First, Rosie O'Donnell was not fired. Rosie felt that with her hateful, anti-American rants she should be free to sell her lies to NBC or CBS if they offer her more next year. ABC wanted to lock her anti-American lies in for three years. In other words, ABC wanted to reward her for her vile and moronic anti-American statesments and Rosie felt her vile and moronic anti-American statements were worth more.
Okay...let me explain. I do not call people names. These are words that I chose carefully and her claims, for example, that America blew up buildings in the World Trade Center complex are not only moronic -- she basis her claim on the "fact" that "never before in history has fire melted metal. How does she think metal is shaped? Does she think there are "car mines" where cars are dug out of the ground fully formed? Has she never seen a smelter or molten metals being poured into molds? Is she truly that stupid or is she intentionally lying in order to promote a vicious slander against America? Those are the only two possibilities.
So why does Barbara Walters continue to employ her? Why does ABC allow this? Money? Don't you think Rush Limbaugh would bring in a good deal of money with a similar show? Wouldn't the show do better if it had intelligent conservatives watching and not just angry, New York City single women? No, it's not money.
It's because truth means nothing to the left. Nothing. So when Peter Jennings died the same Barbara Walters who allows these anti-American lies to be spread by an upside-down, hanging angry women incapable of maintaining a normal relationship with the opposite sex who pops pills because never having worked for a living, her millions of dollars leave her so depressed she has to pop pills is considered, lauded her deceased colleague by saying "what made Peter great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth."
To Barbara Walters Rosie and her friend Peter are one and the same. People to whom truth is meaningless.
616 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 616 of 616me even claims to be able speak for Scalia, and know what arguments he would or wouldn't make. She must have supernaturale powers. I think the Associate Justice would have a hearty laugh at that claim. It's a shame Scalia is not here to defend himself. She's free to abuse his good name to her hearts content.
...as for the "right" being inconsistent, it's illogical to assume that 50 million people or more can be expected to behave as some monotlithic, perfectly consistent block. You'd have to be nuts to believe it, yet this is her complaint.
Why does she demand they be consistent? Why to render them "predictable" of course.
Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals"
Precisely that development is the long history of the origin of responsibility. The task of breeding an animal with a right to make promises contains within it, as we have already grasped, as a condition and prerequisite, the earlier task of first making a human being necessarily uniform to some extent, one among many others like him, regular and consequently predictable. The immense task involved in this, what I have called the “morality of custom”, the essential work of a man on his own self in the longest-lasting age of the human race, his entire pre-historical work, derives its meaning, its grand justification, from the following point, no matter how much hardship, tyranny, monotony and idiocy it also manifested: with the help of the morality of custom and the social strait jacket, the human being was rendered truly predictable.
...and to be inconsistent means to become unpredictable.
Multiculturalism. Rendering mankind completely UNPREDICTABLE.
On PREDICTABILITY and the War on Terror.
Sun Tzu, "Art of War"
18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
xkvsxe,
Well, then you and I are kinda on the same page with the gun regulation.
As for P&I, yes it's broader, much broader than the substantive due process we have today.
The death of P&I came in the Slaughterhouse Cases, brought by some meatpackers:
"The court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities clause affected only rights of "national citizenship," and not state citizenship. Therefore the butchers' Fourteenth Amendment rights had not been violated. The court saw due process in a procedural light at this time rather than substantive. The court further held that the amendment was primarily intended to protect former slaves and so could not be broadly applied."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases
Obviously not a textualist decision, it was issued to preemtively try to restrict the federal government as much as possible in its interference into the states after the Civil War. It's an abomination of a decision, but it's the law, stare decision and all.
Substantive due process onyl encompasses your basic rights, nto all your privileges and immunities (you know how vast your P&I at the state level is?).
And the thing is, if you're a libertarian, the right to privacy would seem to be a dear, important right. IT restricts how the federal government can restrict you, and the state governments as well. Isnt' that a good thing?
Also, I wanted to metion that a generally accepted judicial mode of interpretation is "avoidance of absurd results." So, the judges will interpret statutes and cases as best they can, but not to end up in an absurd place.
I think one could make a very strong argument that a purely originalist interpretation of the Constitution quite often leads you to an absurd result.
Inscription atop the oracle of Apollo At Delphi:
Nothing to Excess!
How inconsistent!
...but appropriate.
No abortion to excess. No drug taking to excess. No fornication to excess. No eating to excess. No freedom (libertinism) to excess.
What is excess? Must every argument progress to it's polemicized extreme?
The are two ends. Wisdom finds the "harmonic mean". Wisdom sets the limit with "Justice" in mind.
I have a right to abortion. What is the limit? I have a right to free speech. What is the Limit? I have a right to bear arms. What is the limit.
Zeus. Enforcer of "just boundaries".
The Powers of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Who enforces "just boundaries"? Or must we rely on their "opposing powers", the President to appoint and legislature to confirm Justices?
Or legislature to impeach?
There is very little "trust" in the Constitution. In G_d we trust.
"And the thing is, if you're a libertarian, the right to privacy would seem to be a dear, important right. IT restricts how the federal government can restrict you, and the state governments as well. Isnt' that a good thing?"
I do not have a problem with the right to privacy. I have a problem how the right to abort (kill) a child came out of the right to privacy.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
"O.k., I just have to comment on the objection "Me" made on the "never worked" theme. "Me" has a point. I've ripped Lefties apart for less, so let's give (her?) the point.
HOWEVER, just because Evan indulged in a little unnescessary (and yes, inaccurate) hyperbole, that doesn't detract from his main points. Distracts yes, but not detract.
I wish he hadn't been that careless, and hope he will improve, but that alone won't discredit him with me. If he keeps it up that would be unfortunate, because if he did it too often and/or it were worse, then I would not be able to use his other excellent material for reference. And that would be a shame.
Just one more observation.
When I flame a Lefty, I make a point of attacking what I think is my opponents "strongest" argument, because everything else is usually dependent on that. By contrast, the Left invariably attacks what they think is the weakest part of our argument hoping to discredit everything else by association, even when the rest is unassailable directly. That's the sleezy thing to do, and it is no surprise that, as a Lefty, that is what "Me" has done.
regards,
ytba
It's amazing to me that the leftists have no better argument than to question whether doing stand up is a job or not.
Of course it's a minor point (it's the only "job" in the world, as my friend says, "where you say to someone 'I have to go to work, I'll be right back.'"
It is telling that the Modern Liberal tends to work in fields that are utterly subjective. This is because in an objective world they'd be exposed as having no talent and being mere children.
Very few leftist farmers or fireman. Why? Because they can't get other leftists to say "ooooh, you're good" when they're not.
Telling as well is that even on the leftist college campuses one finds the Modern Liberal in the fields of mumbo-jumbo like "Women's Studies" and not in the hard sciences where, again, truth is objective.
I think you got Rosie's scam down to the letter. She is hateful and I dispise her anti-American pratter and unresearched "facts".
She is a big mouth that doesn't engage the brain before speaking out. I'm glad she is no longer on the air. There seem to be too many gullible people out there that will buy into her insane commentary.
I think to anyone who knows anything about mechanics its obvious that the collapse of the world trade center was as we know it, no crappy conspiracy. Most sites on the internet that say the government brought down the towers are actually almost identical to all the other similar sites; in other words, they just copy and paste information without actually checking it.
However, to say that liberals care nothing for the truth is irresponsible and simply untrue. If it was so true, why do you think people actually vote for liberals in the first place? Wouldnt it just be glaringly obvious that they were all lying (then again, what politician doesnt lie these days?). Anyway, saying liberals always lie doesnt get you anywhere - its just an easy get out of arguing against their points (of course in this case, one shouldnt give Rosie any credence whatsoever).
Right now im more left-leaning than right, but that doesnt mean i just agree with everything liberals say. Its things like this that give liberals a bad image.
Post a Comment