Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[bodecea]

Another shoe drops: Bill O’Reilly’s ex-colleagues call his L.A. riot stories ‘completely ficticious’
Six people who covered the riots with O’Reilly in California for Inside Edition told the Guardian they did not recall an incident in which, as O’Reilly has claimed, “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters”.

He's just like Brian Williams. That's been established. Now, we watch how the two of them and their employers react to that not-so-surprising revelation.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

WTF are you babbling about?

An 8 word sentence is not babbling, professor. My post is obviously above your pay grade.

Civil rights, womens rights and worker protections "did not turn out well"?

Gotta love the extreme right....the gift that keeps on giving

 

[kaz]

I would remind that person the government should not be promoting anything as it pertains to what we wish to do...and there is no point of government marriage.

Then you would advocate to eliminate all the benefits of marriage? Be careful what you wish for

- Flatten taxes or better yet go to the fair tax
- Eliminate the death tax
- Make parental responsibilities and rights based on genes not paper
- Make it easier and cheaper to draw up legal documents such as living wills
- Let employees negotiate their own benefits with their employers
- Let people negotiate their own marriage "contracts"

Bam, there is no government "benefit" to marriage, and hell yeah, I wish for that

Having children is expensive. Children are the future of this country. Without them, no one will be here to care for us when we are old and need the care.

My link a few posts ago show what happens when the populace stops having kids.

Mark

You lost me, who is stopping having kids? People aren't having kids unless government pays them to? What about my proposal do you think is going to end the human race exactly?

 

[natstew]

Another shoe drops: Bill O’Reilly’s ex-colleagues call his L.A. riot stories ‘completely ficticious’
Six people who covered the riots with O’Reilly in California for Inside Edition told the Guardian they did not recall an incident in which, as O’Reilly has claimed, “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters”.

He's just like Brian Williams. That's been established. Now, we watch how the two of them and their employers react to that not-so-surprising revelation.

No, Bill is not 'just like Brian'. George Soros has 40 people investigating O'Reilly and they haven't come up with a lie yet. Bill never said he was in the Falkland Islands.

 

[bodecea]

Another shoe drops: Bill O’Reilly’s ex-colleagues call his L.A. riot stories ‘completely ficticious’
Six people who covered the riots with O’Reilly in California for Inside Edition told the Guardian they did not recall an incident in which, as O’Reilly has claimed, “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters”.

He's just like Brian Williams. That's been established. Now, we watch how the two of them and their employers react to that not-so-surprising revelation.

No, Bill is not 'just like Brian'. George Soros has 40 people investigating O'Reilly and they haven't come up with a lie yet. Bill never said he was in the Falkland Islands.

Oh my....denial is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[kaz]

- Flatten taxes or better yet go to the fair tax

Why do you support creating two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned "incomes"?


JWK



Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?

Strawman, the Fair Tax eliminates all other taxes. Why don't you read about it before making a comment like that?

Pass the Fair Tax FAIRtax.org

 

[bodecea]

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

WTF are you babbling about?

An 8 word sentence is not babbling, professor. My post is obviously above your pay grade.

Civil rights, womens rights and worker protections "did not turn out well"?

Gotta love the extreme right....the gift that keeps on giving

Rabbi would like these posters:

16 Shocking Vintage Posters That Warned Men About The Dangers Of Women Having Rights Diply

Isn't it amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same? Look at the first one....remind you of what the RW says about Liberal women and Lesbians?

 

[kaz]

16 Shocking Vintage Posters That Warned Men About The Dangers Of Women Having Rights Diply

Isn't it amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same? Look at the first one....remind you of what the RW says about Liberal women and Lesbians?

The irony that the woman who believes women should be targeted for their political views and takes a leading role in showing what happens to bitches who defy the Democrat party talks about caring about women. You are a slave who being freed decided to become an overseer for the Plantation owner

 

[Jarhead]

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

Neither are a man and a woman, where one or both of them are sterile.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

WTF are you babbling about?

An 8 word sentence is not babbling, professor. My post is obviously above your pay grade.

Civil rights, womens rights and worker protections "did not turn out well"?

Gotta love the extreme right....the gift that keeps on giving

The Civil Rights movement curtailed the right of private property and ultimately has doomed blacks to second class status economically
Woemn's rights have doomed women to being forced into the workplace
Worker protections have cost jobs, which were sent overseas rather than comply with expensive, onerous, and useless provisions.
You just are on a roll, nutjobber. Cant get out of the way of your own ignorance.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

16 Shocking Vintage Posters That Warned Men About The Dangers Of Women Having Rights Diply

Isn't it amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same? Look at the first one....remind you of what the RW says about Liberal women and Lesbians?

The irony that the woman who believes women should be targeted for their political views and takes a leading role in showing what happens to bitches who defy the Democrat party talks about caring about women. You are a slave who being freed decided to become an overseer for the Plantation owner

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Redfish]

We limit equal protection all the time. Why can an 18 year old be an adult and not be able to drink liquor or buy a pistol?

Mark

Send any 9 year old to Texas and he can buy all the guns he wants as long as he has the cash.

Liar--------------

There are no requirements for any checks whatsoever for individual gun sales in Texas. Some might not sell to a 9 year old, but there are plenty that would. With no requirement for any type of verification, how can you say anyone couldn't buy a gun?

no legitimate gun dealer is going to sell a gun to a 9 year old kid. Thats just a ridiculous statement.

You're right. Who said it had to be a legitimate gun dealer? Individual gun sales in Texas have no documentation requirements.

Then your claim applies to every state. Gangbangers in every state would sell a gun to a 9 year old.

So once again, your texas bashing fails.

 

[Redfish]

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

 

[Jarhead]

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

how about 4 women and 1 man? I consider that a coup...

 

[Redfish]

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

how about 4 women and 1 man? I consider that a coup...

After the four on one sex romp you stll have 4 women to deal with. Better to hire 4 hookers for an hour than to marry 4.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

 

[Redfish]

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

If a union of two gays of the same sex is a marriage then a union of 4 women and 6 men is a marriage. You can't have one without condoning the other.

1. We've had civil monogamy without civil polygamy for how many years?

2. If dozens of state governments have already established civil same sex marriage as legal/legitimate,

how can you claim it doesn't exist?

I am telling you that if you get a supreme court ruling that validates gay marriage using equality, and discrimination as justifications, then there is absolutely no defense that can be brought against all forms of polygamy, because the polygamists will use exactly the same legal rationale that the gays used, and they will win because the precedent will be established.

if thats where you want our society to go, then continue supporting calling a gay union a marriage. Because what we call it is the crux of the issue.

Polygamists could have used that against monogamy 100 years ago

And they did.
next.