Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think you guys are too hard on Bodecea simply because she is a liberal gay. At the same time she isn't smart enough to stop responding in this thread because she is taking it all personally.

I really wish this thread would just die. It seems to have brought out the worst in too many of us.

Hey, you're the asshole who started it (and in the process, exposed yourself as another liberal RINO). You're the one willing to bend over on your hands and knees out of desperation.

Sorry - the rest of us actually have a backbone and refuse to bend on integrity and principle.

Don't act butthurt. I have NEVER voted for a democrat on a national level so you can shove your liberal accusation you know where.

Sorry but not being a hater=/=liberal

 

[JamesInFlorida]

No it can't stupid. Removing my second amendment rights would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That requires 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, 3/4 of the states, and the presidents signature.

So we've established you know nothing about rights, nothing about state privileges, and nothing about the U.S. Constitution. Remind me again why you keep commenting on things you know nothing about?

The president does NOT ratify a Constitutional amendment into law

Remind me again why you keep commenting on things you know nothing about?

Oh and how are the Senate and House not federal legislators again?

And you called me stupid? This was so easy.

Yes - I called you stupid because you insist on referring to a state privilege as a "right" and because you ignorantly claimed that a federal employee can admend the Constitution when it takes 2/3 of both chambers and 3/4 of the states (hint: state is not federal).

I never said that only a federal legislator could amendment the Constitution...I said with the stroke of a pen they could. And they can (after the states vote). Is it that hard to follow?

PS: Nice dodge on the president signing it into law-as you suggested! That is not the case.

PPS: I don't usually play grammar/spelling Nazi on forums, but since you did it to another poster in this thread, I'll do it to you. It's spelled "amend", not "admend".

 

[P@triot]

I know you won't leave, but just for the sake of [once again] making an ass of you ... of course the Constitution grants the Supreme court the power to rule on the Constitution itself ...

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.​

And [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] continues to humiliate himself. Where does it say rule interpret the Constitution itself?!? It doesn't you fuck'n moron.

The part you highlighted says the judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. Not the Constitution itself.

Game over. Thanks for playing.

I know you're a "special" kind of stupid, ChoadBreath, but you don't get to alter your words after you're shown to be the imbecile you are. Your original offer wasn't based on "rule interpret," as you now defend ... you said ...

If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.​

I showed you were the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

Now be gone, as you said you would.

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

 

[P@triot]

The president does NOT ratify a Constitutional amendment into law

Remind me again why you keep commenting on things you know nothing about?

Oh and how are the Senate and House not federal legislators again?

And you called me stupid? This was so easy.

Yes - I called you stupid because you insist on referring to a state privilege as a "right" and because you ignorantly claimed that a federal employee can admend the Constitution when it takes 2/3 of both chambers and 3/4 of the states (hint: state is not federal).

I never said that only a federal legislator could amendment the Constitution...I said with the stroke of a pen they could. And they can (after the states vote). Is it that hard to follow?

PS: Nice dodge on the president signing it into law-as you suggested! That is not the case.

PPS: I don't usually play grammar/spelling Nazi on forums, but since you did it to another poster in this thread, I'll do it to you. It's spelled "amend", not "admend".

There is no dodge - I had to educate your ultra ignorant ass on the Constitution. You actually believe you have a "right" which cannot be altered to sell guns out of your garage...

Come on stupid - tell us again how that's your "right"

"PS": there is a difference between spelling a word wrong and accidentally hitting an extra key while typing. But I guess when one is humiliated by their ignorance being exposed, they are desperate to change the subject to anything!

Now tell us again how your "right" to sell guns out of your garage can "never" be altered?

 

[Faun]

As usual, [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] illustrates his profound ignorance (I swear, this girl couldn't figure out how to get a glass of water without help).

Article IV jackass: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons”

That completely covers your right to life and liberty. As far as the pursuit of happiness - well, the entire fucking Constitution is about keeping the government out of your life stupid. Since they are not allowed to interfere with your business, that pretty much covers that whole pursuit of happiness thing. Sadly, Dumbocrat parasites like you are working hard to make sure the government controls everyone's life and thus eliminating that pursuit of happiness thing.

Holyfuckingshit ... you are even more rightarded than I gave you credit for ...

Faun: "according to your idiocy, it's not a right since "the pursuit of Happiness" is found nowhere in the Constitution."

dumbfuckingretard: "As far as the pursuit of happiness - well, the entire fucking Constitution is about keeping the government out of your life stupid"​

dumbfuckingretard, that's your interpretation, but you've clearly demonstrated, you're too rightarded to render an interpretation. Still, "the pursuit of happiness" is not a right defined in the Constitution, which according to the idiocy you're espousing here, means it's not a right.

Fauny can't take being owned (which means you'd think she would go away). The entire Constitution is about keeping the government out of your life. So please explain to me where and how you are prevented from "pursuing happiness".

It's not just about me, you putz. Being able to marry is inclusive in the pursuit of happiness

By the way - what happened to your narrative on no right to life or freedom?

Now WTF are you talking about?

 

[P@triot]

And [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] continues to humiliate himself. Where does it say rule interpret the Constitution itself?!? It doesn't you fuck'n moron.

The part you highlighted says the judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. Not the Constitution itself.

Game over. Thanks for playing.

I know you're a "special" kind of stupid, ChoadBreath, but you don't get to alter your words after you're shown to be the imbecile you are. Your original offer wasn't based on "rule interpret," as you now defend ... you said ...

If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.​

I showed you were the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

Now be gone, as you said you would.

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

Still waiting sweetie..

What's wrong - not able to do it? Come on, please highlight in blue where it says the Supreme Court has the authority to alter the Constitution (which deciding what it means is in fact altering it).

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

By the way Rottweiler what exactly am I willing to bend over on? The fact that I don't give a fuck about someone elses personal life? Isn't that the freedom our damn party is supposed to stand for? Personal choice to do as we please as long as it doesn't impact the freedoms of others?

I don't get why my lack of obsession about gays makes me a liberal. We happily point out gays in our party but if I tollerate them im suddenly a sellout?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[P@triot]

Exactly, Samson. THe Supreme Court interpretes what the Constitution means...and there have been several Supreme Court decisions making it clear that marriage is a fundamental right.

[MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] - you can't keep spewing your profound ignorance like this. It's simply not right to spread misinformation. Either cite the article and section of the Constitution which states that the U.S. Constitution is open for "interpretation" and that the Supreme Court is the body charged with making that interpretation, or shut the fuck up. I'm embarassed for you that you're this ignorant but not humble enough to remain quiet and hide your ignorance.

So...you cannot have it both ways...either the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution when there are questions or they do not. Which is it?

"Both ways"? When did I ever say the Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution? Please provide a direct link to where I said that or the thread and post number.

 

[Faun]

And [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] continues to humiliate himself. Where does it say rule interpret the Constitution itself?!? It doesn't you fuck'n moron.

The part you highlighted says the judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. Not the Constitution itself.

Game over. Thanks for playing.

I know you're a "special" kind of stupid, ChoadBreath, but you don't get to alter your words after you're shown to be the imbecile you are. Your original offer wasn't based on "rule interpret," as you now defend ... you said ...

If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.​

I showed you were the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

Now be gone, as you said you would.

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

I already highlighted the relevant section. The judicial power is vested in the U.S.S.C. and ALL CASES under the Constitution. You do understand that "ALL CASES" includes cases about the Constitution itself, right?

Nah, of course you don't because you really are a fucking rightard.

Now begone, Loser!

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the way Rottweiler what exactly am I willing to bend over on? The fact that I don't give a fuck about someone elses personal life? Isn't that the freedom our damn party is supposed to stand for? Personal choice to do as we please as long as it doesn't impact the freedoms of others?

I don't get why my lack of obsession about gays makes me a liberal. We happily point out gays in our party but if I tollerate them im suddenly a sellout?

Give me a fucking break.

Wow, a Conservative Extreme does not think you are a conservative Republican.

That is why you are exactly right in calling out the shut down and default crowd.

 

[P@triot]

Lets see if we can simplify this even further for you [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]. Since your both women, I'll use an issue that hits close to home:

Am I arbitrarily allowed to decide to "interpret" the laws against rape for myself and then enter your home to rape you citing that I had "interpreted" that the law forbidding rape didn't apply because my "interpretation" of it is that the law is void if I deem you need sex and/or I deem that pro-creation was immediately necessary for the survival of mankind? Yes or No and why?

 

[Faun]

I know you're a "special" kind of stupid, ChoadBreath, but you don't get to alter your words after you're shown to be the imbecile you are. Your original offer wasn't based on "rule interpret," as you now defend ... you said ...

If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.​

I showed you were the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

Now be gone, as you said you would.

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

Still waiting sweetie..

What's wrong - not able to do it? Come on, please highlight in blue where it says the Supreme Court has the authority to alter the Constitution (which deciding what it means is in fact altering it).

You flaming loser, I never said they could "alter" the Constitution. That you are trying so desperately to alter the terms of your offer as well as what I showed you is evidence that you know you should leave this forum forever, as you said you would.

But of course, you're too stupid and lack any character whatsoever to keep your word, that of course, you won't leave as you said you would.

You challenged the forum to show you where the Constitution empowers the U.S.S.C. to rule on the Constitution itself. Not "alter" it, "rule" on it.

You were shown.

Now begone, loser!

 

[P@triot]

By the way Rottweiler what exactly am I willing to bend over on? The fact that I don't give a fuck about someone elses personal life? Isn't that the freedom our damn party is supposed to stand for? Personal choice to do as we please as long as it doesn't impact the freedoms of others?

I don't get why my lack of obsession about gays makes me a liberal. We happily point out gays in our party but if I tollerate them im suddenly a sellout?

Give me a fucking break.

Hey asshole - thank you for proving once again that you don't understand the issue

You really are one typical ignorant liberal RINO

(Hint: I don't give a fuck about their personal life either - but that's not what we're discussing now, is it? You're too dumb to even know what's being discussed. The discussion is GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION dumb ass. Not personal life).

 

[P@triot]

I know you're a "special" kind of stupid, ChoadBreath, but you don't get to alter your words after you're shown to be the imbecile you are. Your original offer wasn't based on "rule interpret," as you now defend ... you said ...

If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.​

I showed you were the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

Now be gone, as you said you would.

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

I already highlighted the relevant section. The judicial power is vested in the U.S.S.C. and ALL CASES under the Constitution. You do understand that "ALL CASES" includes cases about the Constitution itself, right?

Nah, of course you don't because you really are a fucking rightard.

Now begone, Loser!

Ahhhhhhhh!!!! You can't do it!!!!

PROOF here and now that you are wrong and that you are my personal bitch on USMB!

 

[P@triot]

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

Still waiting sweetie..

What's wrong - not able to do it? Come on, please highlight in blue where it says the Supreme Court has the authority to alter the Constitution (which deciding what it means is in fact altering it).

You flaming loser, I never said they could "alter" the Constitution. That you are trying so desperately to alter the terms of your offer as well as what I showed you is evidence that you know you should leave this forum forever, as you said you would.

But of course, you're too stupid and lack any character whatsoever to keep your word, that of course, you won't leave as you said you would.

You challenged the forum to show you where the Constitution empowers the U.S.S.C. to rule on the Constitution itself. Not "alter" it, "rule" on it.

You were shown.

Now begone, loser!

If you INTERPRET what it means, then you are altering what it means. How dumb is fauny?!?

 

[Faun]

Lets see if we can simplify this even further for you [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]. Since your (sic) both women, I'll use an issue that hits close to home

Lemme guess ... this time your device failed to handle you hitting the apostrophe and 'e'??

 

[bodecea]

[MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] - you can't keep spewing your profound ignorance like this. It's simply not right to spread misinformation. Either cite the article and section of the Constitution which states that the U.S. Constitution is open for "interpretation" and that the Supreme Court is the body charged with making that interpretation, or shut the fuck up. I'm embarassed for you that you're this ignorant but not humble enough to remain quiet and hide your ignorance.

So...you cannot have it both ways...either the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution when there are questions or they do not. Which is it?

"Both ways"? When did I ever say the Supreme Court is authorized to interpret the Constitution? Please provide a direct link to where I said that or the thread and post number.

So...you are saying that the Supreme Court is NOT authorized to interpret the Constitution?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Yes - I called you stupid because you insist on referring to a state privilege as a "right" and because you ignorantly claimed that a federal employee can admend the Constitution when it takes 2/3 of both chambers and 3/4 of the states (hint: state is not federal).

I never said that only a federal legislator could amendment the Constitution...I said with the stroke of a pen they could. And they can (after the states vote). Is it that hard to follow?

PS: Nice dodge on the president signing it into law-as you suggested! That is not the case.

PPS: I don't usually play grammar/spelling Nazi on forums, but since you did it to another poster in this thread, I'll do it to you. It's spelled "amend", not "admend".

There is no dodge - I had to educate your ultra ignorant ass on the Constitution. You actually believe you have a "right" which cannot be altered to sell guns out of your garage...

Come on stupid - tell us again how that's your "right"

"PS": there is a difference between spelling a word wrong and accidentally hitting an extra key while typing. But I guess when one is humiliated by their ignorance being exposed, they are desperate to change the subject to anything!

Now tell us again how your "right" to sell guns out of your garage can "never" be altered?

Tell me again how a president is required to sign a Constitutional Amendment into law?

Where did I say that the "right' to sell guns out of a garage can't be altered? I'd love for you to point that out for me.

Because of course it can be-but it can't be altered on the spot by a LEO. It has to be altered through the legal process-just like the 2nd has to be.

Any LEO cannot come up to a citizen in FL and stop them from selling guns out of their garage (unless their "rights" have been taken away as an ex-con). The state/authority doesn't have the ability to do so. In other words the state cannot take that "right" away from me without changing the law.

So here's some questions for you:

-Is it only a "right" if it's applicable to the entire country, rather than just the state/city/county, etc?

-If the answer is "yes" to above, how come? What makes it a "right" vs a "privilege"?

-Are you arguing the ability or "right" to do something, or the actual legal process of revoking that ability or "right"?

-Driving for example is a privilege and can be taken away without changing the law (you fail the driving test, get a DUI, get too many speeding tickets, etc). Also because it has to be EARNED (by passing the driving test, and getting a license).

-Selling guns out of a garage is not a privilege-because you don't need permission from the government to do so ahead of time (like a license). Also because the government cannot stop you from doing so (like they can with driving).

 

[bodecea]

You did? Please highlight it in BLUE so it is clear and I will go away if if actually says that [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION].

Can't do it? Yeah, I know. What can I say - you're a typical Dumbocrat. Completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has zero Constitutional authority to rule on the Constitution. They can only rule on laws, cases, etc. (ie are those laws passed Constitutional).

You must really like being my bitch on USMB because you sure insist on doing it 24x7.

I already highlighted the relevant section. The judicial power is vested in the U.S.S.C. and ALL CASES under the Constitution. You do understand that "ALL CASES" includes cases about the Constitution itself, right?

Nah, of course you don't because you really are a fucking rightard.

Now begone, Loser!

Ahhhhhhhh!!!! You can't do it!!!!

PROOF here and now that you are wrong and that you are my personal bitch on USMB!

Well, isn't THAT romantic.......

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

By the way Rottweiler what exactly am I willing to bend over on? The fact that I don't give a fuck about someone elses personal life? Isn't that the freedom our damn party is supposed to stand for? Personal choice to do as we please as long as it doesn't impact the freedoms of others?

I don't get why my lack of obsession about gays makes me a liberal. We happily point out gays in our party but if I tollerate them im suddenly a sellout?

Give me a fucking break.

Hey asshole - thank you for proving once again that you don't understand the issue

You really are one typical ignorant liberal RINO

(Hint: I don't give a fuck about their personal life either - but that's not what we're discussing now, is it? You're too dumb to even know what's being discussed. The discussion is GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION dumb ass. Not personal life).

That IS what I was talking about in MY OP. You guys are the ones that took it off into some arbitrary legal direction. Which by the way is just as stupid. Obamacare was deemed constitutional and we bitched. Gays issues shot down in court and we cheer. Says far more about us and how shallow we are than anything else.

And if you think im a lib you are a total moron. Im just not a big enough hater for you and thats fine. I don't answer to you or any other nutjob on this board. Simply put if your analytical skills lead you to the conclusion that im a lib you're as lost in the woods as Franco