. It is in fact, the ultimate practice of "Judicial activism" and "Legislating from the bench" that those of Scalia's ilk claim to oppose. (IE, the creation of a new law to decide a presidentail election)

Second:
If you dont beleive both Scalai and Thomas are two of the right wingers prize pig tokens, I have some ocean front property in Iowa to sell you

Amazed · #**178** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

Notice they couldn't answer simple points about the right's damage to the Constitution without diverting the argument, once again, to overly vague overviews that never attempt to answer my points.

You never asked any questions Jet, you made statements based on a waroed view of reality, then launched into name calling when you didn't get the responses YOU thought you should have gotten.

Amazed · #**179** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 11:23 AM

How and where and in what manner did you serve to protect my liberty?

Please explain....

I find it curious that people like this want others to divulge all kinds of info when they don't like the responses they get to their direct attacks.

Crowley, I was in the Army....I wore the Uniform, you owe people like me for your Freedom. We protected yor "Right" to be exactly what you are...bothers you, doesn't it? To owe a debt to what you detest so much?

smart makes a comeback · #**180** (**permalink**) 05-10-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazed

How and where and in what manner did you serve to protect my liberty?

Please explain....

I find it curious that people like this want others to divulge all kinds of info when they don't like the responses they get to their direct attacks.

Crowley, I was in the Army....I wore the Uniform, you owe people like me for your Freedom. We protected yor "Right" to be exactly what you are...bothers you, doesn't it? To owe a debt to what you detest so much?

Actually, you owe ME for the cost of you hiding in the military, because you couldnt make it in the real world

You got a new pair of shoes, food and a paycheck, and you learned when and how to wipe your ass, all by sucking the Governments right tit....no one owes you squat