I met Antonin Scalia and talked to him for 45 minutes and want you all to know it

[Dr. Pomade]

I read a couple of your posts/comments the other night when I was on here.

 

They were completely "normal" and it made me think to myself that my previous comments towards you were far too harsh and that maybe I was too quick to judge your internet persona.

 

I just wanted to thank you for this post.

 

My conscience is now clear, and I'm now certain that you are indeed a complete asshole (atleast on the internet).

 

Due to my massive respect for Clay, I still hold out hope that you are MUCH different in person.

 

Same here.

 

When I read the first part of this thread, my takeaway was this: Is the Geeto guy acting as though he is pretty much on the same level as a Supreme Court justice? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or kind of feel sorry for how dreadfully narcissistic that was.

[Mr. Jones]

Same here.

 

When I read the first part of this thread, my takeaway was this: Is the Geeto guy acting as though he is pretty much on the same level as a Supreme Court justice? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or kind of feel sorry for how dreadfully narcissistic that was.

 

 

Laugh, always laugh.

 

Only way to keep your sanity in this place is to hold out hope it's all a big joke.

[AngryBMW]

bro you going to beer fest?? if so im going to :marc: and :marc2: the fuck out of you

 

VIP Entry. See you there. :marc2: (yes...I hate typing that emoji)

 

Holy shit if Obama died today, the fucked up shit I would read here. #ShowRespectToTheOldWhiteDude #NoRespectToBeShownToOurBlackPresidentHere

#ThanksScalia

 

#youreracist

 

But really; if Obama died today I would be sad for his family over the loss of his life but not for the loss of his 'service'. I certainly would not celebrate his death...like our new favorite member.

 

When I heard Scalia died I thought, great job Obama, look what you did now.

 

I mean...Obama is so classy that he is not going to the mans funeral...

 

Funny FnF .gif here

 

Thank you for picking up what I was putting down!

 

When I read the first part of this thread, my takeaway was this: Is the Geeto guy acting as though he is pretty much on the same level as a Supreme Court justice? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or kind of feel sorry for how dreadfully narcissistic that was.

 

Your hair is amazing. xo

 

Laugh, always laugh.

 

Only way to keep your sanity in this place is to hold out hope it's all a big joke.

 

It's getting harder and harder to keep up this hope...

-Marc

[zeitgeist57]

I read a couple of your posts/comments the other night when I was on here.

 

They were completely "normal" and it made me think to myself that my previous comments towards you were far too harsh and that maybe I was too quick to judge your internet persona.

 

I just wanted to thank you for this post.

 

My conscience is now clear, and I'm now certain that you are indeed a complete asshole (atleast on the internet).

 

Due to my massive respect for Clay, I still hold out hope that you are MUCH different in person.

 

Thanks, Jordan. As a car guy, he's a little better in person. Definitely a savant with historical car knowledge, and passionate. That resonates with me, which is why I consider him a friend.

 

However, he's a total a$$hole online and in group chats.

 

Gentlemen, I remember past beef I've had with PP...we've all seen guys scrap from time to time on CR. Let's try to remember that winter is a TOUGH TIME for us car guys. Once the temp warms up, we're all outside and wrenching...things get a whole lot better.

[Geeto67]

Same here.

 

When I read the first part of this thread, my takeaway was this: Is the Geeto guy acting as though he is pretty much on the same level as a Supreme Court justice? I wasn't sure if I should laugh or kind of feel sorry for how dreadfully narcissistic that was.

 

I'm with jones on this....laugh. I laughed that that was what you gleaned out of it.

 

Remember something about supreme court justices - they aren't always the "greatest" legal minds in the country, but they are the jurists that play the political game better than others. The old joke among lawyers is "the judge isn't always right, but he/she is always final". Like anybody in law or politics - their decisions are not beyond criticism. If you are asking "who are you to be criticizing a supreme court judge" you are asking the wrong question - that is your right as an American to question the things you don't understand or agree with.

 

For better or worse they are civil servants (not to be taken as pejorative), their role in government exists to serve the needs of the people en masse. That's you, me, everyone. One of the larger criticisms of Scalia was that he had forgotten this - choosing to "protect" the institution he served from the needs of the people through the doctrine of "originalism". A doctrine, I might add he was inconsistent about enforcing, when it suited some greater political strategy.

 

Scalia sought to be another Judge Rehnquist, one of the more controversial judges in SCOTUS history and the chief judge when Scalia first took his appointment, but he fell very short of that mark. Rehnquist's legacy, although itself controversial, was thoughtful, well reasoned, and elegantly communicated, where as scalia was often brutish, bullying, and half baked. Neither will have any great legacy for advancing civil rights in this country and that's a fact (Rehnquist stated several times publicly that segregation should be re-affirmed and fought efforts to desegregate). And this is kind of the point really - at the end of the day, regardless as to how you think I sound in being critical of Scalia's legacy do you really want to defend the "honor" of someone who attempted to advance discrimination by accusing the country of "inventing" new classes of individuals just so they could be guaranteed the same rights of others because you don't like my "tone"?

 

By the way, Scalia said many times that he had no intention to retire unless he became completely incapable of doing the job or died. The fact that he happened to die while still mentally able to perform his court functions is great for his legacy, and the fact that it was seemingly peaceful and not tragic and violent was also good for him. However if you tie your reign to your mortality, it is going to look like people are celebrating your death when they are welcoming the end of your reign. Since 1954 only three judges have passed away while in office, including Scalia, so it is also a rare thing. Not that I expect the majority of people here to know this.

 

TL;DR: If all someone has to bring to this conversation is "you are bad person for celebrating someone's death" the import of this discussion is sailing over your head like so many "chemtrails".

[Dr. Pomade]

I'm with jones on this....laugh. I laughed that that was what you gleaned out of it.

 

Remember something about supreme court justices - they aren't always the "greatest" legal minds in the country, but they are the jurists that play the political game better than others. The old joke among lawyers is "the judge isn't always right, but he/she is always final". Like anybody in law or politics - their decisions are not beyond criticism. If you are asking "who are you to be criticizing a supreme court judge" you are asking the wrong question - that is your right as an American to question the things you don't understand or agree with.

 

For better or worse they are civil servants (not to be taken as pejorative), their role in government exists to serve the needs of the people en masse. That's you, me, everyone. One of the larger criticisms of Scalia was that he had forgotten this - choosing to "protect" the institution he served from the needs of the people through the doctrine of "originalism". A doctrine, I might add he was inconsistent about enforcing, when it suited some greater political strategy.

 

Scalia sought to be another Judge Rehnquist, one of the more controversial judges in SCOTUS history and the chief judge when Scalia first took his appointment, but he fell very short of that mark. Rehnquist's legacy, although itself controversial, was thoughtful, well reasoned, and elegantly communicated, where as scalia was often brutish, bullying, and half baked. Neither will have any great legacy for advancing civil rights in this country and that's a fact (Rehnquist stated several times publicly that segregation should be re-affirmed and fought efforts to desegregate). And this is kind of the point really - at the end of the day, regardless as to how you think I sound in being critical of Scalia's legacy do you really want to defend the "honor" of someone who attempted to advance discrimination by accusing the country of "inventing" new classes of individuals just so they could be guaranteed the same rights of others because you don't like my "tone"?

 

By the way, Scalia said many times that he had no intention to retire unless he became completely incapable of doing the job or died. The fact that he happened to die while still mentally able to perform his court functions is great for his legacy, and the fact that it was seemingly peaceful and not tragic and violent was also good for him. However if you tie your reign to your mortality, it is going to look like people are celebrating your death when they are welcoming the end of your reign. Since 1954 only three judges have passed away while in office, including Scalia, so it is also a rare thing. Not that I expect the majority of people here to know this.

 

TL;DR: If all someone has to bring to this conversation is "you are bad person for celebrating someone's death" the import of this discussion is sailing over your head like so many "chemtrails".

 

So, I shouldn't listen to his opinion, but I should listen to yours? Just want to make sure my notes on this are accurate, Captain POD. Please continue.

[Geeto67]

So, I shouldn't listen to his opinion, but I should listen to yours? Just want to make sure my notes on this are accurate, Captain POD. Please continue.

 

you should listen to all opinions, and draw your own conclusions. however, if you decide his opinion is right and civil rights are a passing fad and discrimination should totally be a thing, be prepared for the ramifications of expressing that opinion.

 

but I didn't need to tell you that, did I?

[Dr. Pomade]

you should listen to all opinions, and draw your own conclusions. however, if you decide his opinion is right and civil rights are a passing fad and discrimination should totally be a thing, be prepared for the ramifications of expressing that opinion.

 

but I didn't need to tell you that, did I?

 

But, oddly, it didn't stop you from going ahead and telling me. I'm beginning to see a trend here.

[Geeto67]

you expressed a misunderstanding of something I said, I elaborated. we are clear now, unless there are other things you don't understand.

[Dr. Pomade]

you expressed a misunderstanding of something I said, I elaborated. we are clear now, unless there are other things you don't understand.

 

Because you elaborated it would magically clear up my misunderstanding? How do you know I still don't understand? Or is this just you pretending to know everything again? Everyone really likes it when you do that.

 

I do like it how you are now keeping your replies to under 6 War and Peace's and 2 Library of Congress's, though. Baby steps, Justice Gee bro, baby steps.

[SpaceGhost]

 

Psychologist vs Lawyer, this is not gonna be pretty if it can continue. Can it please?

[Brandon]

But, oddly, it didn't stop you from going ahead and telling me. I'm beginning to see a trend here.

 

Trending

 

#formyourownopinionhoweverifitdiffersfrommyvastknowledgeprepareforphotonwordtorpedos.

[zeitgeist57]

People, you're not going to win an argument - especially online - with Kerry. His opinions are not only strong, but are well-thought out (by his basis of belief).

 

My best suggestion is to either not acknowledge his post, or agree/disagree with him and move on. He WANTS to engage people, but as I've told him many times before, he doesn't know when to stop or to what end the argument is serving.

 

Note that I have not formed an opinion of the late Justice Scalia...or to be frank, I've formed an opinion and would rather not share it in a Kerry thread.

[Geeto67]

Because you elaborated it would magically clear up my misunderstanding?[/Quote] I made an attempt, it's the best I can do. I can't be responsible for what's going on in your head, only what you choose to express.

 

 

How do you know I still don't understand? Or is this just you pretending to know everything again? Everyone really likes it when you do that.

I don't, nor do I care. I made a good faith effort. The rest us up to you. Don't really care what everyone likes and I'll leave you with one of the very few quotes from our relevant subject that I don't find offensive: "A man who has made no enemies is probably not a very good man"

 

 

I do like it how you are now keeping your replies to under 6 War and Peace's and 2 Library of Congress's, though. Baby steps, Justice Gee bro, baby steps.

 

I don't know what sucks more - the fact that so many seek to abridge my writing to fit the diminished attention span of the collective, or that deviation from inspires the kind of nasty comments usually reserved for traffic altercations and encounters with prostitutes. I've never met a group that understood the concept of "if it's too much for you to handle don't read it" less.

 

I will commend you - you haven't called me fat or stupid yet so at least you are exceeding the general(ly low) expectations of this place. Kudos to you for keeping it at least civil.

[Geeto67]

He WANTS to engage people,

because conversation is entertaining

 

 

but as I've told him many times before, he doesn't know when to stop

I stop when I stop being entertained. I really wish you could see the smile on my face sometimes when I read things here.

 

or to what end the argument is serving.

to keep me entertained. It's the internet, the same box where you can read 1000s of volumes of the world's collective knowledge and watch a chick fuck a horse indiscriminately. How can you take anything like that seriously?

 

Note that I have not formed an opinion of the late Justice Scalia...or to be frank, I've formed an opinion and would rather not share it in a Kerry thread.

 

If you had an opinion about this topic you wished to express it would be about that topic and not a personal attack. As such it would be met with respect and civility in recognition of both your intellect and your willingness to share. You would also be literally one of the very few who would have actually had an opinion that was relevant to the subject.

 

I wanted to start a dialog of how the legacy of anti-civil rights jurisprudence may be coming to an end and the funny conspiracy theories that surrounded it. Instead I got called a fat narcissistic asshole by the majority. This is not a discussion board so much as it is a WCW cage match looking for a heel. I don't mind being that heel, and I don't mind the insults, I just wish they were clever or witty so as to at least make the banter entertaining.

[zeitgeist57]

Do you know when conversation stops being entertaining? When it's boring.

 

If someone invited you to a dinner party, and you go on an extra 2 hours about a topic the rest of the guests didn't want to talk about, would you walk out of that party feeling like the night was a rousing success, just because you entertained yourself? Would you think the other guests' felt the same way?

 

Moreover, if so many people in a group had negative feelings on your comments - whether it's the length of your responses or the tenor of your arguments - ultimately is it their fault...or yours?

 

You say you should not take the internet seriously. A better man enjoys the freedom the internet/forums/social media provides, but still makes respectful commentary. Unless - again - you don't care about the effects or outcome of your comments.

[Geeto67]

Do you know when conversation stops being entertaining? When it's boring.

 

If someone invited you to a dinner party, and you go on an extra 2 hours about a topic the rest of the guests didn't want to talk about, would you walk out of that party feeling like the night was a rousing success? Would you think the other guests' felt the same way?

 

If I went into a dinner party and if my initial conversation was met with Shut up you are fat and stupid, it would turn into a completely different kind of dinner party conversation and be entertaining for a variety of reasons.

 

Moreover, if so many people in a group had negative feelings on your comments - whether it's the length of your responses or the tenor of your arguments - ultimately is it their fault...or yours?

 

length and tenor when they have a choice to opt out? theirs. Subject matter - ah there in lies the meat of the conversation and the exchange of ideas. People whine about these things as a distraction from the subject matter have no more weight and consideration than television static.

 

"I don't care" is not a responsible or respectful answer to any of my questions above, if you genuinely care about other people's feelings.

 

Clay, you are obviously bothered by this more than I thought and out of respect for you I'll stop. Whether I care about other people's feelings here? well, you can't let feelings get in the way of a good argument.... oh wait...I have another scalia quote for this that is only mildly offensive:

 

" some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job."

 

#wrappedupinanicebow.

[cdk 4219]

To be fair, he's an attorney apparently. Prob bought his own '95 Jeep.

 

That clearly explains most everything. Most of all his false sense of intelligence, total lack of common sense, narcissistic behavior, as well as limited scope of life. Must be a relatively sad life when you go on a car forum to state that you met someone and you were glad he is no longer with us.

There is always another Dwiggs lurking.

[zeitgeist57]

Kerry, you can see above I actually edited my comment in the span of your response because I realized I didn't want to leave you with "I don't care" as fodder. I was too late.

 

Please, don't use any respect you have from me to stop posting in this thread you created. I, however, am done.

[Rustlestiltskin]

To be fair, he's an attorney apparently. Prob bought his own '95 Jeep.

 

That clearly explains most everything. Most of all his false sense of intelligence, total lack of common sense, narcissistic behavior, as well as limited scope of life. Must be a relatively sad life when you go on a car forum to state that you met someone and you were glad he is no longer with us.

There is always another Dwiggs lurking.

 

inb4 50pg retort about nothing.

[TTQ B4U]

Kerry I will take you.up on that coffee come Saturday.

[Geeto67]

Kerry I will take you.up on that coffee come Saturday.

 

you got it Tim.

[Geeesammy]

You weren't called fat and stupid until you said you were grateful for someone's death.

[Littleguy]

I mean...Obama is so classy that he is not going to the mans funeral...

 

I was joking, but in the case that you would like actual real information and not just rhetoric:

 

“I wouldn’t have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending,” Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk told Politico. “The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time.”

[Otis Nice]

(yes...I hate typing that emoji)

 

-Marc

 

:lolguy:

 

Thank you for picking up what I was putting down!

 

No prob Marc with a cark.

 

Let's try to remember that winter is a TOUGH TIME for us car guys. Once the temp warms up, we're all outside and wrenching...things get a whole lot better.

 

But...but what if someone is a douche 24/7/365? I mean, I have mad respect for you Clay. One of the first members I ever met back in 2001. This guy acts all e-tough though and comes off as the most egotistical of them all.

 

I've been around to see MANY come and go. Hell, even PP doesn't rub me wrong. (Doesn't rub me at all really ). Geeto doesn't rustle my jimmies but makes me feel as if he was shoved into one too many lockers in high school (if he would've fit) and is seeking revenge.

 

I'm with jones on this....laugh. I laughed that that was what you gleaned out of it.

 

Remember something about supreme court justices - they aren't always the "greatest" legal minds in the country, but they are the jurists that play the political game better than others. The old joke among lawyers is "the judge isn't always right, but he/she is always final". Like anybody in law or politics - their decisions are not beyond criticism. If you are asking "who are you to be criticizing a supreme court judge" you are asking the wrong question - that is your right as an American to question the things you don't understand or agree with.

 

For better or worse they are civil servants (not to be taken as pejorative), their role in government exists to serve the needs of the people en masse. That's you, me, everyone. One of the larger criticisms of Scalia was that he had forgotten this - choosing to "protect" the institution he served from the needs of the people through the doctrine of "originalism". A doctrine, I might add he was inconsistent about enforcing, when it suited some greater political strategy.

 

Scalia sought to be another Judge Rehnquist, one of the more controversial judges in SCOTUS history and the chief judge when Scalia first took his appointment, but he fell very short of that mark. Rehnquist's legacy, although itself controversial, was thoughtful, well reasoned, and elegantly communicated, where as scalia was often brutish, bullying, and half baked. Neither will have any great legacy for advancing civil rights in this country and that's a fact (Rehnquist stated several times publicly that segregation should be re-affirmed and fought efforts to desegregate). And this is kind of the point really - at the end of the day, regardless as to how you think I sound in being critical of Scalia's legacy do you really want to defend the "honor" of someone who attempted to advance discrimination by accusing the country of "inventing" new classes of individuals just so they could be guaranteed the same rights of others because you don't like my "tone"?

 

By the way, Scalia said many times that he had no intention to retire unless he became completely incapable of doing the job or died. The fact that he happened to die while still mentally able to perform his court functions is great for his legacy, and the fact that it was seemingly peaceful and not tragic and violent was also good for him. However if you tie your reign to your mortality, it is going to look like people are celebrating your death when they are welcoming the end of your reign. Since 1954 only three judges have passed away while in office, including Scalia, so it is also a rare thing. Not that I expect the majority of people here to know this.

 

TL;DR: If all someone has to bring to this conversation is "you are bad person for celebrating someone's death" the import of this discussion is sailing over your head like so many "chemtrails".

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files-258/0246.wall-of-text.png_2D00_610x0.png

 

All I got out of that is SCOTUS judges aren't as good as you then I quit reading. It may also be interesting to note that my cousin got her degrees, passed the bar, and practiced before quitting to become a Spanish teacher so she could move in with her boyfriend who happened to live in Amish country. She also got her head stuck between a chair she was sitting in and one my mother was while turning around and reaching down to retrieve a card she had dropped during a game once. Attorney's aren't special. I have yet to meet one that has been the most intellectual person I know by far. Get off your high horse.

 

So, I shouldn't listen to his opinion, but I should listen to yours? Just want to make sure my notes on this are accurate, Captain POD. Please continue.

 

I don't fully understand this, but I agree with it. If I practiced law I bet I'd get the "Captain POD" reference and have some lengthy worded rebuttal.

 

I do like it how you are now keeping your replies to under 6 War and Peace's and 2 Library of Congress's, though. Baby steps, Justice Gee bro, baby steps.

 

I literally lol'd so hard at this I had to explain to the wife, "nothing, just...Tilley is hilarious," when she asked what I was laughing at.

 

 

Psychologist vs Lawyer, this is not gonna be pretty if it can continue. Can it please?

 

http://i.imgur.com/4M80xdT.gif

 

...my money is on Tilley.

 

People, you're not going to win an argument - especially online - with Kerry. His opinions are not only strong, but are well-thought out (by his basis of belief).

 

Hard to train a monkey. The "well thought out" part, though? Debatable. I wouldn't hire him based on his presence here alone. Ever.

 

My best suggestion is to either not acknowledge his post, or agree/disagree with him and move on.

 

Don't tell me how to live my life Clay.

 

He WANTS to engage people, but as I've told him many times before, he doesn't know when to stop or to what end the argument is serving.

 

On this I agree. He wants to because he is a tool.

 

and would rather not share it in a Kerry thread.

 

Because even you, whom he refers to as a source, knows that he's nothing more than a mindless drivel spewing troll.

 

I don't know what sucks more - the fact that so many seek to abridge my writing to fit the diminished attention span of the collective, or that deviation from inspires the kind of nasty comments usually reserved for traffic altercations and encounters with prostitutes. I've never met a group that understood the concept of "if it's too much for you to handle don't read it" less.

 

I will commend you - you haven't called me fat or stupid yet so at least you are exceeding the general(ly low) expectations of this place. Kudos to you for keeping it at least civil.

 

So why stay? Bye Felicia. You won't be missed.

 

I'm fat. I'm not a total dick to everyone here and I definitely don't try to inflate my ego using lofty vocabulary reserved solely for a poorly written high school term paper using the "right click, find synonyms" feature in MSWord.

 

Weight has nothing to do with it. Your ego far outweighs your body. That's why people don't like you.

 

Instead I got called a fat narcissistic asshole by the majority.

 

If the size 14 wide shoe fits...

 

Do you know when conversation stops being entertaining? When it's boring.

 

If someone invited you to a dinner party, and you go on an extra 2 hours about a topic the rest of the guests didn't want to talk about, would you walk out of that party feeling like the night was a rousing success, just because you entertained yourself? Would you think the other guests' felt the same way?

 

Moreover, if so many people in a group had negative feelings on your comments - whether it's the length of your responses or the tenor of your arguments - ultimately is it their fault...or yours?

 

You say you should not take the internet seriously. A better man enjoys the freedom the internet/forums/social media provides, but still makes respectful commentary. Unless - again - you don't care about the effects or outcome of your comments.

 

http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=695&pictureid=5567

 

Kerry, you can see above I actually edited my comment in the span of your response because I realized I didn't want to leave you with "I don't care" as fodder. I was too late.

 

Please, don't use any respect you have from me to stop posting in this thread you created. I, however, am done.

 

This is what "class" looks like, Kerry. take note. Learn from it.