liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[Jim in CT]

Last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Wesleyan University. Justice Scalia, as most people know, is pretty darned conservative in his interpretation of the Constitution. Wesleyan, for those who don't know, is an Ivy League-caliber school, possibly the most liberal place on Earth, and a place where the liberals like to protest. Kudos to Scalia for agreeing to go into this hornet's nest of intolerance and monolithic thinking.

I was there. It was an interesting experience in seeing what liberal, priviledged kids due with their "tolerance"..

Protesters everywhere, which is innocent enough. One kid had a sign that said "end the war, tax the rich". I bet this kid got 1600 on his SAT's, but I guess he never took Poli-Sci 101, or he'd know that the judicial branch controls neither the military nor writes the tax code.

There were kids chanting that the GOP (of which Scalia holds no position) favors the rich. I wonder if these kids know that (1) Obama wants to increase the tax credits to people who buy the Volt to $10,000, and that (2) the average salary of Volt owners is $175,000. Those folks need a handout from Obama? How is that helping the poor and downtrodden?

Inside the lecture hall, a bunch of students were wearing orange jumpsuits with black hoods over their heads. Not sure what their point was.

During Scalia's lecture, a bunch of kids in the balcony threw condoms down towards the stage. Nice.

These are the intellectual elite of liberalism. Is civil discourse really too much to ask? What are these kids going to do when they get jobs and have issues with bosses and co-workers, throw condoms at them?

These are the same people who are criticizing Rush Limbaugh for using derogatory terms to describe a feminist activist. And they see no irony or hypocrisy.

A mental disorder.

[PaulS]

It's laughable that you would compare some 20 year old college age kids protesting w/Rush calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national tv.

[PaulS]

And I'll add that I don't agree w/anyone disrupting anyone's speach. They should protest outside.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It's laughable that you would compare some 20 year old college age kids protesting w/Rush calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national tv.

First, throwing condoms at someone is not protesting, that's called making an ass out of yourself, because you are admitting you cannot debate the person you disagree with, so you throw htings.

Second, I'm not comparing what these kids did to what Rush did (although I could very well). Read my comment, OK? I'm saying that these same liberals are criticizing Rush for being uncivilized, and then throwing condoms at a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

Anyone who thinks it's OK to throw condoms at someone they disagree with, has no right to criticize Rush. If he has no right to act that way, neither do they. In other words, these same kids were saying last week "how dare Rush use that language, doesn't he know how inappropriate that is. Now, where are the condoms to throw at Scalia, that'll settle his hash".

Try making that wrong.

[PaulS]

Who here approved of anyone throwing condoms at anyone else? Your constantly giving examples of something you (and most people) disagree w/and throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals.

Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies and claim it represents everyone who agrees w/them?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Who here approved of anyone throwing condoms at anyone else? Your constantly giving examples of something you (and most people) disagree w/and throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals.

Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies and claim it represents everyone who agrees w/them?

The kids at Wesleyan approved of throwing condoms. And I'm willing to bet those same kids think Rush was boorish.

" throwing the word "liberal" into as if it applies to all liberals. "

maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

If Justice Ginsburg gave an anti-war talk at West Point, none of the cadets would throw things at her, and if anyone did, they'd get expelled.

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

[spence]

Throwing condoms? Really? It's a bunch of college students and you want to equate throwing condoms with Rush's repugnant and vile comments? The same comments that have caused him to grovel on air (never seen before) and lose 25 sponsors?

Really?

Back at Iowa State the Young Republicans Club used to protest GLBTA events by bringing live sheep and holding signs that read "Adam and Steve" and "Exit Only".

They published a spoof newspaper and on the cover was a guy screwing a giant stuffed animal to demonstrate "proper technique" learned at the event. I have a copy if you want to see it

I even went to a party of theirs once and spoke with one of the most vocal. He was proud of his tight black gloves because he thought it made him look like a Nazi.

So I'd have to say your entire argument is complete bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.

-spence

[justplugit]

Maybe they were trying to upstage Fluke's ploy by making a statement they wanted free condoms for men's health in Obamacare too.

Nice respect toward a US Supreme Court Judge.

[spence]

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify. There's outrage so they hold another and invite a few token women with no real discussion.

So to get visibility on a very reasonable issue, the Dems invite a young woman to speak about how some women do need medically prescribed conception for valid health issues.

And in response, arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women.

Republican's, terrified of Rush's wrath are frozen and offer only token responses. In what should be a leadership moment, none of them lead. George Will nails it "They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

And all you do it tighten the tin foil.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

Spence, maybe you're right, maybe Scalia does love this stuff. I know I do, because it exposes liberals for the intolerant, hateful anarchists that so many are. your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

"Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her"

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

Is civil discouse simply beyond the ability of liberals? By throwing condoms, these kids are saying "I don't agree with Scalia, but I cannot explain why, I can't engage him in debate, all i can do is throw condoms".

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify.

-spence

Spence, you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. The Republican-sponsored hearings were not about women's health, they were about religious freedom and the first amendment. Ms Fluke has no expertise in these matters.

How weak is your position to start with, if you need to lie about the fundamental nature of the issue? you're being dishonest right off the bat.

"arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women"

He is defaming women of financial means, who somehow insist that they can't afford their own condoms.

"And all you do it tighten the tin foil."

If defending the first amendment is tightening the tin foil, I proudly plead guilty. The Bill of Rights applies to all of us Spence, even Catholics. If enough people want to change the Constitution so that condoms supercede the freedom of religion, there are mechanisms to amend the constitution thiusly. Until then, not even Obama has the authority to decide who has religious freedom and who doesn't.

[scottw]

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

[Jim in CT]

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.

Your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

-spence

[scottw]

Fluke attended a Jesuit University knowing full well beforehand what the policies were, she's spent her time there undermining those policies...this was an attempt, though a rogue assist from the Federal Government to further those goals.

Spence, the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American. You seem to struggle with the limits placed on government and the guarantees , in this case, religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no guarantee of free contraception or gender reassignment anywhere in the Constitution, Ms. Fluke could easily attend another University with acceptable policies to her, noone forced her to attend this school, she's chosen to spend her time while at this school undermining the University's policies and it's Constitutional protections on this issue as well as many others just as so many that you support spend their time undermining our Constitution and Constitutional protections. Obamacare is the example in this case, the government now feels inclined to order private institutions and companies to provide things for free, particularly things that they feel they can get a lot of mileage out of politically. If the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American and you spend all of your time undermining it and supporting the undermining of it....what does that make you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.


Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?


I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.


It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?


No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

-spence

"Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after"

OK. Using your logic, Ms Fluke is a self-described women's reproductive rights activist, so why didn't she know what she was getting into. She got into Georgetown Law, so she's obviously very bright. Why do you assume she was innocent, naive little waif? because it makes my side look bad, that's why...

"To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly."

Please show me proof of consrvetive college students throwing condoms at an invited liberal guest. The left has an ALMOST (not quite) monopoly on this type of behavior Spence. You almost never hear of right-wing riots. Anarchy is the method of liberals, not conservatives.

"It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?"

Not if those laws prohibit the church from pursuing their beliefs. Have you even read the first amendment? Do you ever get one right, even by accident? Read this please, from the first amendment...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

The church isn't interfering with women's health. The church isn't telling these women that they cannot use condoms, the church is just saying that the church doesn't want to provide them. A small number of women need birth control pills for true medical needs (my wife is one of them). In the vast majority of cases, contraception is a tool to engage in casual sex, and thus not anything remotely resembling "medicine".

Spence, if I buy a gun, it's in everyone's interest for me to attend a gun safety class. But I can't force my employer to pay for it. If I choose to get involved with guns, that's my choice, and thus my responsibiolity to ensure I do it safely. I have no right to ask anyone else to pay for it. Similarly, if I want to get involved in casual sex, by what right to I take your money out of your pocket to buy my condoms with? Putting aside women who have legitimate medical needs, which is a very small minority.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

Again, you're way off base.

The constitution says the feds cannot approve or disapoprove of a soecific religious view. I have posted that.

Spence, please show us where the constitution says that citizens have the right to have contraception provided to them at their place of wmployment.

"her freedoms."

Spence, who are all these women who cannot get contraception, unless it's provided by their employer? Furthermore, these women, fortunately, have the "freedom" to work anywhere they want. If they want free condoms at work, they can work at Planned Parenthood or, thanks to liberals, in any public elementary school.

You make it sound like condoms are only available at work. Do these women all live in th wilds of Alaska? Are there no pharmacies or gas stations, or clinics, where they live?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

-spence

I thought Rush was just an entertainer....geez

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I though Rush was just an entertainer....geez

He is but also has tremendous influence. Imagine a field of Republican candidates who can't even stand up to an entertainer or lightweight like Sarah Palin.

The argument over contraception is a real issue being discussed right now. What Rush says does unfortunately matter and shapes a lot of public opinion. That he chooses to do so in such an ugly manner is unfortunate.

What Maher said months or years ago while disrespectful is largely irrelevant in the present context.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

He is but also has tremendous influence. Imagine a field of Republican candidates who can't even stand up to an entertainer or lightweight like Sarah Palin.

The argument over contraception is a real issue being discussed right now. What Rush says does unfortunately matter and shapes a lot of public opinion. That he chooses to do so in such an ugly manner is unfortunate.

What Maher said months or years ago while disrespectful is largely irrelevant in the present context.

-spence

that sounds about right coming from you...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

wow

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.


Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

"Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence."

Spence, I'm going to focus on this one absurdity.

You're saying that Rush's use of the word slut, is worse than Maher's use of the word c*nt, because Rush has a wider audience?

Spence, do you listen to what comes out of your mouth? What you're saying is, freedom of speech is inversely proportional to the size of the audience? What's the logic behind that? Exactly how big does one's audience have to be, before he is obligated to be a gentleman? 1 million? 2 million?

"Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money. "

I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but it's curious that's NOT what the white house is saying. I heard Jay Carney say that they weren't asking the superPac to give the money back, not that they were prohibited by law from telling the PAC to give the money back.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

"legally protected access to contraception"

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I'm going to focus on this one absurdity.

You're saying that Rush's use of the word slut, is worse than Maher's use of the word c*nt, because Rush has a wider audience?

Spence, do you listen to what comes out of your mouth? What you're saying is, freedom of speech is inversely proportional to the size of the audience? What's the logic behind that? Exactly how big does one's audience have to be, before he is obligated to be a gentleman? 1 million? 2 million?

How can someone with a love of mathematics lack a basic ability to understand a simple formula?

Maher made a rude quip about someone who was making a career out of being in the spotlight mostly through destructive means. It was heard by relatively few people, and Maher isn't seen as a leader of the Left.

Limbaugh ridicules a woman who's gained a small amount of visibility through constructive means, ridicules her for hours about her sexuality, much of which was made up. He has millions of people listening and is seen as a leader of the Right.

There is no parity here.

I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but it's curious that's NOT what the white house is saying. I heard Jay Carney say that they weren't asking the superPac to give the money back, not that they were prohibited by law from telling the PAC to give the money back.

Obama can't legally tell them to return the money. The most he could do is make a public statement and hope they listen.

But even that isn't called for in this situation. It would set a precedent impossible to uphold.

Did you see how hard Mitt Romney was working to stand beside Ted Nugent the other week? Would you like me to post some of the things he's said???

-spence