Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[wendybeth]

Obviously, the story wasn't well covered- I scour the news daily, and I missed it. GC's comment that it wasn't covered wasn't exactly worthy of being such a hardass- he meant in that he could tell, and arguing the point is just sort of dumb.

I am amazed that you have more of a problem with a relatively innocuous mistatement than with the story he was commenting on. I am also surprised that you consider Justice O'Connor's statement to be so easily dismissed due to the subjective nature of it. (I'm assuming that's what you meant- forgive me if I am wrong). A cop is kicking the crap outta me; I believe he should probably stop, but of course that's merely a subjective viewpoint, tainted by the pain and damage being inflicted on my person. Perhaps I need to wait for people to wander by who have no sort of experience or knowledge with regards to this situation before someone who has a truly objective point of view steps up and stops the beating.

Might be a long wait.

[Alex]

I made no particular scouring of the news and saw it in five relatively mainstream sources. So, perhaps my experience was misleading.

No, I don't find her comments all that shocking for several reasons, none of which have to do with subjectiveness (and I never said subjectiveness was an issue). One, it wasn't the first time she had said it (she had made similar comments before she even left the bench). Second, she couched her comments saying we were a long way from what she feared could be the ultimate response. Third, she is an interested party; no judge likes legislatures having opinions on what they do, from either side of the political spectrum. Fourth, as I said "the sky is falling" predictions for every government action are a dime a dozen and O'Connor's wasnt even a "sky is falling" statement just a "the sky might potentially fall at some point in the future."

Finally, my hardassedness (though really I think GC is at lesat equally hardassed in a hysterical position, but we can disagree on that) wasn't just because of this one but my perception that he has frequently labelled stories as uncovered (when they're not, they're just not covered in the way he wants) and this is a sign of some participation by the media in helping the administration keep us complacent.

I find Scalia's statements on the Guantanomo case (though couched to avoid direct reference) inexcusable. I find the semi-flip off (he didn't flip off the reporter but rather made a different rude gesture) by Scalia to be a non-issue (and would also find it a non-issue if Ginsburg did it). But overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

That is what triggered the hard-assedness. I certainly made no claim as to which is more important: O'Connor's statement or GC's. The fact that O'Connor wakes up in the morning is probably more important than anything any of us will say in a given week. But I'm not talking to O'Connor, I'm talking to all y'all and I found GC's statemnt, independent of the importance of SDO's, to be silly.

Per his comments he finds mind similarly silly. I can live with that detante.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

But overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

Interesting. Of course I can only only go into anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but in doing so I would most likely give you cause to say that, in fact, I am finding minor exceptions to show how that isn't what I'm doing.

I would argue that, in fact, immigration and border control is no minor issue, and in the growing protest thread I have been critical of the President - as I have in the past - regarding his inane border policies.

I could go into republican politicians - such as John McCain - that I have nothing kind to say about.

I would go on, but the perception of me is understandable. However, it largely does not come down to the individuals that are conservative or not so. It comes down to what I believe in, and I will fully admit that I am more supportive of those in office that come closer to sharing my political philosophy.

[Prudence]

I find Fox News is generally way more entertaining than CNN or MSNBC. I generally only watch any of them when it's the weekend and I'm on the treadmill and can't find anything else to watch, but the Fox News people seem so lively - as if they're going to leap across the desk at any moment, the news is that exciting.

Of course, I generally have my headphones on so I can't actually hear any news, but the Fox News people are much more fun to watch.

Unleess, of course, CNN is doing one of their umpteen "life behind bars" stories. Then they win.

[scaeagles]

Exactly. It is because of my political philosophy, not because I think those who call themselves conservative are infallible. It is not blind loyalty to a Republican President, it is belief in a set of ideals.

I take your point with pride. I will always defend those conservative ideals. I do have a few issues that go outside the realm of so-called conservative thought that have been discussed here.

[Alex]

That's fine. I'm certainly not expecting anybody to change just because I find something silly. I'm not that important.

I, personally, don't think anybody has yet issued a Grand Unified Theory of Society that I could support completely and to the exclusion of everything else.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I, personally, don't think anybody has yet issued a Grand Unified Theory of Society that I could support completely and to the exclusion of everything else.

Well, that awaits its collective development in threads like these

[scaeagles]

I am not familiar with that gesture at all. I don't see it as "flipping off" - the middle finger is not extended.

What is the history of the gesture?

[Not Afraid]

I've seen this gesture in mafia-style movies. I don't think it's nice, whatever it means.