http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reported-dead.html/
It's amazing how one man's death can potentially turn the tide of so much. With several cases going before the Supreme Court this year regarding things like abortion, this leaves a vacancy that could really affect the U.S. political climate for a long time.
Sad as it is, I won't shed a tear. But I'll keep my criticism of this guy for another time.
And the senate will refuse to do their job to confirm anyone Obama nominates.. Time to GOTV Democrats..
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2016, 05:30:35 PM
Sad as it is, I won't shed a tear. But I'll keep my criticism of this guy for another time.
This is bringing out my morbid side.. I'm glad the scum sucking turd is gone. I have absolutely no regrets about his passing..
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2016, 05:30:35 PM
Sad as it is, I won't shed a tear. But I'll keep my criticism of this guy for another time.
Yeah, as someone else said, when trying to find something nice to say about the guy, Twitter's 140 character limit suddenly seems enormous.
I'm sorry for the Koch brothers' loss, and also curious to see who Obama has in mind for a replacement. The upcoming docket has a lot of really interesting cases. The one nearest and dearest to my heart is the case surrounding Texas' HB2 which shut down almost all the abortion clinics in the state. I think they're also set to hear arguments on cases dealing with campaign finance and affirmative action.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2016, 05:30:35 PM
Sad as it is, I won't shed a tear. But I'll keep my criticism of this guy for another time.
Sad???? Not for me! He is the poster child for not allowing the Supreme Court to a life time appointment. This is great news! I am only sorry that he did not pass 15 years ago!
YES! YES! YES! YES!
:06: :08: :103: :13: :1rij: :25: :49: :85: :bravo_2: :clap: :d030: :dance: :djparty: :rotflmao: :singing:
AND I REALLY REALLY WISH THERE WAS A HELL SO HE COULD ROT IN IT.
To bad that Clarence Thomas wasn't found dead with him in a death embrace..
The senate will refuse to confirm whomever Obama appoints, hoping to win in November. Which makes this presidential election all the more important.
Holy fuck. Now what?!
Will Obama be able to appoint who he wants or will there be a stalemate for a year?!! Holy fuck. Holy fuck. Holy fuck.
I'm sad that he died. But at the same time, the guy was a goddamn nutcase. Take a gander (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/06/8-of-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-s-wildest-comments.html).
The real shame is that we had to wait on the Grim Reaper to get him out of that chair.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 13, 2016, 06:44:08 PM
Holy fuck. Now what?!
Will Obama be able to appoint who he wants or will there be a stalemate for a year?!! Holy fuck. Holy fuck. Holy fuck.
From what I've been skimming around the interwebs, it seems like a lot of people think the Senate will hold off appointing anyone for nine months. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749467/moments-after-scalias-death-is-confirmed-gop-senate-staffer-pledges-to-block-any-obama-replacement/
When you think about it though, Scalia was conservative and the court will still hear cases with an open seat, it's just that in the result of a tie then I believe the circuit court's decision stands.
It still kind of make me nervous, because Ginsburg has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. I swear someone has been reenacting Weekend at Bernie's with her pallid corpse.
Anyone remembers this: Scalia defends keeping God, religion in public square (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/1/justice-antonin-scalia-defends-keeping-god-religio/?page=1)
Just making sure you don't forget.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 13, 2016, 05:56:09 PM
To bad that Clarence Thomas wasn't found dead with him in a death embrace..
Yes! This!!!
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 13, 2016, 06:49:01 PM
From what I've been skimming around the interwebs, it seems like a lot of people think the Senate will hold off appointing anyone for nine months. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749467/moments-after-scalias-death-is-confirmed-gop-senate-staffer-pledges-to-block-any-obama-replacement/
When you think about it though, Scalia was conservative and the court will still hear cases with an open seat, it's just that in the result of a tie then I believe the circuit court's decision stands.
It still kind of make me nervous, because Ginsburg has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. I swear someone has been reenacting Weekend at Bernie's with her pallid corpse.
McConnell has already called for delaying the appointment until after the election.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 13, 2016, 07:38:32 PM
McConnell has already called for delaying the appointment until after the election.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 13, 2016, 05:31:51 PM
And the senate will refuse to do their job to confirm anyone Obama nominates.. Time to GOTV Democrats..
And that is how Obama declares martial law. That and nuclear war starting shortly in the ME. If the Congress won't do its job, abolish it.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 13, 2016, 05:31:51 PM
And the senate will refuse to do their job to confirm anyone Obama nominates.. Time to GOTV Democrats..
They will hold it up until the general election. If a Dem wins, they may give Obama a shot at picking one. If a Republican wins, they will hold it up until after the inauguration. Well at least, the next one isn't likely to be any worse than Scalia, so the next court will be about the same, unless a Democrat wins the presidency.
Edit: Didn't read ahead. I see it's been addressed.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 13, 2016, 07:38:32 PM
McConnell has already called for delaying the appointment until after the election.
Well of course he would.
Holy shit. That is all I can say about this.
Quote from: Johan on February 13, 2016, 08:39:31 PM
Holy shit. That is all I can say about this.
Don't worry. If you spray weed killer on the pod people, they shrivel up and die ;-)
I remember in 2007 hearing news of Jerry Falwell's death. I was ecstatic! The world was rid of this scum!! I had a similar reaction at the news of Osama bin Laden's death. And now Scalia!
YYYYYAAAAAHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
There are some people who are so evil and do so much harm that the world is a better place without them.
It's a time when I wish there was a reckoning in the afterlife so they could account for their evil and pay for it.
Yaknow, I'm generally a believer in not speaking ill of the dead on the grounds that they can't even in principle defend themselves, but there are exceptions. Helms was one. Falwell was another. And Scalia is also one of these. This man was a genuine danger to the state, and if you ever read his dissents in Romer, Windsor and Obergefell, he was a complete homophobe, and a fraud as an "originalist". Good damned riddance.
And to Republicans who don't want a nomination made in an election year: funny how you didn't make that same complaint when Reagan put Kennedy on the court in 1988, and Nixon put both Powell and Rehnquist on the court in 1972, and Eisenhower put Brennan on the court in 1956. Funny how it didn't matter when a Republican was making the nomination. Now shut up, Senator McConnell, and do your job.
Oh, one other thing: this makes Justice Kennedy the senior justice on the court. The role carries quite a bit of responsibility and influence within the court -- in some ways, it makes him a sort of deputy chief justice. And while he's not perfect, he's a damn sight better than Scalia.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js
Quote from: Atheon on February 13, 2016, 10:15:08 PM
I remember in 2007 hearing news of Jerry Falwell's death. I was ecstatic! The world was rid of this scum!! I had a similar reaction at the news of Osama bin Laden's death. And now Scalia!
YYYYYAAAAAHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
There are some people who are so evil and do so much harm that the world is a better place without them.
Where were you guys in the Osama bin Laden thread? I coulda used some backup. I had a mini spat with Smartmarizapan about this. She thought it was pretty unseemly to relish some guy getting capped by the US military (plus the Republicans were cheering and naturally, everything they do is wrong). I argued that the guy indirectly murdered a ton of people and represented an ongoing security threat. Plus, I'm sorta glad we skipped the madhouse his trial would have been. The last thing that guy needed was more airtime.
Anyways, Falwell and Scalia die, you guys are on cloud nine. (I don't completely disagree, though I wonder how you guys would react if the roles were reversed and a liberal politician died and the republicans were equally ecstatic) Brutal dictator and/or equally murderous terrorist dies, and we're caught between relief and something approaching pity. I'm sensing a little inconsistency.
I can think of six people whose deaths I have been overjoyed about:
Ayatollah Khomeini
Nicolae Ceausescu
Jerry Falwell
Osama bin Laden
Andrew Breitbart
Antonin Scalia
Some people are simply too evil to mourn.
Note that all the above people died while in a position of influence (in Ceausescu's case, a few days after his ouster). I didn't feel the same sense of joy at the deaths of Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, or Saddam Hussein, because Reagan was no longer a danger, being out of power and addled with Alzheimer's, Helms was retired and in ill health (physical and mental) in his final years, and Hussein was in prison and executed in a way that simply should not be done in the 21st century: he was hanged, for fucksakes.
I get the 'this is an obituary I approve' over this man, but this is bad, not good. How long will it take to appoint a new judge? Will it be successful? (For democrats) Highly unlikely. For some time, then if succeeded Court will be divided evenly then, right?
:question: Doesn't this mean that when some serious issue brougt to the Court, it won't be effective and the decisions of the lower courts will stand? Even when someone is appointed they can't go back and discuss that to a new solution, so the lower court decision stands. Right?
From immigration to Global Warming, abortion...etc. Everything is going to the table next term. Courts would come up with conflicting decisions left and right.
Republicans will get very agressive. I don't want to even think about. They have already infected everyone leaning their side with a 'victimhood' for years and this situation is going to be a huge boost of opportunity to radicalise and poison people more for a 'struggle to save America!'. Their mass (pun intended) will respond to this.
:sad2: This doesn't look good to me. Why the bastard couldn't die in a better time? A sudden change in power balance in a time like this never a good thing.
Borrowing Drunkenshoe's image:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/12742587_10156558517365080_626258781467010512_n.jpg?oh=ac93149a8d4afb36e3a5a2acd0b98f2a&oe=5730244C&__gda__=1462670056_87acadfab29e41ed4f07ca6ebf37ebca)
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 13, 2016, 06:49:01 PMIt still kind of make me nervous, because Ginsburg has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. I swear someone has been reenacting Weekend at Bernie's with her pallid corpse.
Why the fuck she hasn't retired while Obama could replace her with another liberal, I can't fathom. This next election is going to change things a lot more than superficially. It is
so important to keep the republicunts out of the White House this time.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 14, 2016, 06:54:19 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/12742587_10156558517365080_626258781467010512_n.jpg?oh=ac93149a8d4afb36e3a5a2acd0b98f2a&oe=5730244C&__gda__=1462670056_87acadfab29e41ed4f07ca6ebf37ebca)
The satire is like honey to my brain.
Quote from: Atheon on February 14, 2016, 01:24:06 AM
Some people are simply too evil to mourn.
I don't know that he was necessarily
evil. He was just a man in a position of power that had vastly different opinions to mine, opinions that were often discriminatory or regressive. I would say the same about Andrew Breitbart and Jerry Falwell. People I might "forget" to brake for if I saw them crossing the street and plead it was accidental in court, but certainly not on the level with Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden didn't really have a whole lot of power in the last decade of his life either. He was more of a symbol hiding away in the mountains of Pakistan like a little bitch.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 14, 2016, 08:09:45 AM
Why the fuck she hasn't retired while Obama could replace her with another liberal, I can't fathom. This next election is going to change things a lot more than superficially. It is so important to keep the republicunts out of the White House this time.
Obama isn't a liberal. I don't think anything Obama has done is liberal. Neither was anything the Clinton's did liberal. The Democrat support for LBGT was just like their support for Blacks ... cynical. And minorities grasping at straws have been taken to the cleaners by the Democrats, again and again. The Republicans are worse deliberately, so that the Democrats can keep their house slaves at home.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 14, 2016, 09:22:31 AM
I don't know that he was necessarily evil. He was just a man in a position of power that had vastly different opinions to mine, opinions that were often discriminatory or regressive.
The thing that most annoyed me about Scalia is that he constantly professed to interpret the constitution as is, which is a legitimate position, but what he was really doing is interpret the constitution according to his own conservative beliefs. And as such he was at least an intellectual fraud, at worst a hypocrite in the highest degree. He consistently bashed liberal judges for being activists when he himself was the greatest activist as a conservative judge. And whenever he would be on the losing side of a case, he would delve into writing long dissent, basically portraying himself on a higher moral ground than those judges who disagree with him. The guy had an inflated ego that could make Donald Trump look like an amateur.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 10:14:22 AM
The thing that most annoyed me about Scalia is that he constantly professed to interpret the constitution as is, which is a legitimate position, but what he was really doing is interpret the constitution according to his own conservative beliefs.
But isn't that how everyone operates? You take an old document (Constitution, Bible, etc.) and try to explain why it suits your personal beliefs or modern behavior? To be perfectly honest, I've very often thought decisions handed down by the court had little Constitutional basis, even if I wholeheartedly agreed with the content. The right to privacy = the right to an abortion? That's a stretch, but I could easily argue both sides from a Constitutional standpoint, even if I only agree with one side from a personal standpoint.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 10:14:22 AMAnd whenever he would be on the losing side of a case, he would delve into writing long dissent, basically portraying himself on a higher moral ground than those judges who disagree with him. The guy had an inflated ego that could make Donald Trump look like an amateur.
So, basically, he was a judge.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 14, 2016, 09:22:31 AM
I don't know that he was necessarily evil. He was just a man in a position of power that had vastly different opinions to mine, opinions that were often discriminatory or regressive. I would say the same about Andrew Breitbart and Jerry Falwell. People I might "forget" to brake for if I saw them crossing the street and plead it was accidental in court, but certainly not on the level with Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden didn't really have a whole lot of power in the last decade of his life either. He was more of a symbol hiding away in the mountains of Pakistan like a little bitch.
The man adjudicated based on his religion, in a country where that is expressly forbidden, to the detriment of many and for the satisfaction of the ignorant.
Scalia wasn't all bad or wrong. Thomas (imo) is a far worse jurist. And while I Hate some of the rulings from SCotUS, I think we forget he wasn't always on my wrong side:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/liberals_find_common_ground_with_scalia/
Quote from: chill98 on February 14, 2016, 10:34:25 AM
Scalia wasn't all bad or wrong. Thomas (imo) is a far worse jurist. And while I Hate some of the rulings from SCotUS, I think we forget he wasn't always on my wrong side:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/liberals_find_common_ground_with_scalia/
True, true. I always figured Thomas copied his answers off of Scalia like a 5th grade spelling test. I'm imagining a conversation that went something like...
"Come on, man, just let me peek."
"I studied for hours to write this opinion. Do your own work."
"At least give me a hint!"
"If I do, I'll only be letting you cheat yourself."
"Pleeeeease!"
"Ugh, this is why I hate group projects."
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 14, 2016, 10:32:19 AM
The man adjudicated based on his religion, in a country where that is expressly forbidden, to the detriment of many and for the satisfaction of the ignorant.
So is religious bigotry worse than secular bigotry? If the end result is the same, I won't argue one is worse if it stems from religion. Granted, many conservatives are deeply religious, but some of them are just assholes.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 14, 2016, 10:47:31 AM
So is religious bigotry worse than secular bigotry? If the end result is the same, I won't argue one is worse if it stems from religion. Granted, many conservatives are deeply religious, but some of them are just assholes.
I'm afraid you'll have to give me an example of "secular bigotry".
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 14, 2016, 10:19:09 AM
But isn't that how everyone operates? You take an old document (Constitution, Bible, etc.) and try to explain why it suits your personal beliefs or modern behavior? To be perfectly honest, I've very often thought decisions handed down by the court had little Constitutional basis, even if I wholeheartedly agreed with the content. The right to privacy = the right to an abortion? That's a stretch, but I could easily argue both sides from a Constitutional standpoint, even if I only agree with one side from a personal standpoint.
So, basically, he was a judge.
Hmm, I think you're being too generous in regard to Scalia. The guy interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual's right to possess a firearm when it doesn't. Only if you ignore the subordinate clause can you arrive at that decision, but the subordinate clause was put there for a purpose, and that was not: "yes, go ahead, 'ignoring me' is an option". That was not a faithful interpretation of the constitution, but strictly an application of his own conservative beliefs, regardless that for 230+ years, the subordinate clause was always taken into consideration. Similarly, with money=free speech decision, another decision to favor his rich friends. You can't defend that as being an honest interpretation of the constitution within your core beliefs. Free speech is what comes out of your mouth, not your pockets.
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 14, 2016, 11:08:08 AM
I'm afraid you'll have to give me an example of "secular bigotry".
Counterargument ... so you are saying being secular immunizes one from being an asshole? I will believe that, when I believe that one being religious automatically means one is an asshole. I can name one ... Hitchens. Hitchens was a Trotsky-ite who later fell in love with George W Bush's anti-Muslim crusade. He can't be described as a religious bigot ... but I think he qualifies (as do many anti-Muslims on the Left) as a secular bigot.
I agree that some recent decisions ... like Citizen's United are horrendously wrong. Enough wrong that I can no longer support the SCOTUS as a bulwark against tyranny.
The trick about "bearing arms" is that really applies to the Fed/State/individual situation of 200 years ago. It should have been re-written, not re-interpretted. But Congress is worthless, so they don't amend the Constitution when they need to, they let the SCOTUS do that thru interpretation, and then bitch about what is decided.
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 14, 2016, 11:08:08 AM
I'm afraid you'll have to give me an example of "secular bigotry".
All you have to do is Google it and you'll return a surprising number of results of people who are both secular and against gay marriage, abortion, universal suffrage, etc. Their rationale and motivations often differ greatly from their religious counterparts, but the result is still the same.
http://secularright.org
http://atheists.org/cpac
While not all conservatives are bigots and not all conservatives are religious, neither are all atheists tolerant and accepting of the rights of others either.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 11:16:03 AM
Hmm, I think you're being too generous in regard to Scalia. The guy interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual's right to possess a firearm when it doesn't. Only if you ignore the subordinate clause can you arrive at that decision, but the subordinate clause was put there for a purpose, and that was not: "yes, go ahead, 'ignoring me' is an option". That was not a faithful interpretation of the constitution, but strictly an application of his own conservative beliefs, regardless that for 230+ years, the subordinate clause was always taken into consideration.
There are an overwhelming number of people who interpret the second amendment differently than I do and believe it's just as valid today in 2016 as it was in the eighteenth century. The point I'm trying to make is a "faithful" interpretation is still
an interpretation.
I'm not defending him and I honestly can't think of many important decisions he made that made me want to scream, "Hell yeah!" but I think he was only doing what virtually all judges tend to do: interpret the Constitution based on their own personal beliefs. As I pointed out, there are plenty of liberal judges who ruled on decisions that I actually was pleased with but felt that the Constitution basis for said decisions was actually pretty lacking. And when
those judges die, conservatives rail on about how they butchered the interpretation of the Constitution to bypass Congress just like you're arguing Scalia did.
Unfortunately "originalism" with the Constitution means misogyny and slavery and genocide and classism. That is what founded the US ... not Gandhi. The only reasonable way to be an American at any time, is to face the music, but try to make things better. Our brokenness as a people, weakens both our domestic and our foreign policy ... because people inside and outside can point and say ... what a bunch of ignorant assholes! They are my ignorant assholes though ... so I stick with them. And I don't get too bent out of shape, that the other 95% of humanity has problems too.
Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2016, 11:25:37 AM
Counterargument ... so you are saying being secular immunizes one from being an asshole? I will believe that, when I believe that one being religious automatically means one is an asshole. I can name one ... Hitchens. Hitchens was a Trotsky-ite who later fell in love with George W Bush's anti-Muslim crusade. He can't be described as a religious bigot ... but I think he qualifies (as do many anti-Muslims on the Left) as a secular bigot.
Hitchen passed as leftist? *Snort. When he was 25? Or just in USA? Whatever he was, he is beyond a secular bigot. Have you read him on Mesoamerican Genocide? He has always been very consistent with his thoughts and love on genocidal government policies as long as it is out of the fence and serving American policies. That man disgusted me to no end and still does.
Hitchens disappointed me when supporting the Iraq invasion. During an interview, when asked about the "truth" of WMD in Iraq, he constantly repeated, "You don't need absolute certainty in the matter to justify an invasion where American lives are jeopardized." OK, I can agree with the concept to some extent. Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever asked, "What percentage of certainty over WMD in Iraq does exist then?" And therein is a huge flaw, given that I saw no certainty at all. By that time, WMD in Iraq had become nothing more than an article of faith even among many of my closest liberal friends.
No, I don't think you need 100% certainty, which would be impossible to obtain, anyway, but you at least need to have your "ducks in a row," and at that time, we weren't even close to that, not even in the ball park. My hero of debate and logic had thrown away his reputation, in what appears to be a matter of personal bias. I suspect, but cannot prove, that his bias was a hatred of Islam that clouded his judgment. At any rate, I never recovered my own faith in Hitchens' reasoning ability. I still think he was an excellent debater, but debate does not always depend on sound reasoning when it is of a political nature.
Quote from: SGOS on February 14, 2016, 01:31:08 PM
Hitchens disappointed me when supporting the Iraq invasion. During an interview, when asked about the "truth" of WMD in Iraq, he constantly repeated, "You don't need absolute certainty in the matter to justify an invasion where American lives are jeopardized." OK, I can agree with the concept to some extent. Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever asked, "What percentage of certainty over WMD in Iraq does exist then?" And therein is a huge flaw, given that I saw no certainty at all. By that time, WMD in Iraq had become nothing more than an article of faith even among many of my closest liberal friends.
No, I don't think you need 100% certainty, which would be impossible to obtain, anyway, but you at least need to have your "ducks in a row," and at that time, we weren't even close to that, not even in the ball park. My hero of debate and logic had thrown away his reputation, in what appears to be a matter of personal bias. I suspect, but cannot prove, that his bias was a hatred of Islam that clouded his judgment. At any rate, I never recovered my own faith in Hitchens' reasoning ability. I still think he was an excellent debater, but debate does not always depend on sound reasoning when it is of a political nature.
I believed that you are too harsh on Hitchens. If the Bush administration docked the info to look like Hussein had MWD's, one can hardly blame Hitchens for that. The blame falls squarely on Bush and his ilk for misleading the public. Also, even Hussein contributed to this misinformation as he wanted that everybody to believe he had WMD's, and apparently, some of his own generals were fooled to think he had them. Was Hitchens motivated by his hatred for Islam? Perhaps, but that's not a fault, Islam is a very dangerous ideology, one that reduces women to a position of a chattel, and non-believers as deserving of the death penalty. He was also a great friend of Salman Rushdie, who had a death fatwa on his head just for writing a book that obliquely criticizes Mohammed and Islam. So Hitchens' hatred for Islam is quite justified.
Quote from: SGOS on February 14, 2016, 01:31:08 PM
Hitchens disappointed me when supporting the Iraq invasion. During an interview, when asked about the "truth" of WMD in Iraq, he constantly repeated, "You don't need absolute certainty in the matter to justify an invasion where American lives are jeopardized." OK, I can agree with the concept to some extent. Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever asked, "What percentage of certainty over WMD in Iraq does exist then?" And therein is a huge flaw, given that I saw no certainty at all. By that time, WMD in Iraq had become nothing more than an article of faith even among many of my closest liberal friends.
No, I don't think you need 100% certainty, which would be impossible to obtain, anyway, but you at least need to have your "ducks in a row," and at that time, we weren't even close to that, not even in the ball park. My hero of debate and logic had thrown away his reputation, in what appears to be a matter of personal bias. I suspect, but cannot prove, that his bias was a hatred of Islam that clouded his judgment. At any rate, I never recovered my own faith in Hitchens' reasoning ability. I still think he was an excellent debater, but debate does not always depend on sound reasoning when it is of a political nature.
Idolising people always ends bad. Finding out that religion is bullshit, that there is no magic man in the sky and how much religion harms everyone DO NOT NEED a special kind of talent, intellect or rationality. A 15 year old kid can find this out by himself. Someone being an excellent debater just means, he is an excellent debater and nothing more. That is actually bad news in the hands of people like Hicthens if you consider the other side of the coin.
These are not extraordinary traits or abilites. On the other hand supporting a war and an invasion literally started as a 'Crusade' is not just abhorrent to me also a very good way of showing the so called secular qualities of the mentioned people.
This man has so much effect on some group of people, they use made up bullshit phrases like "Hitchen's razor" which is an inflated word salad for the thousand year old burden of proof. It's almost like he is promoted because of lack of anyone talking loud about against religion in the US. Like Harris.
This is not simple personal bias.
Blatantly lying aside, it's saying 'It's OK, if WE do this'. How is that secular? This is religious thinking itself.
Most people would say ideological ... if one is blind to anything but one's own opinion ... and one isn't a theist. I would agree that a lot of people were fearful of what Saddam might do, and it was within his powers to do it ... to purchase or make deadly weapons if necessary, if he didn't already have them. So it isn't just a matter, did he have them at the time ... but also if he had them, would he use them. The answer was clearly yes, he was a psychopathic genocidal maniac, just like Rumsfeld or Cheney were. As to if there were some grander conspiracy, other than overworked contingency plans ... we really can't know. In my judgement, there wasn't enough evidence then to justify an actual invasion, as opposed to something smaller, like special forces intervention against weapons sites or assassination of leadership. We were all fooled at the time by the false intel coming from Cheney and Powell.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 01:54:39 PM
I believed that you are too harsh on Hitchens. If the Bush administration docked the info to look like Hussein had MWD's, one can hardly blame Hitchens for that. The blame falls squarely on Bush and his ilk for misleading the public. Also, even Hussein contributed to this misinformation as he wanted that everybody to believe he had WMD's, and apparently, some of his own generals were fooled to think he had them. Was Hitchens motivated by his hatred for Islam? Perhaps, but that's not a fault, Islam is a very dangerous ideology, one that reduces women to a position of a chattel, and non-believers as deserving of the death penalty. He was also a great friend of Salman Rushdie, who had a death fatwa on his head just for writing a book that obliquely criticizes Mohammed and Islam. So Hitchens' hatred for Islam is quite justified.
Eh, he is not blaming Hitchens for what Bush admins. did ffs. You are turning into pr a bit more everyday.
Good riddance.
The Onion right on spot:
Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress (http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356)
I'm still waiting for Pat Robertson to kick the bucket...
Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 14, 2016, 05:05:33 PM
I'm still waiting for Pat Robertson to kick the bucket...
Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom
I completely forgot about that thing. Can't we make a change? We'll give him and take the judge back and then later at a convenient time, we'll give the judge. :pp
It's more important that Scania is out of power.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 01:54:39 PM
I believed that you are too harsh on Hitchens. If the Bush administration docked the info to look like Hussein had MWD's, one can hardly blame Hitchens for that. The blame falls squarely on Bush and his ilk for misleading the public. Also, even Hussein contributed to this misinformation as he wanted that everybody to believe he had WMD's, and apparently, some of his own generals were fooled to think he had them. Was Hitchens motivated by his hatred for Islam? Perhaps, but that's not a fault, Islam is a very dangerous ideology, one that reduces women to a position of a chattel, and non-believers as deserving of the death penalty. He was also a great friend of Salman Rushdie, who had a death fatwa on his head just for writing a book that obliquely criticizes Mohammed and Islam. So Hitchens' hatred for Islam is quite justified.
Yes, it can be justified. I don't like Islam (or Christianity either), but bias and prejudice should not enter into a reasoned debate about threat of WMD: "Bush is right because I hate Muslims?" It's not relevant, is it? As I've said, however, I don't really know his motivation for this. That was speculation on my part. I only know what he said, and can point to reasoning which I believe was seriously flawed.
As to the matter of WMDs, yes, Bush led America down a road of false propaganda and cherry picked intelligence, for the purpose of furthering a feeble brained neocon ideology that had long advocated an invasion of the Mid East, an ideology which was abhorrent to two previous administrations, one being Bush's own father, along with the public, until Bush started lying. But Hitchens responsibility should have been to consider all available intelligence, including much of which was highly credible from both current and previous weapons inspection teams that could find no justification for believing the WMDs were there.
I won't deny Hitchens' prejudice or bias. Those are common human errors, but as the thinker I believe he was, he was unable to push that aside and instead of demonstrating critical analysis, became an unwitting shill for the administration. I don't think I'm being unfair in this particular situation. He has been a guiding light of reason on many important issues for years, and I'm grateful to him for this. He's allowed to make a mistake, but in this case, it was a big mistake totally out of character. Yes, that was Bush, not Hitchens that invaded, but I'm talking only about a time when Hitchens failed the art of reason. The one time when the brightest among us lost his way and got an F- on one exam. But kudos for the rest of the stuff he has illuminated. I admire him for that.
If Obama wanted, he could say, "There will be a replacement for Scalia by July. If the Senate chooses to delay their confirmation of my candidates by that time, I will consider that as full consent to whoever I choose."
Because according to the constitution, that is well within his rights.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 14, 2016, 05:09:56 PM
It's more important that Scania is out of power.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using your mom
Well, I am just taking what you guys are saying obviously, but as I said it doesn't look good to me.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 03:31:18 PM
The link didn't work by the time I got to the above, but here's a link that does. It's fun. I'm not a big fan of Maher, but he does clever rants.
Quote from: SGOS on February 14, 2016, 05:14:49 PM
Yes, it can be justified. I don't like Islam (or Christianity either), but bias and prejudice should not enter into a reasoned debate about threat of WMD: "Bush is right because I hate Muslims?" It's not relevant, is it? As I've said, however, I don't really know his motivation for this. That was speculation on my part. I only know what he said, and can point to reasoning which I believe was seriously flawed.
As to the matter of WMDs, yes, Bush led America down a road of false propaganda and cherry picked intelligence, for the purpose of furthering a feeble brained neocon ideology that had long advocated an invasion of the Mid East, an ideology which was abhorrent to two previous administrations, one being Bush's own father, along with the public, until Bush started lying. But Hitchens responsibility should have been to consider all available intelligence, including much of which was highly credible from both current and previous weapons inspection teams that could find no justification for believing the WMDs were there.
I won't deny Hitchens' prejudice or bias. Those are common human errors, but as the thinker I believe he was, he was unable to push that aside and instead of demonstrating critical analysis, became an unwitting shill for the administration. I don't think I'm being unfair in this particular situation. He has been a guiding light of reason on many important issues for years, and I'm grateful to him for this. He's allowed to make a mistake, but in this case, it was a big mistake totally out of character. Yes, that was Bush, not Hitchens that invaded, but I'm talking only about a time when Hitchens failed the art of reason. The one time when the brightest among us lost his way and got an F- on one exam. But kudos for the rest of the stuff he has illuminated. I admire him for that.
There's an interesting article on Hitchens and the evolution of his thinking, which you might be interested. It seems after Rushdie and 9/11, he grew extremely hateful of religion, and Islam in particular. At that point, scrutinizing the evidence of WMD's would not have been the focus of his attention.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 14, 2016, 05:37:18 PM
If Obama wanted, he could say, "There will be a replacement for Scalia by July. If the Senate chooses to delay their confirmation of my candidates by that time, I will consider that as full consent to whoever I choose."
Because according to the constitution, that is well within his rights.
The President appoints the judge to SCOTUS, but it must be confirmed by the Senate. The danger is that if Obama appoints someone totally unacceptable to the Right- which will be refused by the Senate - then that will galvanize the Right to show up on voting day. The left has a horrible record on showing up to vote. The best strategy for Obama to try is to name someone not controversial, hoping that the GOP will still reject, and this will give ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign. That's my two cents.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 05:42:34 PM
There's an interesting article on Hitchens and the evolution of his thinking, which you might be interested. It seems after Rushdie and 9/11, he grew extremely hateful of religion, and Islam in particular. At that point, scrutinizing the evidence of WMD's would not have been the focus of his attention.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq)
Yes, that was interesting indeed, and true or not (I tend to think it's true), does explain a lot about that startling support of Bush's war.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 05:50:03 PM
The President appoints the judge to SCOTUS, but it must be confirmed by the Senate.
Oh yeah. "Advise
and consent". Jesus fuck.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 05:50:03 PM
The danger is that if Obama appoints someone totally unacceptable to the Right- which will be refused by the Senate - then that will galvanize the Right to show up on voting day. The left has a horrible record on showing up to vote. The best strategy for Obama to try is to name someone not controversial, hoping that the GOP will still reject, and this will give ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign. That's my two cents.
I didn't say to appoint someone unacceptable. I just wanted Obama to light a fire under them to give him a damn answer in a timely manner, instead of dragging their heels. Probably not gonna happen, but hey...
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 05:42:34 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq)
Hitchens must be the only intellectual in the world who is defended by "But he hated muslims and islam, that's the reason for him turning into a genocidal, right wing jackass, don't you get how all this makes sense with his rationality?!" :85:
In short, somebody smacked his head and he smashed it on the wall.
That's what happens when you promote people beyond where they actually fit. Then you need to write apologies for their apologisms.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 14, 2016, 06:26:11 PM
Oh yeah. "Advise and consent". Jesus fuck.
I didn't say to appoint someone unacceptable. I just wanted Obama to light a fire under them to give him a damn answer in a timely manner, instead of dragging their heels. Probably not gonna happen, but hey...
It's more than "Advise
and consent", the Senate must confirm through a vote. No confirmation, no appointment. With the GOP in the majority, the appointment is a no go since they told Obama 45 min after the news of Scalia's death they will not confirm anyone he proposes. Of course for the rest of the year, until the election of a new president, it's going to be a circus. Obama will propose, the senate will reject, both sides will point fingers at each other, and the presidential candidates will try to get mileage from all that noise. Which side will win the support of the American people on this issue remains to be seen. However, I do believe the best strategy for the Democrats is what I outlined above.
I asked for examples of secular bigotry, and you gave examples (or really just the one example) of people who are secularists as well as bigots. I would argue that theres nothing inherent about being a secularists that inspires or demands bigotry. Cant even come close to suggesting the same about being religious. The bigotry is practically written down in ancient text.
Quote from: TomFoolery on February 14, 2016, 11:47:40 AM
... but I think he was only doing what virtually all judges tend to do: interpret the Constitution based on their own personal beliefs.
I don't deny that. Everyone will interpret what they read, be it the constitution or a novel, according their worldview. Scalia is no exception, and it's not a fault on his part. What was a fault is that he professed publicly to interpret the constitution as is, which he didn't, and then doubling down by saying Liberal judges were activists, when he himself was doing the same.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2016, 05:50:03 PMThe President appoints the judge to SCOTUS, but it must be confirmed by the Senate.
Before the Senate can confirm a nominee, they have to have the opportunity to consider that nominee, and McConnell may have the power to prevent that from happening. The determination out of hand, not to allow any appointment by this president, is unprecedented - many other Justices have been approved in election years. It is dirty politics at it's most despicable. They won the senate, now they are going to bully every other branch of government, even to the point of sabotaging the established process of our government itself, until they get their way.
Quote from: josephpalazzoThe danger is that if Obama appoints someone totally unacceptable to the Right- which will be refused by the Senate - then that will galvanize the Right to show up on voting day. The left has a horrible record on showing up to vote. The best strategy for Obama to try is to name someone not controversial, hoping that the GOP will still reject, and this will give ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign. That's my two cents.
This whole thing is going to galvanize both sides. This has suddenly become
THE pivotal election of the early 21st century, to many people. I think the upcoming docket should be on the forefront of the Democrats discussion of the issue, because it is a good selection, of the kinds of things that a new Justice will be deciding for the rest of his or her life.
-Black voters, and college students, will be interested in the upcoming case about affirmative action.
-Women will be interested in the cases about abortion rights, and religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act.
-Latinos and other families of immigrants will be concerned about the immigration case.
So it could galvanize the left, as much, or more than the right. :victory:
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 15, 2016, 08:18:45 AM
Before the Senate can confirm a nominee, they have to have the opportunity to consider that nominee, and McConnell may have the power to prevent that from happening. The determination out of hand, not to allow any appointment by this president, is unprecedented - many other Justices have been approved in election years. It is dirty politics at it's most despicable. They won the senate, now they are going to bully every other branch of government, even to the point of sabotaging the established process of our government itself, until they get their way.
They're pretty good at playing dirty politics. The Democrats should learn a page from them. They often look like tamed sheep. They embarrassed themselves.
Quote
This whole thing is going to galvanize both sides. This has suddenly become THE pivotal election of the early 21st century, to many people. I think the upcoming docket should be on the forefront of the Democrats discussion of the issue, because it is a good selection, of the kinds of things that a new Justice will be deciding for the rest of his or her life.
-Black voters, and college students, will be interested in the upcoming case about affirmative action.
-Women will be interested in the cases about abortion rights, and religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act.
-Latinos and other families of immigrants will be concerned about the immigration case.
So it could galvanize the left, as much, or more than the right. :victory:
I hope you're right.
Well....now that it turns out he may have been....gasp.. :a102:..
MURDERED......
:96:
that damn Obama is a ninja muslim.....snuck in in the middle of he night and kilted him....rat bastard.
:97:
Quote from: aitm on February 15, 2016, 08:32:10 AM
Well....now that it turns out he may have been....gasp.. :a102:..
MURDERED......
:96:
that damn Obama is a ninja muslim.....snuck in in the middle of he night and kilted him....rat bastard.
:97:
Stop reading Alex Jones.
Quote from: aitm on February 15, 2016, 08:32:10 AM
Well....now that it turns out he may have been....gasp.. :a102:..
MURDERED......
:96:
that damn Obama is a ninja muslim.....snuck in in the middle of he night and kilted him....rat bastard.
:97:
I think you could make a better case than Hillary was behind it. It could just be added to that Whitewater thing, where she supposedly had that other guy bumped off. Has the autopsy report come back yet?
Hillary suppressed the autopsy. He's being disposed of AWFULLY FAST.
THANKS, OBAMA.
Naw, it's all God's will. I mean the campaign was getting bored, with all that Trump feuding with the Bush family being all predictable, so God had to spice it up... I mean God and his mysterious ways STRIKE AGAIN.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 15, 2016, 09:50:49 AM
Hillary suppressed the autopsy. He's being disposed of AWFULLY FAST.
THANKS, OBAMA.
Authorities and family agree to no autopsy (they were shown the instruments of torture, like Galileo). Also he was found with a pillow over his head. Sherlock Holmes would be baffled. All I know is ... the butler did it ;-) Anti-conspiracy theorists are like the folks who think that guy in S Africa accidentally shot his girl friend. There are no murders, just incompetent gun owners. The very idea that his cause of death is questionable, and that there is no autopsy ... means that the questions about it will exist for the next 50 years, inspiring all sorts of Timothy McVeigh characters to take revenge against the alien reptilian progressives.
Yesterday I was conversing with my wife and during the conversation I said something along the lines of, "I can't wait for Scalia to fucking die so a human being can take his place." She responded, "You didn't hear?" and went on to tell me the news. Needless to say the song I've Got the Power is running through my head even now. You're welcome.
People shit their pants when they die. I expect they had to clean up his mess with a front loader.
Quote from: stromboli on February 15, 2016, 01:27:52 PM
People shit their pants when they die. I expect they had to clean up his mess with a front loader.
And imagine what it must have been like when they moved on from his mouth and actually went to his ass.
I love the picture from this article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/gop-cynicism-on-the-supreme-court-reaches-a-new-low.html). It makes me think of a movie quote. "Am I not turtley enough for the turtle club?"
An interesting take from Kuttner on HuffingtonPo..
QuoteIt seems to me that Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, echoed by the Republican presidential field, blundered when he declared that the Republican Senate would not vote in an election year to confirm an Obama nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia.
The Republicans would be a lot shrewder if they bargained with Obama to nominate a center-right nominee who could be confirmed. That would deprive Obama's successor, quite possibly a Democrat, of the chance to name a real progressive and would extend the conservative sway over the court.
With a court divided 4-4 for the next year, liberals will likely prevail because of several lower court decisions that will now be upheld, most notably the Freidrichs case allowing public sector unions to broadly organize and collect dues. Other key cases, including affirmative action, voting rights, and abortion rights, are in the same category.
If Republicans are sly, they will play to Obama's vanity and begin bargaining with the White House about naming a moderate conservative who they will confirm.
I would not be surprised if such back-channel bargaining has already begun.
And if Obama is shrewd, he will appoint a distinguished liberal and let Republicans be the party of negativity, and let the chips fall.
--
I read about a pillow. What's that? So they are trying to start something like that somebody murdered him and forgot the pillow on his face? Really? Oh ffs. A lot of people put their pillows on their face when sleeping. I do sometimes. And what happened to gawd's will?
If this ends bad for rubes, that pillow could be your next 'birth conspiracy'. The pillow conspiracy!
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 15, 2016, 02:26:08 PM
I read about a pillow. What's that? So they are trying to start something like that somebody murdered him and forgot the pillow on his face? Really? Oh ffs. A lot of people put their pillows on their face when sleeping. I do sometimes. And what happened to gawd's will?
If this ends bad for rubes, that pillow could be your next 'birth conspiracy'. The pillow conspiracy!
I'm sure they're already trying to work out how it was Hillary Clinton's fault.
My bet is on Secret Agent Elvis ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2016, 03:04:44 PM
My bet is on Secret Agent Elvis ;-)
And don't forget Tupac.
So one of the cases SCOTUS was supposed to hear in the next few weeks concerns Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which is supposed to determine the Constitutionality of restricting abortion access to the point where there are only 8 operational clinics in the state of Texas to cover 5 million women of reproductive age over 268,580 square miles.
So, on the news tonight they were talking about how the court plans to handle this issue with eight judges who may end up splitting evenly on the issue. It seems like the court will likely delay the decision until a new justice is appointed, and they were interviewing this one Bible thumper who kept saying Scalia's death couldn't have happened at a worse time for Texas babies and she was praying a Christian judge would be appointed.
All I could think is... if you're that religious and know that Scalia never ruled favorably on an abortion issue and died just before he could hear arguments on this pivotal case...
Maybe it's a sign from God?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 15, 2016, 07:43:57 AM
It's more than "Advise and consent", the Senate must confirm through a vote. No confirmation, no appointment.
I would think that a confirmation vote would be wrapped up in the word "consent" â€" if the vote were just a formality, and was unnecessary for an appointment, the Senate's role in the process would just be "advise." Full stop. I'm not a dummy, Joe.
I meant that Obama could shame them into voting, even if it's just to deny his choice. Then I remember that these guys have no shame.
Recess appointment.. It's happened before with SCOTUS..
One day I will go relieve myself on his grave.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 15, 2016, 09:03:53 PM
I would think that a confirmation vote would be wrapped up in the word "consent" â€" if the vote were just a formality, and was unnecessary for an appointment, the Senate's role in the process would just be "advise." Full stop. I'm not a dummy, Joe.
I wasn't implying you're a dummy. You're one of the smartest people on this forum. I was just looking for clarification. It's done. Case over.
QuoteI meant that Obama could shame them into voting, even if it's just to deny his choice. Then I remember that these guys have no shame.
I share the same feelings.
Quote from: Atheon on February 16, 2016, 05:42:20 AM
One day I will go relieve myself on his grave.
Make sure you have pix. We want pix....
I bet Red Reddington from the teevee series Blacklist was involved.. Where's James Spader when you need him?
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 14, 2016, 10:32:19 AM
The man adjudicated based on his religion, in a country where that is expressly forbidden, to the detriment of many and for the satisfaction of the ignorant.
This. If you can stomach it, read his dissents in
Romer and
Windsor and
Obegefell. You can fair feel the enraged spittle flying off the page as he rails against the barest possibility of LGBT Americans having the same rights as straight Americans. He was a raging homophobe, and was perfectly happy to twist any piece of Constitutional wording or scholarship he pleased in order to get the result he already wanted (as opposed to getting the correct, Constitutional result).
The sad news was he was not found with a dead prostitute or with his dick hanging out, apparently. Shit never goes the way you want it.
dunno why but this made me think of the recent passing of a "friend" of one my my mums friends, whos been like an aunt to me in how she's always been there for me. this 'friend' of hers was a woman she looked out for, not having many friends herself and no family to speak of my mums friend looked out for this woman, despite her .. problem..
She was addicted to eating laxatives, and she every time she used a toilet, she would end up spraying fecal matter over everything, the toilet, floor, even walls. She did this a couple of times to my mums friends toilet, which lead to her not being invited round her home anymore.
A month ago, the woman was found dead in her home, after the coroner reported she had died from falling down the stairs and hitting her head, she was there for 2 days befoee discovered. It was sad thinking about how this woman died alone like that, and nobody looked in on her so much she was left for several days. But given how it was often an unpleasant experience for anyone to be around her, the only thing people regarded when she had died was 'at least she no longer suffers'.
I dunno, i think its a case where if someone who causes such problems for other peoples lives, such as fucking the system of law, or shitting all over your walls, the fact you feel more relaxed once they have passed on shows what little good that contributed to anyone else. Really it makes me hope that I never end up like that, either being a burden to others, or making someone elses life a misery in some manner.
the best thing we can do in life is leave a mark that people want to remember us fondly, the worst is living a life where nobody wants to remember us.
Quote from: Munch on February 16, 2016, 02:43:04 PM
dunno why but this made me think of the recent passing of a "friend" of one my my mums friends, whos been like an aunt to me in how she's always been there for me. this 'friend' of hers was a woman she looked out for, not having many friends herself and no family to speak of my mums friend looked out for this woman, despite her .. problem..
She was addicted to eating laxatives, and she every time she used a toilet, she would end up spraying fecal matter over everything, the toilet, floor, even walls. She did this a couple of times to my mums friends toilet, which lead to her not being invited round her home anymore.
A month ago, the woman was found dead in her home, after the coroner reported she had died from falling down the stairs and hitting her head, she was there for 2 days befoee discovered. It was sad thinking about how this woman died alone like that, and nobody looked in on her so much she was left for several days. But given how it was often an unpleasant experience for anyone to be around her, the only thing people regarded when she had died was 'at least she no longer suffers'.
I dunno, i think its a case where if someone who causes such problems for other peoples lives, such as fucking the system of law, or shitting all over your walls, the fact you feel more relaxed once they have passed on shows what little good that contributed to anyone else. Really it makes me hope that I never end up like that, either being a burden to others, or making someone elses life a misery in some manner.
the best thing we can do in life is leave a mark that people want to remember us fondly, the worst is living a life where nobody wants to remember us.
A bit like my dad's wife..NOBODY likes her, even her own kids. She's alienated everyone who meets her and at 85 she has no sense of smell so she shits herself and just sits there stinking so my poor old dad cleans her up even though there is little to no love in the relationship. He feels that since he married her he's responsible for her for life...the whole 'for better or worse ' bullshit.. Dad's had nothing but the worse with her..very little better if any at all.. Sad..really sad..
Sorry APA, hope I didn't bring up some grievance there :(, it's like when I talk about the past with my mum, and if the subject turns to that of her son, David, who died of cancer at age 12, I know it won't be long before the thought of him turns into something mournful, it's why I try not to dwell on it with her.
Man, this thread really cast a grey cloud didn't it :S
We had a neighbor lady, in the apartment next to us, that we didn't know. She was an alcoholic, fell, couldn't get up, and died in her own offal. So the moral is ... moderate the drugs, stay healthy, make friends, have someone check on you every day or so. Return the favor if you are also a senior. There was some woman in England, had her own home, was dead for five years. Neighbors thought she had moved away ;-( We had a coworker who died last year in bed ... his employer checked on him when he didn't show up for work. At least he was found quickly, and died in bed, not on the floor, in his own offal.
Quote from: Munch on February 16, 2016, 06:20:53 PM
Sorry APA, hope I didn't bring up some grievance there :(, it's like when I talk about the past with my mum, and if the subject turns to that of her son, David, who died of cancer at age 12, I know it won't be long before the thought of him turns into something mournful, it's why I try not to dwell on it with her.
Man, this thread really cast a grey cloud didn't it :S
Nah.. You're alright.. It's an old story. My dad married her just a few years after my mother died and we all knew what a bitch she was. The mistake was not telling my dad the shit she spewed at all of us before he married her. He should have run like hell from her, but he was lonely. He hated being alone so he married the first chance he had without thinking about it. He still has that old Catholic upbringing that makes him believe that a marriage should last forever despite her being such a cunt..
The really sad part is that his marriage to my mother was wonderful and they were truly in love from day one till the day she died.
Ww keep telling him she needs to be in a nursing home and he knows it, but he fears putting her in some dump despite the fact that she deserves it.
Nursing home or not, it isn't punitive, it is a public health issue. Your father needs counseling, or a home himself. Sorry she was a bitch, and sounds like she didn't improve over time either. Usually people don't, unfortunately ;-( A friend of mine, his elderly father was so obese, if the father fell out of bed, they had a hard time getting him back in. The elderly mother couldn't do it. Don't grow old, it isn't any fun, I am telling you!
I woke up thinking about the notion that Obama appointing a Justice during his last year of tenure being unprecedented (which it's actually not, but fuck that detail). What a thinly veiled obstructionism. You can't do anything that isn't a precedent? Is that written down someplace? How does congress pass a new law? Every new law is unprecedented. The comment itself is unprecedented, since no one was ever boneheaded enough to think of it before.
I'd bet anything that if a Republican would be occupying the Oval office, we would have an appointment to SCOTUS. Obstructionism has become second nature to the GOP.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 17, 2016, 08:38:48 AM
I'd bet anything that if a Republican would be occupying the Oval office, we would have an appointment to SCOTUS. Obstructionism has become second nature to the GOP.
Joseph, you are wrong.................Obstructionism has become the only nature of the GOP!
If I remember right good old Ronnie, the Rep Saint, appointed Scalia in an election year. The GOP defines what a hypocrite is.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 17, 2016, 08:56:35 AM
Joseph, you are wrong.................Obstructionism has become the only nature of the GOP!
If I remember right good old Ronnie, the Rep Saint, appointed Scalia in an election year. The GOP defines what a hypocrite is.
I stand corrected... :-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 17, 2016, 08:56:35 AM
Joseph, you are wrong.................Obstructionism has become the only nature of the GOP!
If I remember right good old Ronnie, the Rep Saint, appointed Scalia in an election year. The GOP defines what a hypocrite is.
No, that was Kennedy in 1988. Scalia was in an off year, 1986. Also, Nixon appointed two in 1972, and Ike appointed one in 1956 -- those last three being while the president was also a candidate. It has
never been the case that a SCOTUS nominee be put on hold pending an election, and you have to go back to FDR for the last time a Democrat had that opportunity.
Not that the GOP gives a shit about the Constitution. That runs a distant second to throwing a fit every time President Obama breathes.
Quote from: trdsf on February 17, 2016, 11:09:14 AM
No, that was Kennedy in 1988. Scalia was in an off year, 1986. Also, Nixon appointed two in 1972, and Ike appointed one in 1956 -- those last three being while the president was also a candidate. It has never been the case that a SCOTUS nominee be put on hold pending an election, and you have to go back to FDR for the last time a Democrat had that opportunity.
Not that the GOP gives a shit about the Constitution. That runs a distant second to throwing a fit every time President Obama breathes.
Thanks for correcting my memory--I'm finding that more and more I am remembering things from an alternative universe. :)) And you are correct that the gop cares little, if at all, for the constitution. They read it as they read their bibles--pulling out things that don't exist or put a new spin on things that do.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 17, 2016, 08:38:48 AM
I'd bet anything that if a Republican would be occupying the Oval office, we would have an appointment to SCOTUS. Obstructionism has become second nature to the GOP.
Yeah, no. The Democrats have done (or proposed doing) the same shit too.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/)
“exclusive fraternity for hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus, an Austrian society that dates back to the 1600s.â€
See his royal highness, Scalia the First ... was a member of European nobility. I also hear that the local sheriff pronounced him dead, and not by foul means ... thru a phone call, he never examined the body (or had anyone else do it). A coroner examined my father's dead body, but then he wasn't on the SCOTUS.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 16, 2016, 05:04:21 PM
He feels that since he married her he's responsible for her for life...the whole 'for better or worse ' bullshit..
Isn't that what love is in the end, APA? We are talking about people at their mid 80s. I have a big respect for your dad.
Quote from: Johan on February 17, 2016, 07:06:43 PM
Yeah, no. The Democrats have done (or proposed doing) the same shit too.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/)
When Schumer made that speech, it was hypothetical as there were no nominees to SCOTUS since there were no vacancies. Previously, Bush had wanted to nominate Harriet Miers, a total outcast with no experience as a judge - labelled as a disaster by Bush own party. In that context, Schumer was just giving Bush a warning shot not to pull a fast one in his last year as a president. Context is very important...
Quote from: Johan on February 17, 2016, 07:06:43 PM
Yeah, no. The Democrats have done (or proposed doing) the same shit too.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/)
So are you approving of McConnell pulling it now when there is an actual vacancy as opposed to Schumer simply discussing it when there wasn't? Because this has no relevance unless you're saying either that both were right, or both were wrong. "They did it too" doesn't give either side one free shot to do the same (and also ignores Republican obstructionism over many more judicial nominees put forward by President Obama for seats that remain vacant because they refuse to act on them). If it was wrong for Schumer to suggest it, it's wrong for McConnell to actually do it. If it's okay for McConnell to refuse to consider a nomination made by Obama, then it was okay for Schumer to suggest a moratorium on nominations during the upcoming election year. Period.
Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2016, 10:57:09 PM
“exclusive fraternity for hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus, an Austrian society that dates back to the 1600s.â€
See his royal highness, Scalia the First ... was a member of European nobility. I also hear that the local sheriff pronounced him dead, and not by foul means ... thru a phone call, he never examined the body (or had anyone else do it). A coroner examined my father's dead body, but then he wasn't on the SCOTUS.
And if that doesn't smack of the old world Illuminati, nothing does. Ancient hunting club formed in Austria? Hoo boy. Not that far from Bavaria. You never know...... carry on.