I was reading Armando's
diary today about the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court.
What struck me is the number of unproductive and marginal comments that were made in the comments. And most of them made by Armando himself.
I guess as a front page writer here, I would expect a little more from him. He had a lot of detractors, most with valid points. In the end he resorted to unproductive and marginal comments in reply.
Now I disagree with Armando's general point. And I certainly don't have a problem with him bringing his viewpoint. But his replies were defensive, condescending, and sometimes just plain rude.
If he keeps this up he might not be able to post here. That is, if the rules apply to him as well as us.
I decided to put this in a diary entry because that thread was already 500 comments long and I wanted to see what people thought about this. It is the first time I have seen real devisiveness between the front page and the community.
I also didn't want to interfere with the discussion of the actual subject.
For those that didn't see the thread, here are a few comments. I have added the comments that immediately preceeded Armando's replies.
You have got nerve saying that. You have been going around insulting everybody's legal knowledge and now you come insult me.
To be honest with you bruh, now that you have decided to attack me too, you've been talking out of your ass in this whole thread.
And I do have a legal degree and I HAVE litigated takings claims, and guess what genius, it's been the big corporations who litigate them the most.
You think you know more about this than me? Well you don't.
So stick your insulting tone and bullshit up your ass.
That was in response to:
You are lack the lawyer above (2.50 / 2)
are speaking in not very honest terms. It has to do with the fact they could have set out a definition and requirements for the limites of eminent domain. They could have provided a clear defition of what they wanted as proof from the legislature. They could have set up parameters of when they don't think something is in the public good. They could have done a lot of things they didn't do because they were too worried about Scalia, and not enough worried about making good law.
I'm not sure what the first sentence of the post that offended Armando means, but the rest of it seems on point and reasonable.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Mindless is your comment.
Your ignorance is no excuse for insults.
Which was a response to this:
Simply mindless (3.66 / 3)
Utterly, wholely mindless.
If an Elected Legislature
determines that it is beenficial to the public, of course.
This is hardly controversial
You just argued that should an elected legislature decide a clear cut constitutional command is contrary to its desires it may simply ignore it.
Mindless.
And speaking of sophistry. The constitution is clear. Specifically and exceedingly clear. The intentions of the signers were clear. The incidents that led to the ban on takings is clear. But you and this very corrupt SC use rationalisations to get around it.
You are, quite simply, arguing for the Feudal British system of takings. That, in effect, federal state and local governments have a presumptive right to individual property that may be asserted at any time for nearly any reason.
This post isnt at all suprising from the corporatist wing of the party. However.. that simply does not make the post, and the armguments, any less mindless.. and intentionally disengenuous.
Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.
now perhaps that was responding in kind. But ...
Comment break or otherwise
I tear you a new one for that.
Which was in response to:
Well, then (none / 1)
you obviously don't support Roe V. Wade, since Privacy is no where mentioned in the constitution.
I don't have a problem with the constitution, which I view as a living document, subject to various interpretations relative to changes in the country that could not possibly have been foreseen by the founding fathers.
I'm not a hypocrite who believes the justices should be strict constuctionists when it suits me and apply their considered reason when it does not.
This last response was completely unprovoked.
Since I haven't been posting here for a while, I can't view the ones that are now hidden. And indeed this is a problem for reading the thread after some comments have disappeared.
Certainly some people here believe that less than civil discourse is acceptable. I don't. DKos is too good of a site to resort to that level of discussion.
After taking so much heat for a very straightforward observation, I looked at the FAQ that Pastor Dan wrote up:
It's considered rude to insult or swear at a conversation partner on the board, and it is never acceptable to threaten physical violence. (Kos, if you're reading this, making threats should probably be grounds for automatic expulsion.) If you can't get through a conversation without telling the other person to go Cheney themselves, or threatening to hit them so hard their vertebrae come popping out like Chiclets, it's probably time to turn your computer off and go get drunk.
My personal guideline is to treat people as if I were meeting them at a diner until I get to know them: be polite, don't make assumptions, listen carefully to what they have to say. They may be the biggest jerk you've ever met; but they may also have something to teach you.
I couldn't agree more. I am just amazed the everyone doesn't think so.