In just 72 hours : MSNBC: We Have to Break Through This Idea 'That Kids Belong to Their Parents'

[Dragonlady]

I hope Nurse Ratchett brings Keys his meds soon. If she doesn't, the orderlies will put him in the coat with the long sleeves.

 

[Skylar]

... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]

Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?

"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'

ROFL!

Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.

Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.

What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.

But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.

As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!

Again, you're ignoring constitutional guarantees:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

This is from the very decision you're citing. And yet you ignore it, pretending that there are no constitutional guarantees. Despite the fact that all state marriage laws are subject to them.

Pretend all you like. The constitutional guarantees still exist. And they were the basis of the Obergefell decision last week. No matter how hard you pretend.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cool...

Now understand, the argument is that in the first 72 hours, the Ideological Left has already begun, to march their way to the rhetorical sea burning and pillaging everything it can burn and pillage in terms of recognition and respect for Natural Law... toward the goal of Legalizing Adult Sex with Children.

I told you on Day One... as most of you already knew, that the 'divining of the Fundamental Right to Marry' was not a Slippery Slope, but a leap from the Precipice... (That means 'we jumped off the cliff', Gilligan) that such would come first, through the ruse of providing Children with Equal Protection Under the Law, which requires that the natural responsibilities of the Parent be transferred to the state, thus providing the state the means to determine that children are 'Rightfully entitled to offer their Consent to sexual relations with Adult Homosexuals'.

Understand, that ROE has already gone along way toward destroying the notion of parental sanctity; wherein the Government Licensed Degeneracy at the first level... by 'granting the Right' to MURDER YOUR CHILDREN. So... where you can murder your children to avoid your responsibility to them, you've closed the gap necessary to rationalize that your parental responsibilities aren't 'real' anyway, so what's the big deal about giving Government the Responsibility for them... . Odds are that there's going to be some serious 'financial incentive coming, to help the lowest common denominator along.

So recognize that pattern, as it's the 900lb Democrat in the middle of the room.

SOOooo... in the first 72 hours after the Federal Government Licensed Degeneracy, we now have our first In-house Comrades Publicly Joining the Left's Ramp-up to Providing Children Equal Protection Under the Law.

We add to the list the following proponents:

Swim Expert
TheOldSchool
Skylar
Halnut
Gilligan (NyCarbineer)
Idadunno
Happy Joy
Dragon Lady

Anyone else?

 

[Lumpy 1]

You realize that you're in the minority on this issue, and that the majority of the country supports same sex marriage, yes?

And how would voting against same sex marriage 'unify' the country?

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.

I don't need an excuse, I merely consider you a waste of time. Quit including me in your nonsensical posts. GET IT

 

[Skylar]

I hope Nurse Ratchett brings Keys his meds soon. If she doesn't, the orderlies will put him in the coat with the long sleeves.

Keyes is winding down. He's already at the stage of his psychosis where he starts to spam the same block post regardless of what he's responding to. Soon will come the random declarations of victory, and then his inevitable rout.

 

[Skylar]

By dis-uniting it. A lot of Republicans even want states to secede.

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.

I don't need an excuse, I merely consider you a waste of time. Quit including me in your nonsensical posts. GET IT

So lets see.....you could provide exactly jack shit to back that made up Clinton quote you offered.

You couldn't answer my question about why we would subject people's rights to a vote.

And you denounced Obama as only representing the 'ultra-leftists' despite same sex marriage enjoying support from 60% of the population and even 60% of republicans under 30.

And now you seem to be laboring under the misconception that you get to tell me what to post.

You're just having a rough night, aren't you?

 

[Skylar]

Cool...

Now understand, the argument is that in the first 72 hours, the Ideological Left has already begun, to march their way to the rhetorical sea burning and pillaging everything it can burn and pillage in terms of recognition and respect for Natural Law... toward the goal of Legalizing Adult Sex with Children.

I told you on Day One... as most of you already knew, that the 'divining of the Fundamental Right to Marry' was not a Slippery Slope, but a leap from the Precipice... (That means 'we jumped off the cliff', Gilligan) that such would come first, through the ruse of providing Children with Equal Protection Under the Law, which requires that the natural responsibilities of the Parent be transferred to the state, thus providing the state the means to determine that children are 'Rightfully entitled to offer their Consent to sexual relations with Adult Homosexuals'.

Understand, that ROE has already gone along way toward destroying the notion of parental sanctity; wherein the Government Licensed Degeneracy at the first level... by 'granting the Right' to MURDER YOUR CHILDREN. So... where you can murder your children to avoid your responsibility to them, you've closed the gap necessary to rationalize that your parental responsibilities aren't 'real' anyway, so what's the big deal about giving Government the Responsibility for them... . Odds are that there's going to be some serious 'financial incentive coming, to help the lowest common denominator along.

So recognize that pattern, as it's the 900lb Democrat in the middle of the room.

SOOooo... in the first 72 hours after the Federal Government Licensed Degeneracy, we now have our first In-house Comrades Publicly Joining the Left's Ramp-up to Providing Children Equal Protection Under the Law.

We add to the list the following proponents:

Swim Expert
TheOldSchool
Skylar
Halnut
Gilligan (NyCarbineer)
Idadunno
Happy Joy
Dragon Lady

Anyone else?

You do realize that no one you've referred to has backed any of your insane batshit about 'child sex', right? None of the sources from the OP, none of the posters you've projected your nonsense onto, no one....

...but you. Citing you. Talking to yourself.

 

[Skylar]

... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]

Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?

"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'

ROFL!

Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.

Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.

What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.

But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.

As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!

And for the 4th time, you completely ignore constitutional guarantees, pretending none exist. You won't even quote me quoting the Windsor decision on constitutional guarantees. That's how deeply committed you are in pretending none exist.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

State marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees. No matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The Rainbow White House and the the liberal members on this board make it perfectly clear that Obama only represents the ultra-left liberals and everyone else doesn't deserve consideration for their honestly held points of view.

Granted, there are some nutty right and left wingers out there, such is reality.

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.

I don't need an excuse, I merely consider you a waste of time. Quit including me in your nonsensical posts. GET IT

So lets see.....you could provide exactly jack shit to back that made up Clinton quote you offered.

You couldn't answer my question about why we would subject people's rights to a vote.

And you denounced Obama as only representing the 'ultra-leftists' despite same sex marriage enjoying support from 60% of the population and even 60% of republicans under 30.

And now you seem to be laboring under the misconception that you get to tell me what to post.

You're just having a rough night, aren't you?

 

[Skylar]

And by 'ultra-leftists', you mean at least 60% of the nation that supports same sex marriage?

Even 60% of republicans under 30 support same same sex marriage. Are they 'ultra-leftists' too?

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.

I don't need an excuse, I merely consider you a waste of time. Quit including me in your nonsensical posts. GET IT

So lets see.....you could provide exactly jack shit to back that made up Clinton quote you offered.

You couldn't answer my question about why we would subject people's rights to a vote.

And you denounced Obama as only representing the 'ultra-leftists' despite same sex marriage enjoying support from 60% of the population and even 60% of republicans under 30.

And now you seem to be laboring under the misconception that you get to tell me what to post.

You're just having a rough night, aren't you?

Smiling......you've abandoned your every claim. Your every quote. Even your babble about 'ultra-leftists'.

And I ran you off those claims.

Remember that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.

I'm looking for specific language, such as 'The Right of the people to promote degeneracy, intellectual decadence and fabricate law where such serves your cults subjective needs.... infringed.' Or anything along those lines.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Sorry, you can't debate in good faith so I've decided you're not worth my time...

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.

I don't need an excuse, I merely consider you a waste of time. Quit including me in your nonsensical posts. GET IT

So lets see.....you could provide exactly jack shit to back that made up Clinton quote you offered.

You couldn't answer my question about why we would subject people's rights to a vote.

And you denounced Obama as only representing the 'ultra-leftists' despite same sex marriage enjoying support from 60% of the population and even 60% of republicans under 30.

And now you seem to be laboring under the misconception that you get to tell me what to post.

You're just having a rough night, aren't you?

Smiling......you've abandoned your every claim. Your every quote. Even your babble about 'ultra-leftists'.

And I ran you off those claims.

Remember that.

....

 

[Skylar]

Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.

Have you read the 9th amendment? You may want to. It explicitly points out the holes in your theory: rights need not be enumerated to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Yet you keep insisting that unless they're enumerated in the constitution, they don't exist.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Which might explain how you were so laughably wrong on the Obergefell decision.

 

[Skylar]

... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]

Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?

"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'

ROFL!

Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.

Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.

What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.

But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.

As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!

And for the 5th time, you've ignored constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Surely you realize that just because you ignore constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court has to. Or that they magically disappear just because they are inconvenient to your argument.

 

[mudwhistle]

As has been noted by this Board's more profound intellects, by this time next year we will be debating the finer points of "Protecting Children's Equal Rights Under The Law", part and parcel of which will; you can rest assured, be the Child's right to sexual consent...

Just three days after the SCOTUS divined a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR DEGENERATES TO MARRY WITHIN A HOMO-GENDER CONSTRUCT, we find the Left priming up the separation of children from their 'rents.

"“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” says the professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. Kids belong to whole communities, she insists, and once we realize this we’ll make “better investments” in government indoctrination of children."

...

Stephan Kinsella argues that the primary social evil today is a lack of respect for the fundamental right of self-ownership. Obama and Harris-Perry represent the other side of this argument. They believe, as do all Marxists and socialists, that the state, what Harris-Perry calls the “community,” owns the individual.

Harris-Perry urges us to “break through” the “private idea” that individuals own themselves. Like Marx, she believes the individual is a “communal being” and all human worth is intractably linked to the community, the collective, and the state is the ultimate manifestation of the collective will. Read more via InfoWars..."

I say it here and it comes out ^ THERE ^.

I love when you cons burst into wild speculation! Puts a smile on my face every time

Yup....nothing to see here folks.......these are not the droids you're looking for.......move along......move along.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'debate in good faith', you mean I have to research your quotes.....when you have nothing to back them?

And the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. How then is the President backing something the people support 'only representing the ultra-leftists'

Even you can't make your argument work. Which might explain why you're now looking for excuses to run. You don't need an excuse. Just run. I promise to only laugh and point a little.

I don't need an excuse, I merely consider you a waste of time. Quit including me in your nonsensical posts. GET IT

So lets see.....you could provide exactly jack shit to back that made up Clinton quote you offered.

You couldn't answer my question about why we would subject people's rights to a vote.

And you denounced Obama as only representing the 'ultra-leftists' despite same sex marriage enjoying support from 60% of the population and even 60% of republicans under 30.

And now you seem to be laboring under the misconception that you get to tell me what to post.

You're just having a rough night, aren't you?

Smiling......you've abandoned your every claim. Your every quote. Even your babble about 'ultra-leftists'.

And I ran you off those claims.

Remember that.

....

Still only the 'ultra-leftists'?

 

[Skylar]

Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.

Have you read the 9th amendment?

YES! I have. Well let's check it out:

"Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now... I don't see anything in that amendment which assures the right to promote degeneracy or marry anything one decides that it needs to marry. Do you?

The 9th amendment affirms reserve rights. Which are, by definition, unemunerated in the constitution.

Yet you're still arguing that the lack of enumeration means that the rights don't exist?

Are you starting to see why we don't use you as the basis of our legal system?

 

[Preacher]

I made them with their mother therefore they are OUR children and OUR responsibility until they are 18 years old. WE decide what they are taught,who they associate with etc.

 

[Skylar]

I made them with their mother therefore they are OUR children and OUR responsibility until they are 18 years old. WE decide what they are taught,who they associate with etc.

But what does that have to do with the bizarro child sex shit that Keys makes up over and over....

....but no source he cites even mentions?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.

Have you read the 9th amendment?

YES! I have. Well let's check it out:

"Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now... I don't see anything in that amendment which assures the right to promote degeneracy or marry anything one decides that it needs to marry. Do you?

If so please cite the specific portions where you feel such exists...

If Not... why did ya claim that there was?

Maybe you'd like to guess another Amendment? I've got 'em all...