Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 13, 2016, 10:26:03 PM
-
Be interesting who us the next Supreme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35571868
-
Good riddance.
There is no hell for his sweating, bilious, morbidly obese carcass to rot in - alas, the good earth of this planet will be soiled somewhere when his vast bulk is interred. That aside, the planet is a little cleaner this evening.
-
Dig, dong, the bitch is dead!
-
Cetainly not sorry to see him go but methinks it's good news for democracy.
Republicans are already freaking out and looking for Scalia's successor to be appointed post election. by, they hope, a republican president.
Obama should act now - screw them.
-
Such loving remarks and disrespectful. Wonder how his family would feel reading them...
Is that atheist love at it's best? :(
-
Such loving remarks and disrespectful. Wonder how his family would feel reading them...
Is that atheist love at it's best? :(
Only hypocrites respect in death somebody they despised in life.
Were you sad when Hitler died?
There was a great Irving Berlin number that looked forward to his death.
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/whenthatmanisdeadandgone.shtml
-
Good riddance.
There is no hell
Fingers crossed?
-
Such loving remarks and disrespectful. Wonder how his family would feel reading them...
Is that atheist love at it's best? :(
Yeah, no doubt you were really upset when Osama bin Laden was killed.
-
Yeah, no doubt you were really upset when Osama bin Laden was killed.
Stand by for a sanctimonious, hypocritical reply. :)
-
Only hypocrites respect in death somebody they despised in life.
Were you sad when Hitler died?
There was a great Irving Berlin number that looked forward to his death.
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/whenthatmanisdeadandgone.shtml
Godwin's Law!!!!!! 5000 points Len has invoked Hitler.
-
Yeah, no doubt you were really upset when Osama bin Laden was killed.
Did this man order aircraft into buildings?
Antitheist types have a funny demonology....Take Mary Whitehouse. For expressing a view she is vilified by antitheists.
-
Such loving remarks and disrespectful.
Are we supposed to pretend to respect on death somebody who was despised in life so that you can start slinging around accusations of hypocrisy?
Wonder how his family would feel reading them...
Pretty sure it's nothing they won't have heard ten thousand times before.
-
That guy is no loss to the US that is for sure!
-
Did this man order aircraft into buildings?
No he didn't. Plenty would say however that rather than killing three thousand people in a matter of a few minutes, he did deep and enduring harm to American society just from sitting on his big fat arse behind a desk.
Antitheist types have a funny demonology....Take Mary Whitehouse. For expressing a view she is vilified by antitheists.
Rightly so - her view, you might remember, was all about trying to force her standards and her beliefs onto everyone else by seeking to dictate what they could (or rather couldn't) watch and read. (I put a quote by A. C. Grayling to this effect on the quotes thread). She appointed herself not as a but the arbiter of taste and decency for the nation. That always merits vilification.
-
Good riddance.
There is no hell for his sweating, bilious, morbidly obese carcass to rot in - alas, the good earth of this planet will be soiled somewhere when his vast bulk is interred. That aside, the planet is a little cleaner this evening.
Thank God that we have a system in the US that allows for balance on their Supreme Court - something that I appreciate that you clearly don't believe in.
Its interesting that this has happened now, especially with the end of the Obama-era so close. I wonder whether, despite his statement that he will appoint a replacement, and Obama-nominee will get past Congress and the Senate?
On a slight tangent, was watching an episode of the West Wing the other day (Season 5:17) where Jed Bartlett nominates two Supremes at once. One extreme Democrat and one extreme Republican.
-
Obama should act now - screw them.
Thankfully (and please note, I have criticised some of Scalla's decisions over the last 30-odd years), its not up to Obama to decide; its up to him to nominate.
-
Thank God that we have a system in the US that allows for balance on their Supreme Court - something that I appreciate that you clearly don't believe in.
Odd thing to say about a man so patently unbalanced.
-
Good riddance.
There is no hell for his sweating, bilious, morbidly obese carcass to rot in - alas, the good earth of this planet will be soiled somewhere when his vast bulk is interred. That aside, the planet is a little cleaner this evening.
Few of us are pretty in death. Anyway, being overweight is not yet an offence, although I am sure the next Labour government will sort out the fatties once they have demonised the boozers.
-
Odd thing to say about a man so patently unbalanced.
Was he any more or less unbalanced than you are? You will obviously say yes, but your opinion can be deemed to be biased and unbalanced ;)
-
Few of us are pretty in death.
Evelyn McHale springs to mind. But he wasn't pretty in life either, in any sense.
-
Rightly so - her view, you might remember, was all about trying to force her standards and her beliefs onto everyone else by seeking to dictate what they could (or rather couldn't) watch and read.
And how could she possibly have tried that? Did she have stormtroopers? Was she planning a coup? Hyperbole on your part I'm afraid. History rightly pitches her against Carleton Greene who was like her a single person but unlike her did have the power to dictate what we watched.
I think you guys regular mistake having a POV with trying to ram it down throats....I used to think that way but know better.
-
Few of us are pretty in death. Anyway, being overweight is not yet an offence, although I am sure the next Labour government will sort out the fatties once they have demonised the boozers.
I don't think this argument carries much weight.
-
Was he any more or less unbalanced than you are? You will obviously say yes, but your opinion can be deemed to be biased and unbalanced ;)
This was a man who thought there was/is a real, literal Devil who goes around making peope not believe in God. In other words, the Alan Burns Syndrome, and in still other words, utterly unhinged.
-
A blocked nomination would leave the court with 8 members for the longest time that I am aware of happening. I think it might well be counterproductive for the Republicans as a party and as candidates for the Presidency to make this all about blocking. It is the sort of tactic that will appeal to their voters but not swing voters. Given current polling, it could ironically be something that would contribute to them losing the chance to nominate the next couple of Supremes.
Just a note to Hope, the system doesn't ensure balance, indeed to avoid deadlock, it ensures there isn't balance. That there is a close split is not built in.
-
And how could she possibly have tried that? Did she have stormtroopers? Was she planning a coup? Hyperbole on your part I'm afraid. History rightly pitches her against Carleton Greene who was like her a single person but unlike her did have the power to dictate what we watched.
I think you guys regular mistake having a POV with trying to ram it down throats....I used to think that way but know better.
She formed the National Viewers and Listeners Association, a body explicitly intended to pressurise the government into ensuring that broadcasting was carried out on their own timid five-year-old terms.
-
She formed the National Viewers and Listeners Association, a body explicitly intended to pressurise the government into ensuring that broadcasting was carried out on their own timid five-year-old terms.
Hush, you'll invoke memories of Jackbooted NVLA members (The dreaded Mumswaffe) throwing pornographers through the windows of Rentaset.
-
Take Mary Whitehouse. For expressing a view she is vilified by antitheists.
Mary Whitehouse was perfectly entitled to express a view - and indeed to expect her views to be challenged.
That wasn't why she was vilified - it was that she tried to impose her views on everyone, regardless of their views, by trying to get things banned. That's different to merely expressing a view. Can't you understand that Vlad.
-
Mary Whitehouse was perfectly entitled to express a view - and indeed to expect her views to be challenged.
That wasn't why she was vilified - it was that she tried to impose her views on everyone, regardless of their views, by trying to get things banned. That's different to merely expressing a view. Can't you understand that Vlad.
Yes but it's the phrase ''trying to impose her views''. Your treatment of it completely distorts the reality of the power relationships which existed......and it was in the hands of Carleton-Greene....particularly in a way that would be unheard of today.
Once again, hysterical hyperbole on your parts.
-
Yes but it's the phrase trying to impose her views.
Why is that such a stumbling block? That's precisely what she sought to do, and indeed dedicated her life to doing.
-
Why is that such a stumbling block? That's precisely what she sought to do, and indeed dedicated her life to doing.
Again..... how could she impose her views having no actual power? Carleton Greene had the power and now we have around 110 channels pumping out Bazalgette.
Where do you get this notion that Whitehouse was some kind of Genghis Khan?
-
Again..... how could she impose her views having no actual power?
She did have influence, though, which came about through endlessly badgering the government to do her bidding in terms of broadcasting and film certification, and didn't mind troubling the courts whenever something cropped up that she didn't like (and she didn't like much). She was the last person (and will probably be the last in the final, ultimate sense) to launch a private prosecution for blasphemy because she didn't like a bad poem in a magazine.
Carleton Greene had the power and now we have around 110 channels pumping out Bazalgette.
Where do you get this notion that Whitehouse was some kind of Genghis Khan?
She would have been more etertaining if she had been. In reality she was a dreary, narrow-minded prude who thought she had the right to tell ther people what to watch, read and listen to.
-
Again..... how could she impose her views having no actual power?
She wanted things banned and lobbied to try to ensure this happened.
So she wanted to impose her views on everyone, ensuring that no-one could watch things she didn't approve of. And she tried to make that happen. That's entirely different to those who opposed her who didn't want to impose their views on anyone - if you wanted to watch you could (as it wasn't banned) if you didn't want to watch, no one made you and of course you had an off switch.
-
Only hypocrites respect in death somebody they despised in life.
Were you sad when Hitler died?
There was a great Irving Berlin number that looked forward to his death.
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/whenthatmanisdeadandgone.shtml
I guess you have double standards... by all means discuss what he did wrong. But by no means diss him when dead in public
where is family could read simply by google search of his name.
There is no hypocrisy in respect for his family since this is what I am referring to. In spite of anything he might have done at least respect their grief. Tell me what he did in life to deserve such angst from you and others. I had never heard of him till today. But pray God it isn't his decisions did not agree with abortion bill or gay marriage. Because that would show how bias and how atheists believe only they are right about such matters... Atheists are against abortion and gay marriage too.
Right or wrong does not come into choices. Nor does it make it right for you to abuse him in death. >:(
So tell me what evils he committed and how he was in such a high place of power for doing so.
-
She did have influence, though, which came about through endlessly badgering the government to do her bidding in terms of broadcasting and film certification, and didn't mind troubling the courts whenever something cropped up that she didn't like (and she didn't like much).
And you would withdraw that facility for somebody who wasn't the Director General of the BBC?
-
She would have been more etertaining if she had been. In reality she was a dreary, narrow-minded prude who thought she had the right to tell ther people what to watch, read and listen to.
No evidence of that against her thinking she had the right to try and influence what was watched. Carleton Greene had far more of the right the right to tell people what to watch since he commanded two thirds of what was offered to watch and 100 percent minus Radio Luxemburg and the pirates of what was listened to.
She was no press baron.
How far can the listener influence what is watched now rather than the other way round.
All radio is the same and TV is almost exclusively bazalgette.
-
Lets not forget that her opposition wasn't just in areas of sex etc.
This was the woman who complained about Richard Dimbleby's ground breaking coverage of the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp being repeated. Remember this was reporting real atrocities and her view was that is somehow might upset someone's tea time. She described it as "filth", being "bound to shock and offend", "an awful intrusion" and "very off-putting".
Her view was that we shouldn't know the details, we should brush the horror under the carpet because it might be 'off putting' - a truly atrocious woman in so many respects.
-
Lets not forget that her opposition wasn't just in areas of sex etc.
This was the woman who complained about Richard Dimbleby's ground breaking coverage of the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp being repeated. Remember this was reporting real atrocities and her view was that is somehow might upset someone's tea time. She described it as "filth", being "bound to shock and offend", "an awful intrusion" and "very off-putting".
Her view was that we shouldn't know the details, we should brush the horror under the carpet because it might be 'off putting' - a truly atrocious woman in so many respects.
Yes and I disagree with that but I do not vilify her for holding contrary views.
Had she attempted a coup to take over Carleton Greene by assassination it might be a different story. Had she caused a civil war where the country was split between those that wanted to watch Dennis Potter's latest filthfest and that nice Billy Cottons Band show..... it might be a different.
Don't forget, Carleton Greene presided over The Black and White Minstrel show....is he thus vilified?....Is he f**K, as Kenneth Tynan would have put it.
-
I guess you have double standards... by all means discuss what he did wrong. But by no means diss him when dead in public
where is family could read simply by google search of his name.
Don't be stupid! What on earth is the difference between condemning his actions during his life and doing so after his death? To make such a difference would be the height of hypocrisy.
There is no hypocrisy in respect for his family since this is what I am referring to. In spite of anything he might have done at least respect their grief.
I have said nothing about his family, so don't go creating straw men just to suit yourself (as usual).
Tell me what he did in life to deserve such angst from you and others. I had never heard of him till today. But pray God it isn't his decisions did not agree with abortion bill or gay marriage. Because that would show how bias and how atheists believe only they are right about such matters... Atheists are against abortion and gay marriage too.
Right or wrong does not come into choices. Nor does it make it right for you to abuse him in death. >:(
So tell me what evils he committed and how he was in such a high place of power for doing so.
Look it up for yourself, I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Partly because I have better things to do, but mainly because any attempt to do so will meet with a brick wall of incomprehension.
-
Yes and I disagree with that but I do not vilify her for holding contrary views.
Nor do I. I vilify her for proclaiming herself the judge of taste and decency for others and trying to interfere in the choices of those others.
Had she attempted a coup to take over Carleton Greene by assassination it might be a different story. Had she caused a civil war where the country was split between those that wanted to watch Dennis Potter's latest filthfest and that nice Billy Cottons Band show..... it might be a different.
And you accuse others of hysterical hyperbole ::) It wasn't a civil war but I'd say the country was split between those who thought that Mary Whitehouse and those like her should decide what others - grown adults at that - can watch, read and listen to, and those who thought that that was a decision best left to themselves.
-
Nor do I. I vilify her for proclaiming herself the judge of taste and decency for others and trying to interfere in the choices of those others.And you accuse others of hysterical hyperbole ::) It wasn't a civil war but I'd say the country was split between those who thought that Mary Whitehouse and those like her should decide what others - grown adults at that - can watch, read and listen to, and those who thought that that was a decision best left to themselves.
Where was the proclamation?
I'm afraid for you guys opposition is an affront.
And you are completely mistaken about the status of tv and radio at the time. There were 3 channels and radio accessible by everyone not just grown adults.
-
Where was the proclamation?
In everything she said, did and tried to do from the formation of the NVLA (in 1964, I think) onwards.
I'm afraid for you guys opposition is an affront.
No. For this guy, anybody telling another grown-up what they're supposed to watch, read and listen to - or not - is an affront.
And you are completely mistaken about the status of tv and radio at the time. There were 3 channels and radio accessible by everyone not just grown adults.
At what time?
-
In everything she said, did and tried to do from the formation of the NVLA (in 1964, I think) onwards.No. For this guy, anybody telling another grown-up what they're supposed to watch, read and listen to - or not - is an affront.At what time?
In the sixties.
There is no evidence to show that Whitehouse wasn't in fact largely pissing in the wind or that at anytime she could enforce her views on the public or that she was deluded enough to think she would ever be in that position.
-
In the sixties.
There is no evidence to show that Whitehouse wasn't in fact largely pissing in the wind or that at anytime she could enforce her views on the public or that she was deluded enough to think she would ever be in that position.
Then what do you think she thought she was doing?
-
Yes and I disagree with that but I do not vilify her for holding contrary views.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my point.
I was not vilifying her for personally finding Dimbleby's coverage distasteful (albeit I find that a rather odd response as this was surely the point of the coverage, to generate horror).
No the reasons why I find her approach reprehensible was that she wanted to prevent everyone and anyone from seeing this coverage, regardless of their response. She was trying to impose her own personal (and very extreme even in those days) views of what was right and proper on everyone in the UK.
-
Then what do you think she thought she was doing?
Standing for what she believed using democratic and lawful ways to influence those who had bags more power than she ever had at the cost of being vilified on one hand or made a figure of fun on the other. Her mission was to try and maintain Reithian standards in what she saw as a public place...after all, even today I believe shagging on the pavement outside Debenham's or beating somebody to a pulp is not permitted.
-
Standing for what she believed using democratic and lawful ways to influence those who had bags more power than she ever had at the cost of being vilified on one hand or made a figure of fun on the other. Her mission was to try and maintain Reithian standards in what she saw as a public place...
... by trying to bring pressure to bear on broadcasters to broadcast only what she approved of.
after all, even today I believe shagging on the pavement outside Debenham's or beating somebody to a pulp is not permitted.
Showing somebody being beaten to a pulp in a fictional context is not an issue.
-
Showing somebody being beaten to a pulp in a fictional context is not an issue.
?
-
?
You said beating somebody to a pulp isn't permitted. Correct: it isn't. A fictional depiction, by actors, of somebody beating somebody to a pulp is in countless films that Whitehouse and her ilk wanted other people not to be able to see.
-
I was not vilifying her for personally finding Dimbleby's coverage distasteful (albeit I find that a rather odd response as this was surely the point of the coverage, to generate horror).
No the reasons why I find her approach reprehensible was that she wanted to prevent everyone and anyone from seeing this coverage, regardless of their response. She was trying to impose her own personal (and very extreme even in those days) views of what was right and proper on everyone in the UK.
What makes this example so particularly odious is that this wasn't even about a fictional film created for the purpose of pure entertainment; footage of the liberation of the death camps was and remains an immensely valuable historical document.
-
You said beating somebody to a pulp isn't permitted. Correct: it isn't. A fictional depiction, by actors, of somebody beating somebody to a pulp is in countless films that Whitehouse and her ilk wanted other people not to be able to see.
Yes but also what she considered rightly or wrongly as the impressionable and at the end of the day so what? She must have known that against the BBC, a progressive government, financial and consumer interest she would have limited success but never gave up trying to influence.
I feel you are trying to goad me into some kind of debate on whether fictional representations have any effect on people. As I recall Whitehouse frequently criticised Dr Who for violence and Tom and Jerry..............It's easy to agree that that is going toward daft as a brush.....but what about realistic portrayals...what about learning by observation.
Your alternative would have us left to sexism (Mainly for Men) and then the clean up would then have been led by Auntie Germaine.........How would that have panned out I wonder.
-
Reading some of the discussions by Scalia, and by some of the Republican candidates as regards originalism, one hears echoes of the fetishism apparent in literalism in Biblical terms. I wonder if there is a reaction to the gradual loss of certainties of ideas like identity that drives people to cling to such simplicity?
-
Reading some of the discussions by Scalia, and by some of the Republican candidates as regards originalism, one hears echoes of the fetishism apparent in literalism in Biblical terms. I wonder if there is a reaction to the gradual loss of certainties of ideas like identity that drives people to cling to such simplicity?
There was a time when dyslexia was the vogue diagnosis in regard to poor educational achievement (this sort of coincided with the time I started teaching, and we had it thrust down our throats in the last couple of years of college. Some 7 or 8 years later the diagnosis had changed to ADHD, and INSET sessions were full of how to recognise the issue and how to minimise the problems around reporting it to the Ed. Psych. We now have dispraxia, discalculia, autism and its various forms. Next decade, who knows what we'll have.
Society seems to dislike some of the more simple explanations - for instance the child who is consistently disobedient at school because the disciplinary regime there is so different to that which they experience at home.
I sometimes feel that society allows more of these unusual conditions because it means that it can potentially limit its response to some of the behaviour. Clearly, there are many children (and adults) for whom there are such issues, but I've seen too many children diagnosed with such conditions when their activities don't warrant it. Perhaps the most famous for me was the Year 7 lad who was streets behind his cohort average and even though he was in the Special Needs Class he made absolutely no progress for the first 8 months of the year. He was tested and diagnosed with dyslexia by the Ed Psych in the April. In the May, the school (and the SEN department in particular) was visited by the police who were investigating a spate of thefts across the city where he lived and went to school. It soon became clear that this lad was the subject of the investigation, and in discussion with the SEN staff, year tutor and deputy head with responsibility for the lower school, the police made it clear that he was extremely bright, and had been leading a criminal gang (which included several elder relatives of his own) for the past 4 years. He had been assessed by an Ed Psych 2 years earlier when his name had come up as a partial ring-leader in an investigation and no sign of dyslexia evidenced itself. Sadly, I never heard what happoened to him further down the line: that was in the early 1990s, and I left the staff to work in Nepal 2 years after all this came to light.
-
Don't be stupid! What on earth is the difference between condemning his actions during his life and doing so after his death? To make such a difference would be the height of hypocrisy.
I have said nothing about his family, so don't go creating straw men just to suit yourself (as usual).
No one said you had...
Look it up for yourself, I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Partly because I have better things to do, but mainly because any attempt to do so will meet with a brick wall of incomprehension.
Read them properly instead of putting a spin on it which DOES NOT EXIST...
Only hypocrites respect in death somebody they despised in life.
Were you sad when Hitler died?
There was a great Irving Berlin number that looked forward to his death.
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/whenthatmanisdeadandgone.shtml
I guess you have double standards... by all means discuss what he did wrong. But by no means diss him when dead in public
where is family could read simply by google search of his name.
There is no hypocrisy in respect for his family since this is what I am referring to. In spite of anything he might have done at least respect their grief. Tell me what he did in life to deserve such angst from you and others. I had never heard of him till today. But pray God it isn't his decisions did not agree with abortion bill or gay marriage. Because that would show how bias and how atheists believe only they are right about such matters... Atheists are against abortion and gay marriage too.
Right or wrong does not come into choices. Nor does it make it right for you to abuse him in death. >:(
So tell me what evils he committed and how he was in such a high place of power for doing so.
So stop making false accusations my post was perfectly clear in that I had been referring to his family.
Seems the brick wall was your own built brick by brick... Maybe an apology would go some way to show sincerity unless deliberate, of course.
-
So stop making false accusations my post was perfectly clear in that I had been referring to his family.
Nobody even mentioned his family but you, so give over with the bleating and the whining.
-
Look it up for yourself, I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Partly because I have better things to do, but mainly because any attempt to do so will meet with a brick wall of incomprehension.
Read them properly instead of putting a spin on it which DOES NOT EXIST...
So stop making false accusations my post was perfectly clear in that I had been referring to his family.
Seems the brick wall was your own built brick by brick... Maybe an apology would go some way to show sincerity unless deliberate, of course.
For goodness' sake climb back into your ivory tower of sanctimonious righteousness and give us all some peace.
Pray to your "God" to free you from your stuck-up, know-all nature and give you a little wisdom.
-
For goodness' sake climb back into your ivory tower of sanctimonious righteousness and give us all some peace.
Exactly what I was going to say to you Len.......only I was going to use the word 'Hacienda' instead of 'Tower'.
-
Exactly what I was going to say to you Len.......only I was going to use the word 'Hacienda' instead of 'Tower'.
Yes, most of us can't afford ivory towers. :)
-
There was a time when dyslexia was the vogue diagnosis in regard to poor educational achievement (this sort of coincided with the time I started teaching, and we had it thrust down our throats in the last couple of years of college. Some 7 or 8 years later the diagnosis had changed to ADHD, and INSET sessions were full of how to recognise the issue and how to minimise the problems around reporting it to the Ed. Psych. We now have dispraxia, discalculia, autism and its various forms. Next decade, who knows what we'll have.
Society seems to dislike some of the more simple explanations - for instance the child who is consistently disobedient at school because the disciplinary regime there is so different to that which they experience at home.
I sometimes feel that society allows more of these unusual conditions because it means that it can potentially limit its response to some of the behaviour. Clearly, there are many children (and adults) for whom there are such issues, but I've seen too many children diagnosed with such conditions when their activities don't warrant it. Perhaps the most famous for me was the Year 7 lad who was streets behind his cohort average and even though he was in the Special Needs Class he made absolutely no progress for the first 8 months of the year. He was tested and diagnosed with dyslexia by the Ed Psych in the April. In the May, the school (and the SEN department in particular) was visited by the police who were investigating a spate of thefts across the city where he lived and went to school. It soon became clear that this lad was the subject of the investigation, and in discussion with the SEN staff, year tutor and deputy head with responsibility for the lower school, the police made it clear that he was extremely bright, and had been leading a criminal gang (which included several elder relatives of his own) for the past 4 years. He had been assessed by an Ed Psych 2 years earlier when his name had come up as a partial ring-leader in an investigation and no sign of dyslexia evidenced itself. Sadly, I never heard what happoened to him further down the line: that was in the early 1990s, and I left the staff to work in Nepal 2 years after all this came to light.
? And once more??, even thrice??? Sorry, Hope, really don't see the connection between this and my post you replied to.
-
What rotters. Celebrating the death of somebody you never took an interest in learning about. Well there are decent people, liberal judges on the SC, that actually knew the man well and despite their differences, loved the man dearly. You people are disgusting.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-remembers-justice-antonin-scalia/ar-BBpviug
Now I hear Dicky Dawkins had a stroke..........
-
Bill Clinton being a decent human being. Try and learn something.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/bill-clinton-comments-on-the-death-of-justice-scalia/2016/02/13/c8b35580-d2d0-11e5-90d3-34c2c42653ac_video.html
-
What rotters. Celebrating the death of somebody you never took an interest in learning about. Well there are decent people, liberal judges on the SC, that actually knew the man well and despite their differences, loved the man dearly. You people are disgusting.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-remembers-justice-antonin-scalia/ar-BBpviug
I haven't been celebrating the death of anyone.
But virtually all of us have had no personal contact with Scalia so we cannot judge whether he is lovely and charming as an individual or horrible and rude.
What we do know about him is his views and we can judge him on those. It is perfectly reasonable to have a deeply unfavourable opinion of him on the basis of his views and nothing else (because we don't know him). It is also perfectly reasonable to maintain that unfavourable opinion on him based on his views in death as well as life. Indeed I would argue that it would be deeply hypocritical to be highly unfavourable toward him due to his views in life, but somehow to put on crocodile tears in death and pretend he was a cuddly liberal - he wasn't.
I note you link to comments from Bill Clinton - he, unlike us, knew him personally so can make comments on him personally as well as on his views, we cannot. In addition, of course, he is a politician and his wife is running for president so I suspect he will chose his words very carefully.
-
Bill Clinton being a decent human being.
Ah yes, Clinton - a politician and one with a proven track record of truthfulness ::)
-
I haven't been celebrating the death of anyone.
But virtually all of us have had no personal contact with Scalia so we cannot judge whether he is lovely and charming as an individual or horrible and rude.
What we do know about him is his views and we can judge him on those. It is perfectly reasonable to have a deeply unfavourable opinion of him on the basis of his views and nothing else (because we don't know him). It is also perfectly reasonable to maintain that unfavourable opinion on him based on his views in death as well as life. Indeed I would argue that it would be deeply hypocritical to be highly unfavourable toward him due to his views in life, but somehow to put on crocodile tears in death and pretend he was a cuddly liberal - he wasn't.
I note you link to comments from Bill Clinton - he, unlike us, knew him personally so can make comments on him personally as well as on his views, we cannot. In addition, of course, he is a politician and his wife is running for president so I suspect he will chose his words very carefully.
Excellent post!
-
I haven't been celebrating the death of anyone.
I believe it was Mark Twain who said something along the lines of: "I wish ill to no man, although there are many obituaries I have read with great pleasure."
-
Did this man order aircraft into buildings?
Antitheist types have a funny demonology....Take Mary Whitehouse. For expressing a view she is vilified by antitheists.
Mary Whitehouse?
You are showing your age :P
Haven't heard her name for years.
Most people probably don't even know who she was, unless they are older.
:)
-
Yes but also what she considered rightly or wrongly as the impressionable and at the end of the day so what? She must have known that against the BBC, a progressive government, financial and consumer interest she would have limited success but never gave up trying to influence.
I feel you are trying to goad me into some kind of debate on whether fictional representations have any effect on people. As I recall Whitehouse frequently criticised Dr Who for violence and Tom and Jerry..............It's easy to agree that that is going toward daft as a brush.....but what about realistic portrayals...what about learning by observation.
Your alternative would have us left to sexism (Mainly for Men) and then the clean up would then have been led by Auntie Germaine.........How would that have panned out I wonder.
Yes, as a dr who fan, I couldn't stand the woman.
She was dictorial.
Even as a child I couldn't abide her.
-
Antonin Scalia seemed to support some of the worst and scarier views in the USA.
:o
He seems to have been one of those sort of polititians.
-
Antonin Scalia seemed to support some of the worst and scarier views in the USA.
:o
He seems to have been one of those sort of polititians.
While the decisions have political impacts, he wasn't a politician. I disagree with a lot of Scalia's decisions but I don't see him as particularly scary. It's a conservative view of the US constitution but that's about it.
I find scary that the Republican candidates want to try and hold a nomination off fora year. I doubt Scalia would have approved of that and ironically it is they who seek to desecrate his legacy.
-
While the decisions have political impacts, he wasn't a politician. I disagree with a lot of Scalia's decisions but I don't see him as particularly scary. It's a conservative view of the US constitution but that's about it.
I find scary that the Republican candidates want to try and hold a nomination off fora year. I doubt Scalia would have approved of that and ironically it is they who seek to desecrate his legacy.
I think one of the biggest issues here is that it would appear to be a job for life, which ramps up the massive importance of selecting a new Supreme Court Justice, and also means that whether or no a President gets an opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court or not is pretty well a matter of luck.
This doesn't seem right to me. I am uncomfortable with someone (whoever that may be) being in such a position of authority (and one of just 9) and to be in that position for thirty years, or more as was the case for Scalia. It creates a degree of 'bed blocking' which I think is unhealthy.
Currently most of the members were first appointed in their early 50s (one at the age of just 43) - so with current life expectancy 30-40+ years in the role looks to be the norm unless that person choses to retire. There is talk of a 45 year-old being Scalia's replacement - if so he could easily be in that role for 40 years or more.
I think a lot of the problems on the politics front might be solved by the appointments being fixed term or perhaps renewable only once, with a limit of perhaps 15 years in the role. This would provide greater turnover and make the individual appointments less controversial.
-
Nobody even mentioned his family but you, so give over with the bleating and the whining.
I MENTIONED HIS FAMILY.. So stop falsely accusing of bleating and whining and stick your neck back in...
Zip it Zippy... LOL.. Couldn't resist... Your beliefs help get you through your pain by attacking others but in
truth you are still fighting the obvious. Believing in Christ would be the road to your healing and recovery.
That is the truth but you don't like truth do you?
-
I MENTIONED HIS FAMILY.. So stop falsely accusing of bleating and whining and stick your neck back in...
Can you not read?
Nobody even mentioned his family but you
Zip it Zippy... LOL.. Couldn't resist... Your beliefs help get you through your pain
My only pain at the moment is trying to wade through the mangled car-crash word salad that passes for your posts.
in truth you are still fighting the obvious.
Stupidity - against which, on the authority of Schiller, the gods themselves labour in vain.
-
Of course, this is what actually happened ;)
'Scalia asphyxiated by muslim secret service agent
Calling card left - perfectly left sheets, pajamas, pillow over head and indication of muslim brotherhood. Cannot post source out of fear from my government but u will see it shortly. The JPs were called away for the weekend necessitating call to far away JP. Marshalls disuaded visit for confirm of death, giving cause over phone. This is Obama's horsehead in the bed to Trump, being done on the eve of repub debate - if we can get to Scalia we can get to you. Secret service protection means nothing. Expect Trump now to either double down, or let up on Obama and withdraw. If Trump continues on, it is all out war between TPTB and him. If so, hope he has his personal security overlooking the SS, as I'm sure he trusts them more. You would not believe what is being circulated here in the press, it would boggle ur mind. Sorry that I cannot post without fear from gov but it is the way it is. The US govt is the biggest most corrupt crime organization in the history of the world. Trump is ur only hope, assuming he somehow gets past the corruption alive.'
-
Well Scalia and Shaker, our resident Marxist, had something in common, they both favour the death penalty. A couple years ago Shaker informed me that he wasn't opposed to the death penalty. I was shocked but latter he called himself an old Marxist. At that point it made sense. See, political opposites CAN agree on some things.
Because somebody is your political opposite doesn't make the phrase, ding dong the witch is dead, an acceptable response to their demise.
-
Well Scalia and Shaker, our resident Marxist, had something in common, they both favour the death penalty. A couple years ago Shaker informed me that he wasn't opposed to the death penalty.
No longer the case, as I've changed my mind.
At one point I would have said (and perhaps did say) that I supported capital punishment in principle but not in practice; that I wasn't inherently opposed to the world being better off without certain people who have committed the most terrible of crimes, but that I couldn't support its execution (no pun intended) in practice because of the possibility of killing an innocent party. What the situation is like in North America I don't know but I do know that in my lifetime in the UK alone the number of miscarriages of justice is long and horrific; I can reel off any number of names of those found guilty of murder and who would have been executed at the time if capital punishment had been in place but who were later determined to be not guilty. Stefan Kiszko. Stephen Downing. Angela Cannings. Sally Clark. Barry George. The Bridgewater Four. The Guildford Four. The Birmingham Six. The Cardiff Three. Those are just a few off the top of my head; the rest don't bear thinking about.
Then I thought about it for another ten seconds and realised that it makes little sense to have no particular opinion about something in principle if you're adamantly opposed to it in practice. It's a bit like Stan's emphatic upholding of his right to have a baby (even though he actually can't) in Life of Brian: what's the bloody point? So no, I don't support capital punishment any more. Robert Black died (of natural causes) in prison in Northern Ireland on January 12th this year, aged 68, having served 21 years of a life sentence (minimum of 35 years) for the abduction, rape and murder of four little girls (definite; his actual tally is suspected to be very significantly higher). I think the world is a slightly cleaner place without him and can think of or know of nothing that he did to make the world in any way better or to justify his existence in this life before prison or after it. But I don't know that he should have been hanged, because although in hindsight it seems as good as certain that he committed the wicked deeds for which he was imprisoned, it seemed at the time equally certain for the above-named individuals. That's not a risk worth taking.
Get me an absolutely perfect, 100% infallible legal system free of even the possibility let alone the actuality of human error or deliberate corruption and I'll gladly revisit my opinion. Until then, no.