Interview with Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) on Reading the Constitution

Nobody said anything about Faux News and/or right wingers, numbnuts.

I've seen more than one liberal get interveiwed on FOX.

FOX asked them a question, they himm and haww, then ask themselves a question and beging to answer themselves and get cut off. Then w/o fail, they act all indignant and pissy that FOX isn't letting them answer the question when in fact they had no intention of doing so.

really? which interviews are you talking about? i'm curious.

i've seen o'reilly shut off the mic on anyone he disagreed with, including, iirc, the son of a 9/11 victim. i've seen hannity talk to anyone he disagrees with as if he were a traitor. i've seen them distort facts. i've never quite seen anyone hem and haw and act all indignant. it may have happened, but i'm kind of wondering who we're talking about.

i know that when the president went on o'reilly, however, he did a very good job and o'reilly liked and respected him. i don't recall baby bush ever being interviewed by a liberal.

i do know that when rand paul was inteviewed by maddow, he was so humiliaited by his own words that he never again allowed himself to be interviewed by national media again. and i know that goodlatte (and you're right... great name), he humiliated himself.

i'll be happy to go look up the video of any democrat who hemmed and hawwed and was cowed by the mighty interviewers at foxnews.

Check Oddball's post just before this one.
Most of Barney Franks post
(crap drawing a blank) The black minster guy oldwhatshisname with the combed back hair.

I don't watch Hannity, he's a bit of an ass and reminds me of Olberman.

with O'Riely, you run into time constraints. he doesn't have of give anyone time to blather on ane on. He asks straight questions and expects straight answers. Wondering off topic isn't tolerated.
 
I've seen more than one liberal get interveiwed on FOX.

FOX asked them a question, they himm and haww, then ask themselves a question and beging to answer themselves and get cut off. Then w/o fail, they act all indignant and pissy that FOX isn't letting them answer the question when in fact they had no intention of doing so.

really? which interviews are you talking about? i'm curious.

i've seen o'reilly shut off the mic on anyone he disagreed with, including, iirc, the son of a 9/11 victim. i've seen hannity talk to anyone he disagrees with as if he were a traitor. i've seen them distort facts. i've never quite seen anyone hem and haw and act all indignant. it may have happened, but i'm kind of wondering who we're talking about.

i know that when the president went on o'reilly, however, he did a very good job and o'reilly liked and respected him. i don't recall baby bush ever being interviewed by a liberal.

i do know that when rand paul was inteviewed by maddow, he was so humiliaited by his own words that he never again allowed himself to be interviewed by national media again. and i know that goodlatte (and you're right... great name), he humiliated himself.

i'll be happy to go look up the video of any democrat who hemmed and hawwed and was cowed by the mighty interviewers at foxnews.

Check Oddball's post just before this one.
Most of Barney Franks post
(crap drawing a blank) The black minster guy oldwhatshisname with the combed back hair.

I don't watch Hannity, he's a bit of an ass and reminds me of Olberman.

with O'Riely, you run into time constraints. he doesn't have of give anyone time to blather on ane on. He asks straight questions and expects straight answers. Wondering off topic isn't tolerated.

yeah, i saw his post. just because he says that it was a bad interview doesn't make it a bad interview. in fact, i thought he did rather well. but then again, i'm not reading what some blogger says about the interview... i actually watched it just now.

Fox News Megyn Kelly Anthony Weiner Interview

the congressman made megyn kelly look really stupid because he kept answering her and she kept talking over him being really belligerant. i didn't see him hem and haw at all in that 11 minute segment ... did you? i did see him roll his eyes as she talked over him and finally just stop and clap his hands together waiting for her to shut up. try watching it instead of assuming that because someone with an agenda says something that it's true.

o'reilly didn't shut off anyone's mic because he ran out of time. he shut their mic because he didn't want anyone disagreeing with him as he shouted them down. i will say that since beck came around, o'reilly's mellowed and kind of become the semi-sane voice at fox.
 
Last edited:
What a nice interview. Really points out that the reading is nothing more than showboating or grandstanding.

Kinda like Pelosi walking through a large crowd of people with a giant gavel?

Oh, I see, showboating and grandstanding is all fine and good as long as it's the Democrats that are doing it.

Rick
 
I watched it too. Odonnell was tough but he always is. Did you wingnuts think you were getting free passes from the media now that they have control of the House? If anything, the focus will, unfortunately for you, be on Republican idiocy now more than ever.
 
I've seen more than one liberal get interveiwed on FOX.

FOX asked them a question, they himm and haww, then ask themselves a question and beging to answer themselves and get cut off. Then w/o fail, they act all indignant and pissy that FOX isn't letting them answer the question when in fact they had no intention of doing so.
Hmmm....I'm seeing a picture...
18991.jpg

THAT'S THE GUY!! HE'S THE MAIN MORON!!

He lacks the stones to answer questions, and when they have to repeat and repeat the question to get an answer he gets all pissy and says that he did, WHEN any FOOL can see that he didn't!

I LOVE that guy! He's better than any "Who's on first" routine.

interesting... i watched the whole video and didn't see that at all. he answered every one of her questions.

of course, she kept asking the same question over and over again.

eye of the beholder, i guess...

which is kind of why it doesn't pay for dems to go on fauxnews. *shrug*
 
What a nice interview. Really points out that the reading is nothing more than showboating or grandstanding.

Kinda like Pelosi walking through a large crowd of people with a giant gavel?

Oh, I see, showboating and grandstanding is all fine and good as long as it's the Democrats that are doing it.

Rick


Gee Rick you didn't ask me what I thought about Mrs. Pelosi doing that now did you? :eusa_whistle: But yeah kinda like that, not quite as wordy but kinda like that.
 
I watched it too. Odonnell was tough but he always is. Did you wingnuts think you were getting free passes from the media now that they have control of the House? If anything, the focus will, unfortunately for you, be on Republican idiocy now more than ever.

Republican idiocy?
Funny...I dont see the democrat policies as idiocy...I see them as a thought process I dont agree with.
Why do you see something you do not agree with as idiocy?
Dont you think that may limit your ability to progress and adapt?
I certainly think it would.
Neither side is 100% correct and neither side is 100% wrong.
To the contrary, both sides have very similar goals but with different ideas on acheiving them.

Republican idiocy. Jeez. I find that childish and pathetic.

Hope is works well for you Sarah.
 
I watched it too. Odonnell was tough but he always is. Did you wingnuts think you were getting free passes from the media now that they have control of the House? If anything, the focus will, unfortunately for you, be on Republican idiocy now more than ever.

Republican idiocy?
Funny...I dont see the democrat policies as idiocy...I see them as a thought process I dont agree with.
Why do you see something you do not agree with as idiocy?
Dont you think that may limit your ability to progress and adapt?
I certainly think it would.
Neither side is 100% correct and neither side is 100% wrong.
To the contrary, both sides have very similar goals but with different ideas on acheiving them.

Republican idiocy. Jeez. I find that childish and pathetic.

Hope is works well for you Sarah.

Well I sure hope you can learn to grow a thicker skin. I can't help it if your party, the party of idiocy, is crying and whining about how tough the press is on them.
 
Last edited:
I watched it too. Odonnell was tough but he always is. Did you wingnuts think you were getting free passes from the media now that they have control of the House? If anything, the focus will, unfortunately for you, be on Republican idiocy now more than ever.

Republican idiocy?
Funny...I dont see the democrat policies as idiocy...I see them as a thought process I dont agree with.
Why do you see something you do not agree with as idiocy?
Dont you think that may limit your ability to progress and adapt?
I certainly think it would.
Neither side is 100% correct and neither side is 100% wrong.
To the contrary, both sides have very similar goals but with different ideas on acheiving them.

Republican idiocy. Jeez. I find that childish and pathetic.

Hope is works well for you Sarah.

Well I sure hope you can learn to grow a thicker skin. I can't help it if your party, the party of idiocy, is crying and whining about how tough the press is on them.

Me? I have thick skin. As for the GOP..they are politicians...worried about image. I mean, really Sarah...Obama, the most powerful man in the world does not complain about the media?

Your partisanship, although commendable from a support standpoint, is quite blinding to reality. All politicians of both sides complain about treatment by the media. I see that. You dont. But go for it if it works for you. We all have our ways to confirm our sentiments. I disagree with your style, but I respect it.

Your reference to those that think differently than you as "idiots" is still childish and pathetic in my eyes.
 
Hmmm....I'm seeing a picture...
18991.jpg

THAT'S THE GUY!! HE'S THE MAIN MORON!!

He lacks the stones to answer questions, and when they have to repeat and repeat the question to get an answer he gets all pissy and says that he did, WHEN any FOOL can see that he didn't!

I LOVE that guy! He's better than any "Who's on first" routine.

interesting... i watched the whole video and didn't see that at all. he answered every one of her questions.

of course, she kept asking the same question over and over again.

eye of the beholder, i guess...

which is kind of why it doesn't pay for dems to go on fauxnews. *shrug*

Exactly. She didn't do a follow up..and just kept saying the same thing over and over. Weiner's not the most patient guy either..it's easy to push his buttons...but in this case I can't see how someone would not get pissed.

Obama's been on FOX several times. O'reilly was somewhat belligerent..but he let Obama speak. Bret Baier on the other hand wouldn't let the President answer anything..he just kept badgering. Baier finally wound up apologizing in the end.

That's not to say FOX doesn't have some good anchors..Chris Wallace and Shep Smith come to mind. Major Garrett was good as well..but he's gone now.
 
THAT'S THE GUY!! HE'S THE MAIN MORON!!

He lacks the stones to answer questions, and when they have to repeat and repeat the question to get an answer he gets all pissy and says that he did, WHEN any FOOL can see that he didn't!

I LOVE that guy! He's better than any "Who's on first" routine.

interesting... i watched the whole video and didn't see that at all. he answered every one of her questions.

of course, she kept asking the same question over and over again.

eye of the beholder, i guess...

which is kind of why it doesn't pay for dems to go on fauxnews. *shrug*

Exactly. She didn't do a follow up..and just kept saying the same thing over and over. Weiner's not the most patient guy either..it's easy to push his buttons...but in this case I can't see how someone would not get pissed.

Obama's been on FOX several times. O'reilly was somewhat belligerent..but he let Obama speak. Bret Baier on the other hand wouldn't let the President answer anything..he just kept badgering. Baier finally wound up apologizing in the end.

That's not to say FOX doesn't have some good anchors..Chris Wallace and Shep Smith come to mind. Major Garrett was good as well..but he's gone now.

given his penchant for getting angry, i think he did very well with her badgering, too. i don't know who major garrett is. sorry. but chris wallace and shep smith don't bother me as much as some of the others. and i've seen smith do some good things.
 
oh... and the 3/5 compromise is simply an example of why the founder's don't speak for today's world. capish? so if you know nothing about constitutional construction, and talk about how the document is supposed to be viewed as an originalist... then you deserve to be smacked in the face with it.

You are unequivocally wrong. The writers of the Constitution inserted the amendment process precisely for what you say. They knew the world and society would eventually change and therefore they gave us a method for dealing with that. As you clearly know, we used that process to rectify the 3/5 of a person issue.

Unfortunately, over the past 100 years politicians and judges have taken it upon themselves to change the Constitution by simply declaring in a court room that certain clauses now mean something they don't and never have and it is those people and those who support that type of judicial activism who deserve to be bitch slapped. Such actions are rendering our Constitution meaningless.
 
Nice ambush interview.

Oh please Senator we would love to talk to you about the reading!

Burn through that

Then attack attack attack.

Ol' Lawrence is a prick and Sen Goodlatte kept his cool.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

Can't fathom why they are actually going to do this dog and pony show. do they truly think people give a damn?

Well not really. Lawrence knows his way around the Congress. That's his background.

And although Goodlatte kept his cool..he really didn't come off to well being an "adherent" to Constitutional values. He put up one bill that couldn't pass Constitutional muster under his favorite judge and voted on another that he didn't know what Constitional clause backed it up.

The Constitution makes good fodder for those that are braying about original principles until they understand the text.

Then that sort of falls apart.

And it's not the role of Congress to do the Constitutional litmus test on each and every bill. Sheesh..that's adds a whole new layer of sludge to law making. Isn't legislation slow enough as it is?


Yes it is their job. They are, or they are supposed to be, a co-equal branch of government. All of them are expected to execute their jobs in a Constitutional, that is LAWFUL, manner. To pass laws that are not "Constitutional" would be illegal, by definition, and violate their oath of office.

If you are worried about how "slow legislation is" then you shouldn't desire to create laws that require decades of subsequent litigation to determine what they finally mean. For my money the legislation is far too quick and far too frequent. We'd all be better off with much less productivity out of Congress. (Unless they start undoing much of what they've done. That can't happen fast enough!)
 
in other words, he looked like an idiot?

well.. maybe that's because he's an idiot

how is truth gotcha?? seriously. i find that really an odd way to look at it.

don't you expect people to back up what they say?

I was hoping for some manners.

to be honest idk that the Sen is full of shit. Name one that isn't, and no fair going WAY back in history. :lol:

What should have been a fluff piece about a dog and pony show turned ugly when it didn't have too.

you know, i understand what you're saying. i really do. and more pols are fos than aren't. (in fact, i'd be hard pressed to find any who aren't fos to some degree). but i also know that it offends me incredibly that the pretend constitutionalists are using the reading to pretend they actually know what it says. so i figure o'donnell was polite. but he held him up to the light.

isn't that what people are supposed to do in an interview? it wasn't a fluff piece for people magazine. and, frankly, there are too many fluff pieces. maybe he thought he'd be treated the way he is on fox. :dunno:

Why? Was it written in some language other than English? Why do you fancy yourself to be the only living person on earth that understands the constitution? What's in there that you know that no one else on earth knows? And why is it you fancy yourself the sole decider of who may or may not read the constitution? That is getting a bit old don'tchyathink?
 
Hmmm....I'm seeing a picture...
18991.jpg

THAT'S THE GUY!! HE'S THE MAIN MORON!!

He lacks the stones to answer questions, and when they have to repeat and repeat the question to get an answer he gets all pissy and says that he did, WHEN any FOOL can see that he didn't!

I LOVE that guy! He's better than any "Who's on first" routine.

interesting... i watched the whole video and didn't see that at all. he answered every one of her questions.

of course, she kept asking the same question over and over again.

eye of the beholder, i guess...

which is kind of why it doesn't pay for dems to go on fauxnews. *shrug*

No he didn't. He persisted in getting his talking points in and I don't think I've ever seen a more condescending little prick. Weeenie Wins.
 
msnbc.com Video Player

yes, i know it's msnbc... but it's an interesting interview.

comments?

Can't watch the vd from here, but Goodlatte was put up to the suggestion by the VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. You may know him from the other story that's made a lot of news in the last month Obamacare unconstitutional as ruled by a Federal Judge here in VA. Ken created the circumstances for that that by having the Virginia legislature pass an act prior to the health care law passing that says Virginians are free to get their health insurance from anywhere they like and can't be forced to buy it at all. The federal law therefore directly injured Virginians and gave us standing. Suit was filed the day Obama signed the law. Anyway, I digress. Ken and I used to work at the same law firm. Given the noise he's making as Attorney General, I would be VERY surprised if you don't hear a lot more from him in the future. I think he could probably skip the normal route they take here (Atty Gen -> Gov. -> run for Senate) and go straight to running for senator. The governorship is a dead end job here anyway. One term and out.

So, if Goodlatte didn't have a lot of horsepower to backup "his" suggestion, it's probably because it wasn't his idea. His heart's in the right place though. Every movement needs followers and soldiers in the fight, he's one of them. That's good enough.
 
I watched it too. Odonnell was tough but he always is. Did you wingnuts think you were getting free passes from the media now that they have control of the House? If anything, the focus will, unfortunately for you, be on Republican idiocy now more than ever.

Republican idiocy?
Funny...I dont see the democrat policies as idiocy...I see them as a thought process I dont agree with.
Why do you see something you do not agree with as idiocy?
Dont you think that may limit your ability to progress and adapt?
I certainly think it would.
Neither side is 100% correct and neither side is 100% wrong.
To the contrary, both sides have very similar goals but with different ideas on acheiving them.

Republican idiocy. Jeez. I find that childish and pathetic.

Hope is works well for you Sarah.

Well I sure hope you can learn to grow a thicker skin. I can't help it if your party, the party of idiocy, is crying and whining about how tough the press is on them.

do you have a link?
 
I was hoping for some manners.

to be honest idk that the Sen is full of shit. Name one that isn't, and no fair going WAY back in history. :lol:

What should have been a fluff piece about a dog and pony show turned ugly when it didn't have too.

you know, i understand what you're saying. i really do. and more pols are fos than aren't. (in fact, i'd be hard pressed to find any who aren't fos to some degree). but i also know that it offends me incredibly that the pretend constitutionalists are using the reading to pretend they actually know what it says. so i figure o'donnell was polite. but he held him up to the light.

isn't that what people are supposed to do in an interview? it wasn't a fluff piece for people magazine. and, frankly, there are too many fluff pieces. maybe he thought he'd be treated the way he is on fox. :dunno:

Why? Was it written in some language other than English? Why do you fancy yourself to be the only living person on earth that understands the constitution? What's in there that you know that no one else on earth knows? And why is it you fancy yourself the sole decider of who may or may not read the constitution? That is getting a bit old don'tchyathink?

Jillian is tghe typical Lib with contempt for anything that doesn't accord with her stupid ill informed opinions. She has nothing to contribute here but neg reps.
The interview was a farce. I'd like to see someone do the same with Obama.
 
I believe the Constitution is a living document, those who argue original intent are full of shit. A careful reading of Article I, section 8 might give pause to the conservatives who have demagouged the issue. In particular those who supported the war powers act, abdicating their constitutional duty on the declaraton of war (in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, as well as smaller invasions of Panama and Grenada) and as to Militias (see clauses 15 & 16) in relation to the second amendment rights they give total support.
 
Last edited:
you know, i understand what you're saying. i really do. and more pols are fos than aren't. (in fact, i'd be hard pressed to find any who aren't fos to some degree). but i also know that it offends me incredibly that the pretend constitutionalists are using the reading to pretend they actually know what it says. so i figure o'donnell was polite. but he held him up to the light.

isn't that what people are supposed to do in an interview? it wasn't a fluff piece for people magazine. and, frankly, there are too many fluff pieces. maybe he thought he'd be treated the way he is on fox. :dunno:

Why? Was it written in some language other than English? Why do you fancy yourself to be the only living person on earth that understands the constitution? What's in there that you know that no one else on earth knows? And why is it you fancy yourself the sole decider of who may or may not read the constitution? That is getting a bit old don'tchyathink?

Jillian is tghe typical Lib with contempt for anything that doesn't accord with her stupid ill informed opinions. She has nothing to contribute here but neg reps.
The interview was a farce. I'd like to see someone do the same with Obama.

Rabbi's judgment is clouded by the fact that he is a liar and an asshole. Anything he posts is highly partisan, usually made up and generally stupid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top