[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49744000]its not
his posts are too weird/autistic to not be serious[/QUOTE]
also lots of Capitalzing Things that aren't Proper Nouns in his Posts, like this.
I can understand why people might think Scalia was murdered. His death is surrounded by strange circumstances, and the official response to his death is also very strange. Witnesses claim he died with a pillow over his head, his body was very quickly enbalmed, a process that destroys any toxicology, his family immediately denied an autopsy, an expert first claimed heart attack, then changed her official reason to just natural causes without ever seeing the body, his body was escorted to a funeral by no less than twenty policemen, before Scalia he stayed at his ranch he was warned about death threats to other justices and offered a security detail which he declined, and the conflict of interest between Scalia and Obama is obvious. Some claim Obama was informed of the death hours before he made an announcement, but it would make sense that the commander-in-chief would know about the death of a ranking member of government before the public.
Granted, I'm not some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist so I find the whole idea of a federal plot to kill Scalia incredibly unlikely, but the circumstances surrounding his death are definitely very strange and I think they warrant some kind of an investigation; however, if this really was some kind of plot or coverup obviously federal investigators are not going to find anything useful. Nobody watches the watchers. 99.99% probability this was just an old man succumbing to his age and illnesses anyway.
It's unfortunate we lost such a valuable member of the Supreme Court as well. Whoever Obama appoints, I can virtually guarantee it won't balance the philosophy on the court itself. We can say a collective goodbye to the second amendment. Scalia was a good justice with very consistent application of law, and his constitutionalism has benefited all of our rights to freedom of speech and right to bear arms.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49750501]
Granted, I'm not some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist so I find the whole idea of a federal plot to kill Scalia incredibly unlikely, but the circumstances surrounding his death are definitely very strange and I think they warrant some kind of an investigation; however, if this really was some kind of plot or coverup obviously federal investigators are not going to find anything useful. Nobody watches the watchers. 99.99% probability this was just an old man succumbing to his age and illnesses anyway.
It's unfortunate we lost such a valuable member of the Supreme Court as well. Whoever Obama appoints, I can virtually guarantee it won't balance the philosophy on the court itself. We can say a collective goodbye to the second amendment. Scalia was a good justice with very consistent application of law, and his constitutionalism has benefited all of our rights to freedom of speech and right to bear arms.[/QUOTE]
Is a pillow on his head really that suspicious? Also, this is hardly out of nowhere. He was an older and larger gentleman.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49750501]I can understand why people might think Scalia was murdered. His death is surrounded by strange circumstances, and the official response to his death is also very strange. Witnesses claim he died with a pillow over his head, his body was very quickly enbalmed, a process that destroys any toxicology, his family immediately denied an autopsy, an expert first claimed heart attack, then changed her official reason to just natural causes without ever seeing the body, his body was escorted to a funeral by no less than twenty policemen, before Scalia he stayed at his ranch he was warned about death threats to other justices and offered a security detail which he declined, and the conflict of interest between Scalia and Obama is obvious. Some claim Obama was informed of the death hours before he made an announcement, but it would make sense that the commander-in-chief would know about the death of a ranking member of government before the public.
Granted, I'm not some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist so I find the whole idea of a federal plot to kill Scalia incredibly unlikely, but the circumstances surrounding his death are definitely very strange and I think they warrant some kind of an investigation; however, if this really was some kind of plot or coverup obviously federal investigators are not going to find anything useful. Nobody watches the watchers. 99.99% probability this was just an old man succumbing to his age and illnesses anyway.
It's unfortunate we lost such a valuable member of the Supreme Court as well. Whoever Obama appoints, I can virtually guarantee it won't balance the philosophy on the court itself. We can say a collective goodbye to the second amendment. Scalia was a good justice with very consistent application of law, and his constitutionalism has benefited all of our rights to freedom of speech and right to bear arms.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't quite call him good, sure he protected muh guns, but he also did a lot of other bad shit too.
Though the potential loss of balance in the supreme court is quite bad, perhaps a conservative that doesn't think that gays are like murderers would be a much better justice.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49750501]I can understand why people might think Scalia was murdered. His death is surrounded by strange circumstances, and the official response to his death is also very strange. Witnesses claim he died with a pillow over his head, his body was very quickly enbalmed, a process that destroys any toxicology, his family immediately denied an autopsy, an expert first claimed heart attack, then changed her official reason to just natural causes without ever seeing the body, his body was escorted to a funeral by no less than twenty policemen, before Scalia he stayed at his ranch he was warned about death threats to other justices and offered a security detail which he declined, and the conflict of interest between Scalia and Obama is obvious. Some claim Obama was informed of the death hours before he made an announcement, but it would make sense that the commander-in-chief would know about the death of a ranking member of government before the public.
Granted, I'm not some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist so I find the whole idea of a federal plot to kill Scalia incredibly unlikely, but the circumstances surrounding his death are definitely very strange and I think they warrant some kind of an investigation; however, if this really was some kind of plot or coverup obviously federal investigators are not going to find anything useful. Nobody watches the watchers. 99.99% probability this was just an old man succumbing to his age and illnesses anyway.
It's unfortunate we lost such a valuable member of the Supreme Court as well. Whoever Obama appoints, I can virtually guarantee it won't balance the philosophy on the court itself. We can say a collective goodbye to the second amendment. [b]Scalia was a good justice with very consistent application of law, and his constitutionalism has benefited all of our rights to freedom of speech and right to bear arms.[/b][/QUOTE]
If you feel that the right to bear arms is more important than the civil rights of entire demographics, you probably need to sort out your priorities.
[QUOTE=dragon1972;49750501]It's unfortunate we lost such a valuable member of the Supreme Court as well. Whoever Obama appoints, I can virtually guarantee it won't balance the philosophy on the court itself.[/QUOTE]
a philosophy of comparing homosexuality to bestiality?
[QUOTE=KOManiacJim;49741314]I suspect there is foul play. I have a theory that the left had planned the assassination because of heart attack gun.
[video=youtube;tzIw44w00ow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzIw44w00ow[/video]
If the left decided to assassinate people then I will say **** that noise. If anyone like Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton or anyone that is in the vein of Obama gets elected, Then I am going to go to military school and start the people's Crusade against The Enemy that is closer than you or I know.[/QUOTE]
Don't think they let schizophrenics into "military school"
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;49751485]I wouldn't quite call him good, sure he protected muh guns, but he also did a lot of other bad shit too.
Though the potential loss of balance in the supreme court is quite bad, perhaps a conservative that doesn't think that gays are like murderers would be a much better justice.[/QUOTE]
Justice Ruth Bater Ginsburg seems to disagree with you.......
[QUOTE]“From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies,” Ginsburg wrote, according to NBC. [B]“We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots — the ‘applesauce’ and ‘argle bargle’— and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion.[/B] He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.”[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/15/we-were-best-buddies-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-tribute-to-antonin-scalia-highlights-the-ideologically-opposed-pairs-deep-friendship/[/url]
His arguments were always based on constitutional law and not ideology as most of you would like to think.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49752271]His arguments were always based on constitutional law and not ideology as most of you would like to think.[/QUOTE]
funnily enough a lot of bigots say the same thing to justify their opinions
and you just posted proof of how persuasive he was
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49752288]funnily enough a lot of bigots say the same thing to justify their opinions
and you just posted proof of how persuasive he was[/QUOTE]
Are you actually going to post something of substance or are you just going to stick to pejorative watered-down namecalling in a weak attempt to discredit an argument instead of actually tackling it?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49751527]If you feel that the right to bear arms is more important than the civil rights of entire demographics, you probably need to sort out your priorities.[/QUOTE]
I never made any claim to the value of the first and second amendments over the fourteenth. That's a strawman and a half.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49752331]Are you actually going to post something of substance or are you just going to stick to pejorative watered-down namecalling in a weak attempt to discredit an argument instead of actually tackling it?[/QUOTE]
"He isn't a bigot because I said so" isn't an argument my friend
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49752465]"He isn't a bigot because I said so" isn't an argument my friend[/QUOTE]
Neither is "well bigots use this justification". You tried to handwave what I said away by likening it to bigotry, which is not going to work anymore.
So are you going to tackle my actual original argument, or are you going to just continue the same cop-out technique?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49752613]Neither is "well bigots use this justification". You tried to handwave what I said away by likening it to bigotry, which is not going to work anymore.
So are you going to tackle my actual original argument, or are you going to just continue the same cop-out technique?[/QUOTE]
no cop outs here bud
i directly addressed what you said, didn't think i'd have to spell it out. scalia could've been a bigot, he could not have been. if he wasn't, good for him. if he was, you can bet your ass someone who's been studying and practicing law for over 50 years would be the last to let anyone know. there's no proof either way which is why there's not much of an argument to be had that isn't just throwing different opinions out there.
what is a [I]fact[/I], though, is that his interpretation of the law contributed to the suffering of millions. bigot or not, i won't be shedding any tears
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49752692]no cop outs here bud
i directly addressed what you said, didn't think i'd have to spell it out. scalia could've been a bigot, he could not have been. if he wasn't, good for him. if he was, you can bet your ass someone who's been studying and practicing law for over 50 years would be the last to let anyone know. there's no proof either way which is why there's not much of an argument to be had that isn't just throwing different opinions out there.
what is a [I]fact[/I], though, is that his interpretation of the law contributed to the suffering of millions. bigot or not, i won't be shedding any tears[/QUOTE]
His interpretation of the law was as valid as others. We have the supreme court BECAUSE the law can be interpreted differently, and their job is to determine which interpretation is the one that was intended by the creators of the law and judge accordingly.
What I was saying was that regardless of the implications of his interpretation, his interpretations were soundly based in constitutional law and had excellent reasoning behind them, and helped strengthen majority opinions even when he dissented. It's not persuasion, but logic and reasoning that does that. If the implications of his interpretations were negative, they were only as negative as the law, as written, could be interpreted.
"I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone."
-- Richard Matthew Stallman
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49752840]His interpretation of the law was as valid as others. We have the supreme court BECAUSE the law can be interpreted differently, and their job is to determine which interpretation is the one that was intended by the creators of the law and judge accordingly.
What I was saying was that regardless of the implications of his interpretation, his interpretations were soundly based in constitutional law and had excellent reasoning behind them, and helped strengthen majority opinions even when he dissented. It's not persuasion, but logic and reasoning that does that. If the implications of his interpretations were negative, they were only as negative as the law, as written, could be interpreted.[/QUOTE]
[I]His[/I] logic, [I]his[/I] reasoning. Using it to convince others IS persuasion. Persuading doesn't imply maliciousness.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.