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

[P@triot]

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!

You can deny it until you choke the jism stuck in your throat, out of your nose; but you were shown.

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:

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.​

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is not capable of following simple instructions. Please highlight in BLUE the section which states the Supreme Court has the power to interpret and/or rule on the Constitution itself.

What's the matter Faun - afraid that will illustrate for everyone just what an ignorant little bitch you are?

 

[P@triot]

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?!?

Loser, forget "interpret."

Ahhhh!!!! Once again, Fauny admits she is wrong. If you interpret the meaning of something different from how it was previously interpreted, you have in fact altered it (and you know it).

Game. Set. Match.

 

[bodecea]

I reserve the right to react negatively to male homosexual behavior; however certain female homosexual activities and participants can be delightful to the eye and other organs.

Sounds like a deal...I feel the same way about certain straight behavior.

 

[P@triot]

Lets see if we can simplify this even further for you [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]. Since you are 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?

I expected [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] to run like a coward from this because I've humiliated her so many times, she doesn't know which way is up. But I did think that [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] would at least attempt to take this debate on.

What's wrong ladies? You prefer to live in ignorance over enlightenment?

 

[bodecea]

Obama was opposed to gay marriage.
Finger in the wind and WALAH!
He supports gay marriage.
At election time.

Was....as many many Americans used to be.

It's a wonderful day when being pro-gay marriage helps at election time. Didn't used to be that way.

 

[bodecea]

Lets see if we can simplify this even further for you [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]. Since you are 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?

I expected [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] to run like a coward from this because I've humiliated her so many times, she doesn't know which way is up. But I did think that [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] would at least attempt to take this debate on.

What's wrong ladies? You prefer to live in ignorance over enlightenment?

Your sad attempt at saying that you can come into another person's house (breaking and entering) and rape them because YOU interpret that they need sex is one of the saddest attempts at an analogy I've seen in a while....and I've seen some doozies.

Try it....and see what happens.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Post #1373 on page 92

JamesInFlorida: "Not true. A privilege is something that can be earned, and can be taken away (driving is a good example).

Selling a gun at a garage sale in my state for example-cannot be taken away (unless your civil rights have been restricted from being a felon)."

I've given you the exact page, the exact post number, and the exact quote. Now I'm going to give you the exact link as well. Click HERE.

Now don't you just feel like the fuck'n asshole? No wonder you can't comprehend the Constitution, you can't even remember what you've said 20 minutes ago.

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.

This is so ignorant, it defies logic. Since law enforcement is not the legislative arm of government, they cannot "alter" anything "on the spot". So by your absurd stupidity, everything in the world is a "right". They are charged with enforcing the existing law - not altering it. They have NEVER been empowered to alter law. So again, by your absurd definition of what makes a "right", everything in the world is a right.

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"?

If a state can take it away, it is not a "right". The fact that you actually need this explained to you is amazing.

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

We never discussed "ability" and you know it. I have the ability to murder anyone. Does that I mean I have the "right to do it?

-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).

You do need permission from your state to do it. Just because they have decided not to require you to get a license does not make something a "right". My God, it is simply astounding how arrogant you are. I've more than proven you wrong. And rather than just be a big boy and admit it, you keep digging yourself a deeper hole trying to figure out a way to to cover for your original comment which was 100%, indisputably, WRONG - and all because of your ego.

Your state could have required you to get a license to sell guns out if your garage. They decided not to. That doesn't make it a "right" you buffoon. You've already admitted that other states do not allow this. Well, if another state can deny you, then it is not a "right".

 

[P@triot]

Lets see if we can simplify this even further for you [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]. Since you are 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?

I expected [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] to run like a coward from this because I've humiliated her so many times, she doesn't know which way is up. But I did think that [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] would at least attempt to take this debate on.

What's wrong ladies? You prefer to live in ignorance over enlightenment?

Your sad attempt at saying that you can come into another person's house (breaking and entering) and rape them because YOU interpret that they need sex is one of the saddest attempts at an analogy I've seen in a while....and I've seen some doozies.

Try it....and see what happens.

I didn't say I could - you did. You said the law was open to interpretation. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy at claiming laws that you like (ie against rape) are not open to interpretation, but laws you don't like (ie my RIGHT to own and carrya gun) you ignorantly declare are "open to interpretation". And that is why you are so angry right now. Because you realize how dumb you sound when laws you love are questioned.

So are you ready to be a big girl now [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and admit that you are 100% wrong? The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land (as dictated by the Supremacy Clause). And our laws - such as laws against rape - are not open to interpretation.

 

[Seawytch]

I figured out Rotty's position. If the ruling is one he likes, it's interpretation of the Constitution. If it's a ruling he didn't, it's altering.

 

[Faun]

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

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

You can deny it until you choke the jism stuck in your throat, out of your nose; but you were shown.

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:

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.​

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is not capable of following simple instructions. Please highlight in BLUE the section which states the Supreme Court has the power to interpret and/or rule on the Constitution itself.

What's the matter Faun - afraid that will illustrate for everyone just what an ignorant little bitch you are?

Are you fucking color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

 

[bodecea]

You can deny it until you choke the jism stuck in your throat, out of your nose; but you were shown.

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:

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.​

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is not capable of following simple instructions. Please highlight in BLUE the section which states the Supreme Court has the power to interpret and/or rule on the Constitution itself.

What's the matter Faun - afraid that will illustrate for everyone just what an ignorant little bitch you are?

Are you fucking color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

Another RW welcher? What a surprise.

 

[Gadawg73]

Obama was opposed to gay marriage.
Finger in the wind and WALAH!
He supports gay marriage.
At election time.

Was....as many many Americans used to be.

It's a wonderful day when being pro-gay marriage helps at election time. Didn't used to be that way.

True but not for partisan political reasons only.
I am a conservative and do not have a problem with gay marriage.
Does not affect me, let them have the same "joy" as everyone else.

 

[P@triot]

I figured out Rotty's position. If the ruling is one he likes, it's interpretation of the Constitution. If it's a ruling he didn't, it's altering.

So Seawytch reads my posts, and the parrots my comments back to me...

Sweetie - I already made this very clear in the post above yours here (you might want to wait so you're post is not directly under mine and not so obvious) that you Dumbocrats are the one's who believe some laws - which you like (such as rape) are NOT open to interpretation, while other laws - which you don't like (such as the 2nd amendment) are inexplicably open to interpretation.

Have you really fallen this far SW? You don't have any original thoughts of your own and have to steal my work? That's plagiarism you know...

 

[P@triot]

You can deny it until you choke the jism stuck in your throat, out of your nose; but you were shown.

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:

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.​

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is not capable of following simple instructions. Please highlight in BLUE the section which states the Supreme Court has the power to interpret and/or rule on the Constitution itself.

What's the matter Faun - afraid that will illustrate for everyone just what an ignorant little bitch you are?

Are you fucking color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is afraid her ignorance will stand out! Thank you for proving that you simply pasted text which did NOT show that the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution itself.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[P@triot]

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is not capable of following simple instructions. Please highlight in BLUE the section which states the Supreme Court has the power to interpret and/or rule on the Constitution itself.

What's the matter Faun - afraid that will illustrate for everyone just what an ignorant little bitch you are?

Are you fucking color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

Another RW welcher? What a surprise.

I didn't "welch" [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]. Fauny pasted a section of the Constitution which proved I was correct and she was WRONG (as always). She's now given up because I own her.

But I'll give you the opportunity now - please highlight in blue the section above (which Faun posted) which grants the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

This is a very simple request. What's wrong, you guys don't know how to change the color of text on USMB?

This is your chance bodecea. Highlight the section in blue which shows the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution and I will permanently leave USMB.

 

[P@triot]

...just for the record, I don't follow your instructions.

That's Faun code for "I've been owned once again by Rottweiler"...

 

[P@triot]

I expected [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] to run like a coward from this because I've humiliated her so many times, she doesn't know which way is up. But I did think that [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] would at least attempt to take this debate on.

What's wrong ladies? You prefer to live in ignorance over enlightenment?

Your sad attempt at saying that you can come into another person's house (breaking and entering) and rape them because YOU interpret that they need sex is one of the saddest attempts at an analogy I've seen in a while....and I've seen some doozies.

Try it....and see what happens.

I didn't say I could - you did. You said the law was open to interpretation. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy at claiming laws that you like (ie against rape) are not open to interpretation, but laws you don't like (ie my RIGHT to own and carrya gun) you ignorantly declare are "open to interpretation". And that is why you are so angry right now. Because you realize how dumb you sound when laws you love are questioned.

So are you ready to be a big girl now [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and admit that you are 100% wrong? The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land (as dictated by the Supremacy Clause). And our laws - such as laws against rape - are not open to interpretation.

Should I interpret your silence to mean you acknowledge you are wrong [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]? I'm giving you ample opportunity to respond here.

 

[P@triot]

I figured out Rotty's position. If the ruling is one he likes, it's interpretation of the Constitution. If it's a ruling he didn't, it's altering.

Simple question for you here SW - is the following information accurate? Simple yes or no question (though you are certainly free to explain your answer and I would encourage it):

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=361557977

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Faun]

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is not capable of following simple instructions. Please highlight in BLUE the section which states the Supreme Court has the power to interpret and/or rule on the Constitution itself.

What's the matter Faun - afraid that will illustrate for everyone just what an ignorant little bitch you are?

Are you fucking color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is afraid her ignorance will stand out! Thank you for proving that you simply pasted text which did NOT show that the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution itself.

Game. Set. Match.

This goes to show just how rightarded you are, rottie ... I did highlight the relevant text from the Constitution.

As far as your inability to understand what I highlighted, that's an entirely different subject.

Your ignorance aside, what I highlighted was where the Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court "judicial Power" (i.e., the power to rule on a case brought before them, that you denied they have) and that judicial power extends to "all Cases, in Law and Equity" and that "judicial power" to rule on "all cases" includes cases on the Constitution itself, "arising under this Constitution"

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

 

[bodecea]

Are you fucking color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

Another RW welcher? What a surprise.

I didn't "welch" [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]. Fauny pasted a section of the Constitution which proved I was correct and she was WRONG (as always). She's now given up because I own her.

But I'll give you the opportunity now - please highlight in blue the section above (which Faun posted) which grants the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

This is a very simple request. What's wrong, you guys don't know how to change the color of text on USMB?

This is your chance bodecea. Highlight the section in blue which shows the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution and I will permanently leave USMB.

Another RW Welcher.....dime a dozen around here.