Class Warfare Blog

October 31, 2013

Conservative Talking Points Go to the Devil

In a recent interview, former Speaker of the House Tom DeLay said: “Jesus died for our freedom. And Jesus destroyed Satan so that we could be free and that is manifested in what is called the Constitution of the United States. God created this nation and God created the Constitution; it is written on biblical principles.”

Okay . . .

But then in October Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated (sotto voce) in an interview, “I even believe in the devil.” He followed up with “You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so . . . removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil.”

So, which is it conservatives: is the Devil alive and well or is he dead?

Generally conservatives show more discipline regarding their talking points.

(And DeLay? “Jesus died for our freedom.” WTF? The way DeLay thinks, he must be “pro-choice” in that Jesus gave us the choice . . . not to go to Hell.)

Advertisements

10 Comments »

  1. So Delay has become another free-market Dominionist eh?

    Like

    Comment by lbwoodgate — October 31, 2013 @ 10:03 am | Reply

    • Apparently. I remember when crazy people shied away from getting their ideas exposed to the public. I guess I am now officially an Old Fart. *OFS, together we can find a cure!* (OFS being Old Fart Syndrome; you gotta have an acronym to attract federal grant money.)

      PS We’ve moved (again)! Just change the Apt # from 28C to 17A (110 feet down and about 30 feet east). Effective Date: October 1, 2013

      *Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.* ************** Steve Ruis

      Like

      Comment by stephenpruis — October 31, 2013 @ 10:19 am | Reply

  2. These two quotes made a me a little ill 😦

    Like

    Comment by john zande — October 31, 2013 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

    • Hey, these assholes are leaders in this country … leaders! I need to invent a god so I have somebody to pray to!

      PS We’ve moved (again)! Just change the Apt # from 28C to 17A (110 feet down and about 30 feet east). Effective Date: October 1, 2013

      *Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.* ************** Steve Ruis

      Like

      Comment by stephenpruis — October 31, 2013 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

      • After Scalia’s interview made it out i was hoping people there would start an effort to have him removed from the bench. You can’t have that type of crazy “interpreting” your laws.

        Like

        Comment by john zande — October 31, 2013 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

        • There is no procedure for recalling a Supreme Court Justice. They aren’t even subject to the code of standards of all of the other federal judges. When a petition was made for them to voluntarily behave according to those standards, the Chief Justice said that he didn’t think it was necessary. Gee, not even to pretend that they are independent and just, not even that? No.

          PS We’ve moved (again)! Just change the Apt # from 28C to 17A (110 feet down and about 30 feet east). Effective Date: October 1, 2013

          *Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.* ************** Steve Ruis

          Like

          Comment by stephenpruis — October 31, 2013 @ 1:25 pm | Reply

          • Really? You can’t toss them off the bench, even if they’re insane? Something’s wrong there.

            Like

            Comment by john zande — October 31, 2013 @ 1:28 pm | Reply

            • By design, the court is isolated from influences that could affect their judgement, well, except if you’ve got a lot of money and want to donate a bunch to help build a museum dedicate to a Justice’s mother (Clarence Thomas) or are asked to keynote a billionaire boy’s club (Conservatives Only!) bash in Colorado all expenses paid (and bring your wife–Thomas and Scalia).

              Can you spell *corruption* boys and girls? I assume these Justices argue that they were gonna vote the way they were anyway, so why not cash in?

              PS We’ve moved (again)! Just change the Apt # from 28C to 17A (110 feet down and about 30 feet east). Effective Date: October 1, 2013

              *Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.* ************** Steve Ruis

              Like

              Comment by stephenpruis — October 31, 2013 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

      • “There is no procedure for recalling a Supreme Court Justice.”

        I recall that back in the late 50’s or early 60’s that conservatives were calling for Earl Warren’s impeachment because he sided with the left on civil liberties issues. Is impeachment not something that can be used to remove a SC justice? Not that that would actually happen in for Scalia but just asking.

        Like

        Comment by lbwoodgate — October 31, 2013 @ 2:56 pm | Reply

        • I don’t think so, but I have been wrong before. I just did a quick search and indeed the answer is “yes.” Ta da, wrong again! (Since I admitted it, you know I am a liberal. Dick Cheney has never done anything wrong. That’s how I know he is a true conservative.”

          “A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.” (Answers,com)

          It would be hard to prove a Justice had violated his/her oath and I don’t know what actions they might take would be classified as “High crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment is something people throw arrround (like secession) and they don’t usually know what they are talking about. But the House can impeach somebody for any damned reason they choose, they don’t even need reasons because there is no check on that power. There doesn’t seem to be much of a check on a Senate trial either.

          PS We’ve moved (again)! Just change the Apt # from 28C to 17A (110 feet down and about 30 feet east). Effective Date: October 1, 2013

          *Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.* ************** Steve Ruis

          Like

          Comment by stephenpruis — October 31, 2013 @ 3:22 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: