(02-16-2016, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I am not even going to point out your typo because I know exactly what you mean.  I always think that is silly.

(02-16-2016, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now that I've answered yours, kindly answer mine:

(02-16-2016, 02:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for not pointing out the typo, your a real stand up guy.

(02-16-2016, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I mentioned in my apology if the intent of the thread is to simply discuss his decisions or in your words take umbrage with them. then no. If the intent is to tarnish a man's legacy so soon after his passing, then yes. Also many of the comments here have gone much further than taking umbrage with his decisions



As I said, if the intent was anything other than to tarnish his reputation then i apologize to the OP and those simply wishing to discuss his decisions. If the OP's and anyone else's comments were meant to belittle the person, then I do not.

Now that I've answered yours, kindly answer mine:

Why do you think this thread was created, given there were already two threads discussing his passing?

(02-16-2016, 12:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If your intent for creating this thread was to actually honor the man, as you have suggested, then please accept my apology. If your intent was to besmirch the man's legacy at the most inopportune time then my orginal objection remains; regardless of the validity of any meme. I took it as the latter, given the tone of the memes and ending it with the question: "Does anybody still miss him?".

Perhaps it was just the synic in me that viewed to intent of the message in a negative light. The apology has been extended, only you truely know if it is required.

(02-16-2016, 02:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: My intent is to present some of his quotes and let people make up their own minds about him or to present their own information about him. It was also to engage a discussion about him.

I didn't like some of the stuff he did and said. But I don't see him as all bad. Still, my own bias does color the initial post. I also did that on purpose to get people who support him fired up to respond and point out good things about him.

(02-16-2016, 02:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You didn't answer his question.

He asksd why we should worry about any of this since none of his friends or family are going to read any of this.

All you did was repeat your original position that you thought it was okay to praise him, but not okay to criticize him.

I think we have reached that point where we just need to agree to disagree.  You think it is wrong, but you have no real reason other than your own personal belief. I think it is pointless to keep trying to argue the same thing over and over again when it is based on nothing but personal opinion.

(02-16-2016, 02:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: My intent is to present some of his quotes and let people make up their own minds about him or to present their own information about him. It was also to engage a discussion about him.

I didn't like some of the stuff he did and said. But I don't see him as all bad. Still, my own bias does color the initial post. I also did that on purpose to get people who support him fired up to respond and point out good things about him.

(02-16-2016, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and you think it's OK, but you have no real reason than there's a good chance none of his family and friends will read it.

Your opinion of it is fine to besmirch the recently deceased if you disagreed with his stance on various matters of law and  as long as there is a good  chance their family will not read it has been noted. I will stick with the opinion that it is juevinile and in poor taste, regardless who reads it.

I don't think we have to agree to disagree; pretty sure the factthat we disagree is a given.

(02-16-2016, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Dokey. I sure you would be happier if everyone shared your awesome points of view. Unfortunately they do not and it appears Justice Scalia was one of them. Fortunately the system is designed to have 9 Justices, that way even if every justice doesn't agree with your POV, if the majority do, then your awesome thoughts are passed.

Folks can hate on Scalia all they want, but the bottom line is he was not a totalitarian and his decension was often vital in determining the Constitutionality of many cases. You know, just in the off-chance that one of your awesome ideas may not be Constitutional. 

Who knows maybe one day all 9 Judge will share you awesome views and you have to dislike any of them.

(02-16-2016, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your opinion of it is fine to besmirch the recently deceased if you disagreed with his stance on various matters of law and  as long as there is a good  chance their family will not read it has been noted. I will stick with the opinion that it is juevinile and in poor taste, regardless who reads it.

(02-16-2016, 03:07 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I would say discussing the man's actual beliefs and actions is much less petty and juvenile than much of the 'michelle obama is fat and ugly' stuff some morons around here participate in.

(02-16-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree on this, however if we were to point out everything that is juvenile and in poor taste in this subforum we would be spending a lot more time than we already do in here doing so. This thread is a very mild example of that behavior in comparison to some other things we see around here.

(02-16-2016, 03:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's all pretty par for the course when someone dies.  When Reagan died you had people reheating old jokes about him eating jelly beans, taking naps, and/or being full of Alzheimer's during his second term.  You also had people canonizing the guy and making a push to throw Ben Franklin off the $50 bill to put Ronnie on there.

Basically, there are plenty of places where Scalia's death can be discussed as a tragedy, or a gigantic threat to the sanctity of the USA, and there are places where his death can be celebrated as...um, progress.  I recall Pat Robertson praying for some openings in the Supreme Court, so maybe this is his fault?

Aaaanyways, Scalia held some opinions that aren't shared by the majority so most places that involve a discussion about the guy are going to trend towards the less flattering side, I'd imagine.

(02-16-2016, 03:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get that, I'm just doing my best not to get too negative towards people these days. It's why I ignore certain threads/posters, because I'm trying to live by the whole "if you don't have anything nice to say..." way of life.

I guess I've seen this subforum go down a hole I was sad to see it go, and I was as much a part of that as anyone else. I can't change everyone else, but I can change myself.

(02-16-2016, 02:30 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Then it should have been done in a more contextual way, not facebook meme kind of way. Unless that's the level of discussion you want. 

(02-16-2016, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said; my apology stands.

Also consider your thread a success as I got "fired up' over what I percieved to be the petty nature of the thread.

(02-16-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree on this, however if we were to point out everything that is juvenile and in poor taste in this subforum we would be spending a lot more time than we already do in here doing so. This thread is a very mild example of that behavior in comparison to some other things we see around here.

(02-16-2016, 10:17 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We are an irreverent crew here in P&R. It is our nature and the nature of the topics (i.e. what some see as sancrosant, others do not). And frankly, as long as we are not insulting each other (such as calling other people "*****", etc.), P&R has always had a certain room for that irreverence.

I'm told that we need to have a certain reverence for the dead. Especially a Supreme Court Judge who served for so many years. For those who believe this, I think you are going about it the wrong way when you demand reverence based upon your morality.

(02-16-2016, 10:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a reason I didn't say anything for a long time in this thread. While I find things like this to be mildly juvenile it's nothing I feel like condemning or trying to force my views on someone about. It's my own personal thing. I also hold my tongue for much more egregious displays of immaturity and what I consider to be moral failings, so yeah.

I have just been enjoying being more judicious in my responses as of late.

(02-16-2016, 10:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll disagree on this point.

I'm not saying a judge should be fluent in all science, but if someone is a literal interpreter of the bible it would HAVE to affect their daily decisions including ones on the bench.  

That is not something I necessarily want anymore than someone making decisions based on any other holy book literally.

And, of course, that doesn't mean he made bad decisions because of his religious beliefs...just that it would have to be part of his decision making.