• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

USSC Justice Scalia Dead at 79

Started by VtaGeezer, February 13, 2016, 04:13:01 PM

136 or 142

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 14, 2016, 09:00:24 AM

You`re 45?! Wow. You`ve never had a girlfriend, have you?

Why are you so angry?  Seriously, why?

SredniVashtar

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 08:42:13 AM
If others are going to publicly deify them (or come close to doing that) I think a counter needs to be offered.  The whole idea of 'political correctness' is courtesy, but being 'politically correct' is supposedly bad.  So, I guess it's not bad when people you don't like are the ones being treated discourteously.  Spare me the sanctimonious bull shit.

Would you prefer it if I put a 'trigger warning' at the start of my comments?

I'm 45 and I personally couldN'T care less if the family of a public figure has to listen to some harsh words about their relative, especially a public figure as vile as Scalia was.

OK, you're not all that young. I was being kind. You're just exceptionally immature. I don't care about him one way or the other. If you spent a little less energy on being an hysterical tool, and a little more considering the opinions of someone other than yourself, you might have seen that I was offering you some genuinely helpful advice. You are being cowardly for picking a fight with a dead man, and also malicious for trying to make the family suffer for your lack of social skills. Grow up!

136 or 142

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 14, 2016, 08:58:32 AM
That`s the thing; he wasn`t. Scalia was extremely good-natured and had a legendary sense of humor.

That's just the views expressed during this time when people aren't supposed to say anything bad about him.

Scalia's sense of humor frequently masked angry and hate filled sentiments in his judicial opinions and he frequently got angry, even extremely angry in public.  There is the picture of him with the Italian gesture, there was his reaction to the sentiment that he should recuse himself in the case involving his friend Dick Cheney.  That's just off the top of my head. 

Scalia was frequently angry and scolding both in his writings and in public.

136 or 142

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 14, 2016, 09:03:48 AM
OK, you're not all that young. I was being kind. You're just exceptionally immature. I don't care about him one way or the other. If you spent a little less energy on being an hysterical tool, and a little more considering the opinions of someone other than yourself, you might have seen that I was offering you some genuinely helpful advice. You are being cowardly for picking a fight with a dead man, and also malicious for trying to make the family suffer for your lack of social skills. Grow up!

I considered your advice Mr. holier-than-thou.  My reply was 'spare me the sanctimonious bull shit.'

I'm not picking a fight with a dead man, I'm picking a fight with those who are trying to deify the legacy of this piece of shit at the time of his death.

Also, I highly doubt his family will read anything posted here and if you think that is a real possibility, it's your brain that needs growing up.

Also, as I said above, even if his family does read or hear negative comments about him, he was a public figure, so they should be prepared to expect that, even at the time of his wonderful death.

I also note you don't seem to be considering anybody's opinions other than your own either. So I guess you're also immature.

Again, would it make you feel better if I posted a 'trigger warning' at the start of my comments, Mr. Politically Correct.

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 14, 2016, 08:21:39 AM
Who cares?

Damn. All the time you wasted here with this nonsense, you could have been feeding the poor. You uncaring bastard.

I hear ya, bro.  All dem bitches will have thrown caution to the wind now that Scalia ain't there to fuck up their abortions.  Hold on sugah...daddy got a sweet tooth tonight!

SredniVashtar

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 09:12:27 AM
I considered your advice Mr. holier-than-thou.  My reply was 'spare me the sanctimonious bull shit.'

I'm not picking a fight with a dead man, I'm picking a fight with those who are trying to deify the legacy of this piece of shit at the time of his death.

Also, I highly doubt his family will read anything posted here and if you think that is a real possibility, it's your brain that needs growing up.

Also, as I said above, even if his family does read or hear negative comments about him, he was a public figure, so they should be prepared to expect that, even at the time of his wonderful death.

I also note you don't seem to be considering anybody's opinions other than your own either. So I guess you're also immature.

Again, would it make you feel better if I posted a 'trigger warning' at the start of my comments, Mr. Politically Correct.

I very much doubt you are 45. You sound college age to me, particularly with the way you like to label people. If you really are as old as you say then you have some serious problems going on. There's a difference between being negative and being abusive, and all you are doing is pouring vitriol on someone who is not here to counter you. As a general rule, you ought to leave all this stuff until after the funeral. Perhaps you have never lost people? Well, let me tell you, this kind of shit would make me want rip your fucking head off if I had to listen to some moron spouting off about someone close to me. Even so, I'm not saying this for the sake of the family, I'm saying it for your sake, because carrying on this way makes you less than human.


Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 09:01:31 AM
Why are you so angry?  Seriously, why?

I'm not, brother. I'm just concerned about you. You have some serious pent-up aggression. I suspect it may stem from some unresolved sexual feelings carried over from your teenage years.

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 14, 2016, 09:38:15 AM
I suspect it may stem from some unresolved sexual feelings carried over from your teenage years.

I disagree.  He doesn't seem like a Republican to me at all.

136 or 142

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 14, 2016, 09:26:33 AM
I very much doubt you are 45. You sound college age to me, particularly with the way you like to label people. If you really are as old as you say then you have some serious problems going on. There's a difference between being negative and being abusive, and all you are doing is pouring vitriol on someone who is not here to counter you. As a general rule, you ought to leave all this stuff until after the funeral. Perhaps you have never lost people? Well, let me tell you, this this kind of shit would make me want rip your fucking head off if I had to listen to some moron spouting off about someone close to me. Even so, I'm not saying this for the sake of the family, I'm saying it for your sake, because carrying on this way makes you less than human.

If you check twitter and other places, you'd find that there are many people who are offering views similar to mine and sometimes even with much harsher language.  I posted from Adam Stirling his comment that MANY 'poor, dispossessed and so on' expressed glee in his death.

I don't know your age, but if you think my view on the ridiculousness of only being allowed to say nice things about people (especially public figures) after they've died is a 'fringe' view,I can only conclude you don't get out much and, contrary to what you say, it's you who seem to only deal with people who share similar views to you.

I'm all for courtesy for families of private people who have died in most situations.  But, Scalia was a public official.  If we're not supposed to say bad things about him even to the point of countering the positive things that are said that at the time of a person's death are frequently bullshit, then nobody should say anything at all.

"As a general rule, you ought to leave all this stuff until after the funeral."  That is a normative statement being dressed up as a positive statement.  Or, in ordinary language, an opinion being made out to be a fact.  The correct response, in my opinion (hah!) to all unsupported opinions is 'why?"

So, again, thanks, but I really don't need your advice.


136 or 142

Quote from: FightTheFuture on February 14, 2016, 09:38:15 AM
I'm not, brother. I'm just concerned about you. You have some serious pent-up aggression. I suspect it may stem from some unresolved sexual feelings carried over from your teenage years.

Thank you for your concern, but I'm really almost always perfectly calm.  I'm certainly a lot calmer than nearly all Republican Primary voters.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
Thank you for your concern, but I'm really almost always perfectly calm.  I'm certainly a lot calmer than nearly all Republican Primary voters.

Serene is the brow upon which rests the Crown of Righteousness.

136 or 142

In Scalia's case the bullshit being presented as 'facts' at the time of his death are:
1.That he represented a clear legal philosophy and acted on it accordingly.  Bullshit, his 'legal philosophy' was at best based on his position that he somehow had a perfect view of the intent of the framers of the Constitution.  Also, I've I've shown here, in his later years he gave up even that pretense and just started voting in accordance with his personal ideology, even, as I've written here already, even when it countered established precedent, his own 'legal philosophy' and even, on occasion, previous opinions he had written.

2.That he was in private a warm, funny and sweet man.  Utter bullshit, I don't doubt he could be capable of all of those things at times as practically all people can be.  He was also a vile racist, sexist homophobe both in public and in private and, as I've also previously written, he used humor to sweeten his vile positions. He also, on many occasions, was prone to anger and frequently called out his fellow justices in his opinions in caustic and even vicious tones that legal scholars say they'd never seen before.

3.That he was some kind of genius. There is some evidence in his younger days he was a more than capable legal scholar, but, again, I've already posted several comments of his that don't sound very intelligent and to that I would add (and he wasn't joking either) his defense of torture because, well, you've seen the T.V Show '24' haven't you?

Again, if people find my comments on Scalia to be discourteous are distasteful, I'll stop posting those rebuttals, if others here will stop posting comments like those in the first place.  I'll even delete my posts if others here will delete their posts that basically attempt to deify him.

SredniVashtar

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 09:40:21 AM
If you check twitter and other places, you'd find that there are many people who are offering views similar to mine and sometimes even with much harsher language.  I posted from Adam Stirling his comment that MANY 'poor, dispossessed and so on' expressed glee in his death.

I don't know your age, but if you think my view on the ridiculousness of only being allowed to say nice things about people (especially public figures) after they've died is a 'fringe' view,I can only conclude you don't get out much and, contrary to what you say, it's you who seem to only deal with people who share similar views to you.

I'm all for courtesy for families of private people who have died in most situations.  But, Scalia was a public official.  If we're not supposed to say bad things about him even to the point of countering the positive things that are said that at the time of a person's death are frequently bullshit, then nobody should say anything at all.

"As a general rule, you ought to leave all this stuff until after the funeral."  That is a normative statement being dressed up as a positive statement.  Or, in ordinary language, an opinion being made out to be a fact.  The correct response, in my opinion (hah!) to all unsupported opinions is 'why?"

So, again, thanks, but I really don't need your advice.

I am only wasting my time on you (and believe me, this is wasted time by any definition) because I feel a bit sorry for you. Just because a bunch of dicks are acting like dicks isn't a reason for you to do the same. Social media is full of idiots who fling their idiocy around for all to look at, and you're just another one. Don't believe that any of this does any good, or fights any fight, because it doesn't. You are another petulant blowhard, that's all. If you wanted to formulate a more coherent response then there is time for all of that, it's just more respectful to do that in a week or two's time. Yes, of course I was giving my opinion that you ought to respect the wishes of a family who have not done you any harm, but it's an opinion that is shared by most of the human race. Your use of the word 'normative' again gives me the impression that you are trying to use terms that you have picked up but haven't really absorbed. It's a bit of a 'tell'. As is saying 'why?' to everything like an eight-year old. In fact, almost everything you have come out with has made you sound very immature, so it sounds like you need all the advice you can get.


136 or 142

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 14, 2016, 09:56:57 AM
I am only wasting my time on you (and believe me, this is wasted time by any definition) because I feel a bit sorry for you. Just because a bunch of dicks are acting like dicks isn't a reason for you to do the same. Social media is full of idiots who fling their idiocy around for all to look at, and you're just another one. Don't believe that any of this does any good, or fights any fight, because it doesn't. You are another petulant blowhard, that's all. If you wanted to formulate a more coherent response then there is time for all of that, it's just more respectful to do that in a week or two's time. Yes, of course I was giving my opinion that you ought to respect the wishes of a family who have not done you any harm, but it's an opinion that is shared by most of the human race. Your use of the word 'normative' again gives me the impression that you are trying to use terms that you have picked up but haven't really absorbed. It's a bit of a 'tell'. As is saying 'why?' to everything like an eight-year old. In fact, almost everything you have come out with has made you sound very immature, so it sounds like you need all the advice you can get.

1.You're just another sanctimonious, holier-than-thou blowhard, that's all.

2.I actually use the terms 'normative' and 'positive' on a daily basis especially in discussions on economics.

3.Scalia's rulings did many Americans (and people around the world) genuine harm.  If his family members have a problem hearing that at this time, I'm sorry, but that's not my problem.  If we go by your view that words can cause harm, then Scalia's frequently racist, sexist and homophobic comments also caused harm.  Except, unlike with his family, many of the people who he made disparaging comments about were marginalized and we're not in the same position to absorb his hate filled rants.

4.I did not write I said 'why' to everything.  I wrote I said 'why' to every normative statement (opinion) that was dressed up as a positive statement (fact) when it didn't even have any supportive premises to back it up. 

I feel sorry for you that you haven't learned how to read properly.

It sounds like you aren't interested in spending any more time on this discussion, and likewise I'm not interested in reading any more of your self proclaimed morally superior attitude. So, let's just end this right now.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
1.You're just another sanctimonious, holier-than-thou blowhard, that's all.

Maybe, but he writes far more coherently than you do.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
2.I actually use the terms 'normative' and 'positive' on a daily basis especially in discussions on economics.

Doesn't mean you use them correctly.  You didn't address his criticism, so -1 point for the dodge.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
3.I did not write I said 'why' to everything.  I wrote I said 'why' to every normative statement (opinion) that was dressed up as a positive statement (fact) when it didn't even have any supportive premises to back it up. 

See above about coherency in writing.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
I feel sorry for you that you haven't learned how to read properly.

You don't really seem sincere about this.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
So, let's just end this right now.

Now that you've  had the last word?

SredniVashtar

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
1.You're just another sanctimonious, holier-than-thou blowhard, that's all.

That's another giveaway that you're a youngster, batting things back like that without giving it any spin of your own. Pointing out that you are coming across as a narcissistic bully is not 'sanctimonious', but people like you love to use that word because it makes you feel better. Also, it's often the only one you can ever think of.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
2.I actually use the terms 'normative' and 'positive' on a daily basis especially in discussions on economics.

And another one. You used them in the wrong way. It was obvious that it was an opinion, how could it be otherwise? It just happens to be an opinion that most people share, and for good reason. If you had lived a little more you could have seen that for yourself.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
3.I did not write I said 'why' to everything.  I wrote I said 'why' to every normative statement (opinion) that was dressed up as a positive statement (fact) when it didn't even have any supportive premises to back it up. 

I'd call basic human decency pretty good as a supportive premise. Here's another rule for you: it's a good idea to consider, before saying or doing something, whether it is going to do more good than harm. What you are doing will be of zero use, but may (however slight that chance might be) do some harm.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
I feel sorry for you that you haven't learned how to read properly.

It sounds like you aren't interested in spending any more time on this discussion, and likewise I'm not interested in reading any more of your morally superior attitude. So, let's just end this right now.

I'd be very surprised if you were much older than 20. That's fine, because we all have to learn. Eventually you'll work out that you're not the only person in the world whose opinion counts. You'll work it out, hopefully, when you have to go through the sort of stuff we all face eventually. Until then you can act the preening ninny, but it will catch up with you in the end.

136 or 142

1.Doesn't mean you use them correctly.  You didn't address his criticism, so -1 point for the dodge.

I've never been told in any of my discussions where I use those terms that I've used them incorrectly.  So, I highly doubt I'm not using them correctly.

2.See above about coherency in writing.
This is what I wrote: "The correct response, in my opinion (hah!) to all unsupported opinions is 'why?""

That's not coherent enough for you?

3.You don't really seem sincere about this.

I can only try my best.

4.Now that you've  had the last word?

Works for me.

136 or 142

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 14, 2016, 10:25:38 AM
That's another giveaway that you're a youngster, batting things back like that without giving it any spin of your own. Pointing out that you are coming across as a narcissistic bully is not 'sanctimonious', but people like you love to use that word because it makes you feel better. Also, it's often the only one you can ever think of.

And another one. You used them in the wrong way. It was obvious that it was an opinion, how could it be otherwise? It just happens to be an opinion that most people share, and for good reason. If you had lived a little more you could have seen that for yourself.

I'd call basic human decency pretty good as a supportive premise. Here's another rule for you: it's a good idea to consider, before saying or doing something, whether it is going to do more good than harm. What you are doing will be of zero use, but may (however slight that chance might be) do some harm.

I'd be very surprised if you were much older than 20. That's fine, because we all have to learn. Eventually you'll work out that you're not the only person in the world whose opinion counts. You'll work it out, hopefully, when you have to go through the sort of stuff we all face eventually. Until then you can act the preening ninny, but it will catch up with you in the end.

1.My use of repetition like that I actually picked up from the Bible in the Tower of Babel Story.  "Come let us..."

2."Narcissistic bully" is your opinion of me.  My opinion of you is that your a sanctimonious and holier-than-thou type with a massive superiority complex (if that exists.)

3.I used the terms 'normative' and 'positive' correctly. If there is an error in understanding, it's yours.

4.For a person who initially called me out on my 'labeling of people' you seem to be going to an awful lot of effort to judge my age and to label me by it and to tell me what you think it must be.

4.What evidence do you have that that is an opinion that most people share?  And, even were that the case, what evidence do you have that that opinion is the best one to follow?

5.In regards to who seems to believe that 'only their opinion counts' you're the one here suggesting to me the proper way to behave, I'm not trying to tell anybody how to act.  I've criticized this idea that only nice things can be said about a person after they've died, especially when they're public figures, as silly, but if you or anybody choose to live by that, you're allowed to do so. I choose to not live by that and I'm pretty sure that Justice Scalia would say that I have a constitutional right (even as a non American) to follow that as well.

Judging by the simplistic contradictions in your arguments, I'd say you can't be older than five or six (seven is said to be the 'age of reason,' or something like that.)

So, please don't respond to me until you can make coherent and consistent adult arguments.

SredniVashtar

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:06:34 AM
3.Scalia's rulings did many Americans (and people around the world) genuine harm.  If his family members have a problem hearing that at this time, I'm sorry, but that's not my problem.  If we go by your view that words can cause harm, then Scalia's frequently racist, sexist and homophobic comments also caused harm.  Except, unlike with his family, many of the people who he made disparaging comments about were marginalized and we're not in the same position to absorb his hate filled rants.

You can say what you like, but you ought to consider whether this is the right time to say it. By any objective assessment, it isn't, and you'd be better off staying quiet for a week or two. You gain nothing by pissing on the man's corpse, you merely make yourself look unpleasant. That doesn't mean that you can't say what you like about the man, just that you should bear in mind that life is an awful lot more complicated than you seem to think. Whatever Scalia said or did doesn't excuse you being disrespectful towards the family. You are hopping on a bandwagon, that's all.

136 or 142

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 14, 2016, 10:44:28 AM
You can say what you like, but you ought to consider whether this is the right time to say it. By any objective assessment, it isn't, and you'd be better off staying quiet for a week or two. You gain nothing by pissing on the man's corpse, you merely make yourself look unpleasant. That doesn't mean that you can't say what you like about the man, just that you should bear in mind that life is an awful lot more complicated than you seem to think. Whatever Scalia said or did doesn't excuse you being disrespectful towards the family. You are hopping on a bandwagon, that's all.

One final point.  Justice Scalia was a combative person at all times and presumably his wife married him in part because of that and presumably they tried to raise their children to be combative at all times.  How the hell do you know what the wishes of his family are and who are you to tell anybody else how to respect his family? (As I've already said  it's not my problem if the family of a man who chose to live a public life has to hear or read negative things said about him, so I wouldn't pretend that I'm trying to respect his family  but I honestly have no idea what they want and I don't see how you can know what this specific family wants either.)  Your reply would no doubt be something along the lines of 'no family wants to hear negative things about a deceased relative at the time of their death.'  I don't dispute that's true in general, but general rules don't necessarily apply to a specific family.

Other than that, I've read your point multiple times and I've said that I don't agree with it.  Why do you persist?

SredniVashtar

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:38:23 AM
4.For a person who initially called me out on my 'labeling of people' you seem to be going to an awful lot of effort to judge my age and to label me by it and to tell me what you think it must be.

I knew I was right. Sometimes I amaze myself, although not very often. You don't have life experience and it shows.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:38:23 AM
4.What evidence do you have that that is an opinion that most people share?  And, even were that the case, what evidence do you have that that opinion is the best one to follow?

Can I have your autograph? You really ought to be exhibited under glass. A real live cliche. Jesus.

136 or 142

"I knew I was right. Sometimes I amaze myself, although not very often. You don't have life experience and it shows."

And you really do have a massive superiority complex.  I don't know and I don't care what your life experience is, but I can tell you're a real live cliche of an idiot.

Edit: I just looked up 'superiority complex'  Apparently it's a person who acts superior to mask true feelings of inferiority.  So, you don't have a superiority complex, you seem to just genuinely feel you are superior.






VtaGeezer

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 13, 2016, 07:03:35 PM
Citizen's United was from many years back?

I really don't care how he rationalized his vote and to say Citizen's United 'may benefit the rich' is being deliberately obtuse.

Citizens' United will be with us forever unless the Constitution is amended.  It was an 8 to 1 decision and all of the lib justices supported it.  Only Thomas dissented.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 10:56:20 AM
"I knew I was right. Sometimes I amaze myself, although not very often. You don't have life experience and it shows."

And you really do have a massive superiority complex.  I don't know and I don't care what your life experience is, but I can tell you're a real live cliche of an idiot.

Edit: I just looked up 'superiority complex'  Apparently it's a person who acts superior to mask true feelings of inferiority.  So, you don't have a superiority complex, you seem to just genuinely feel you are superior.

He's British. I'm pretty sure he is? So, you can't really blame him, can you?  ;D


136 or 142

Quote from: VtaGeezer on February 14, 2016, 11:07:15 AM
Citizens' United will be with us forever unless the Constitution is amended.  It was an 8 to 1 decision and all of the lib justices supported it.  Only Thomas dissented.

??????

From wiki:
At the subsequent conference among the justices after oral argument, the vote was 5â€"4 in favor of Citizens United being allowed to show the film. The justices voted the same as they had in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a similar 2007 case, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito in the majority."

You can't trust them Canadians to follow U.S Supreme Court rulings.

Or, are you referring to a different ruling on 'money equals speech'?

There was also a subsequent ruling on whether those running for elected justice positions can accept unlimited financial contributions and the vote was 5-4 against 'money equaling speech' in this case with Roberts writing for the majority something like 'elected judges would be placed in a potential conflict of interest were this allowed and that would potentially place the Justice system in a negative light.'

There was some comment at the time based on this opinion of Justice Roberts that he had seen the error of his ways in his vote on Citizen's United and that he was hoping for a chance to overturn his previous ruling, but I've also seen some arguments that discount that theory.

136 or 142

Quote from: rekcuf on February 14, 2016, 11:07:27 AM
He's British. I'm pretty sure he is? So, you can't really blame him, can you?  ;D

Despite what it may seem here, I'm actually frequently told that I'm too courteous to other people's concerns, so I can understand where he is coming from.  It's just that, in this case, I don't share his opinion on this, and I don't need to read his opinion over and over again.

It also seems to be becoming evident to me that SredniVashtar may not be so concerned that the Scalia family will be hurt by my writings but is writing his comments (over and over again) because he wants to pretend that he is superior to me.  That's a little hard to judge based on just these comments and a quick reading of his other posts doesn't seem to indicate that kind of behaviour, but, in my opinion, some of his replies to me do.

As I wrote previously, and he didn't comment on one way or the other, does he seriously think that members of the Scalia family actually read this forum, so does he really think he needs to defend them here?  I don't know anything about the members of that family, so for all I know, I guess they could, but there are what? maybe 5,000 people who regularly come here or something, so statistically it seems highly unlikely anybody from that family will ever see this discussion.

Quote from: 136 or 142 on February 14, 2016, 11:18:17 AM
Despite what it may seem here, I'm actually frequently told that I'm too courteous to other people's concerns, so I can understand where he is coming from.  It's just that, in this case, I don't share his opinion on this, and I don't need to read his opinion over and over again.

I apologize for intruding on your discourse w/ ShrendiVashtar. It was completely unnecessary for me to do so. Disagreement is always good! Be well.  :)

onan

As public as this forum seems to us, I doubt any offense travels to the Scallia family. I more strongly doubt anyone of them cares what we think.

Look, it's all opinion. I think Scalia was a schmuck (and not in a good way.) I can point to stories that support that claim. Others that see it differently will counter post and then another shiney will take the lead.

I am not looking for a flight to piss and or dance on his soon to be grave. I might watch a YouTube of it however.

136 or 142

Quote from: rekcuf on February 14, 2016, 11:26:54 AM
I apologize for intruding on your discourse. It was completely unnecessary for me to do so. Disagreement is always good! Be well.  :)

Thanks.  :)

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod