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

[P@triot]

Oh...my....God! Just when I thought [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] ignorance could not possibly get any worse. You just defeated your own argument.

As you pointed out, it states judicial power for all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution - NOT the Constitution itself. It does not say law and equity arising IN this Constitution. It says UNDER this Constitution - as in laws that are written arising from the result of the Constitution we are creating here (ie the formation of Congress, etc.).

You can't understand basic English! And that is why you are a high-school drop out and supporting ignorant Dumbocrat redistribution of wealth.

You lose!

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] just illustrated her ignorance and her lack of understanding basic English for the world!

Faun, you've never read the Constitution. Ever. We all know it. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about. You desperately did a Google search and ignorantly posted the first thing you found mentioning the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for you, it simply reaffirms what I already stated - there is NO power for the Supreme Court to decide what the U.S. Constitution means.

Do you understand that can't exist? Do you understand that could never exist? And do you understand why? Of course not - because you're Dumbocrat cum-slurper.

Come on cum-slurper, please see if you can think beyond the second grade and realize why someone with an ounce of common sense would never grant ANY governing body the power to interpret or otherwise rule on something like the Constitution (this is going to be fall down hilarious watching this cum-slurper trip all over herself here).

Cries the rightard who thinks "all cases" "arising under the Constitution" doesn't include the Constitution.

Notice how dumb-ass here altered her narrative after I owned her. Her initial post included LAWS arising under this Constitution". Because that's exactly what it is referring to - laws that come about as a result of the framework of government. It clearly states UNDER this Constitution, not IN this Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

State laws cannot be forced on churches. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

WTF do guns have to do with church, rightard?? Just how fucking crazy are you?

Bwahahahah!!!! I illustrated your ignorance and you have NO intelligent response!!!!

Guns have nothing to do with church. But you ignorantly claimed that "state laws can't be forced on churches" because of "separation of church and state". I merely pointed out how you Dumbocrats never obey the law - as the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms, yet you a Dumbocrats keep trying to ban guns. So since you don't respect the 2nd Amendment, why would you respect the 1st Amdendment (and you know this too - you just realize you got bent over and you had no intelligent response so all you could do is post "what do guns have to do with churches" in a desperate attempt to change the subject).

I freaking love making you my bitch fauny...

 

[P@triot]

Hey, look who's gay. Rottie's a flaming fag.

Hey [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - just curious if you saw this post? This is a fellow Dumbocrat showing her "tolerance" for someone different from her.

"Flaming fag" - how accepting by this Dumbocrat. But I'm sure you'll attempt to defend this hateful homophobic rhetoric (and probably attempt to demonize conservatives in the process).

 

[Faun]

Oh...my....God! Just when I thought [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] ignorance could not possibly get any worse. You just defeated your own argument.

As you pointed out, it states judicial power for all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution - NOT the Constitution itself. It does not say law and equity arising IN this Constitution. It says UNDER this Constitution - as in laws that are written arising from the result of the Constitution we are creating here (ie the formation of Congress, etc.).

You can't understand basic English! And that is why you are a high-school drop out and supporting ignorant Dumbocrat redistribution of wealth.

You lose!

You really are the dumbest idiot on the planet. "ALL cases" include cases which challenge the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison is but one example where the Supreme Court ruled on the power of judicial review.

You're lack of reading comprehension is painfully obvious...

First of all, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. If the law was "open to interpretation" it would be impossible to obey as each person would "interpret" it differently. You've already admitted, cum-guzzler, that lower laws like the speed limit, rape, and murder are not open to "interpretation" - yet you're so ignorant you want to make the argument that higher laws are?

Second, another illustration of your lack of reading comprehension is that I specifically addressed Bodecea and SeaWytch in my challenge. I did not offer the challenge to the entire board. So even if someone had actually provided you with information that made you correct for the first time in your miserable life as parasite-draining burden on the U.S., I still would not be required to leave USMB to keep my word, cum-guzzler.

Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.

On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.

I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. 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.

Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...

Holyfuckingshit!!

So your out is that your offer [on a public forum] was only to select participants???

Obviously cum-guzzler Fauny fancies himself a lady. It's also obvious why she can't understand the Constitution since she can't understand a simple post on USMB. You must really love my dick Fauny, because you go out of your way to have me bend you over in front of everyone on USMB every day

Why don't you just get the words, "flaming fag," tattooed across your forehead, since you like advertising that so much?

 

[candycorn]

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

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

You live in a world of delusion. The only question remaining at this point is, why are you still posting here? You said you would leave if someone showed you were the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself and you were shown.

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

Rott's game is to claim victory eventhough even the blind can see he was defeated in the first round. This is the same mentality that made Romney not prepare a concession speech until he had to give one. It's why he looks so foolish so often.

Watch this.

332-206.

 

[bodecea]

Hey, look who's gay. Rottie's a flaming fag.

Hey [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - just curious if you saw this post? This is a fellow Dumbocrat showing her "tolerance" for someone different from her.

"Flaming fag" - how accepting by this Dumbocrat. But I'm sure you'll attempt to defend this hateful homophobic rhetoric (and probably attempt to demonize conservatives in the process).

What's wrong with being gay, Rottie?

 

[Faun]

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] just illustrated her ignorance and her lack of understanding basic English for the world!

Faun, you've never read the Constitution. Ever. We all know it. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about. You desperately did a Google search and ignorantly posted the first thing you found mentioning the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for you, it simply reaffirms what I already stated - there is NO power for the Supreme Court to decide what the U.S. Constitution means.

Do you understand that can't exist? Do you understand that could never exist? And do you understand why? Of course not - because you're Dumbocrat cum-slurper.

Come on cum-slurper, please see if you can think beyond the second grade and realize why someone with an ounce of common sense would never grant ANY governing body the power to interpret or otherwise rule on something like the Constitution (this is going to be fall down hilarious watching this cum-slurper trip all over herself here).

Cries the rightard who thinks "all cases" "arising under the Constitution" doesn't include the Constitution.

Notice how dumb-ass here altered her narrative after I owned her. Her initial post included LAWS arising under this Constitution". Because that's exactly what it is referring to - laws that come about as a result of the framework of government. It clearly states UNDER this Constitution, not IN this Constitution.

I altered nothing, flaming fag. I am pointing out your ignorance of English.

 

[Faun]

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

WTF do guns have to do with church, rightard?? Just how fucking crazy are you?

Bwahahahah!!!! I illustrated your ignorance and you have NO intelligent response!!!!

Guns have nothing to do with church. But you ignorantly claimed that "state laws can't be forced on churches" because of "separation of church and state". I merely pointed out how you Dumbocrats never obey the law - as the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms, yet you a Dumbocrats keep trying to ban guns. So since you don't respect the 2nd Amendment, why would you respect the 1st Amdendment (and you know this too - you just realize you got bent over and you had no intelligent response so all you could do is post "what do guns have to do with churches" in a desperate attempt to change the subject).

The question wasn't about challenging the Constitution, you dumbfuck, it was about enforcing it. Have your guns been taken away? No. Has abortion been forced on churches? No.

I freaking love making you my bitch fauny...

Oh, my, even your delusions are gay.

 

[Faun]

Hey, look who's gay. Rottie's a flaming fag.

Hey [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - just curious if you saw this post? This is a fellow Dumbocrat showing her "tolerance" for someone different from her.

"Flaming fag" - how accepting by this Dumbocrat. But I'm sure you'll attempt to defend this hateful homophobic rhetoric (and probably attempt to demonize conservatives in the process).

Who said I'm intolerant of your gay lifestyle? Hey, I'm the one here supporting your right to marry the man of your choice.

 

[rdean]

Never let it go. Be the hateful people you were meant to be.

 

[Redfish]

Never let it go. Be the hateful people you were meant to be.

Yo, Trayvon, Zimmerman was found not guilty. He shot the thug in self defense. Thuggism will get you killed.

your avatar just proves how stupid you are.

 

[bodecea]

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] just illustrated her ignorance and her lack of understanding basic English for the world!

Faun, you've never read the Constitution. Ever. We all know it. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about. You desperately did a Google search and ignorantly posted the first thing you found mentioning the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for you, it simply reaffirms what I already stated - there is NO power for the Supreme Court to decide what the U.S. Constitution means.

Do you understand that can't exist? Do you understand that could never exist? And do you understand why? Of course not - because you're Dumbocrat cum-slurper.

Come on cum-slurper, please see if you can think beyond the second grade and realize why someone with an ounce of common sense would never grant ANY governing body the power to interpret or otherwise rule on something like the Constitution (this is going to be fall down hilarious watching this cum-slurper trip all over herself here).

Cries the rightard who thinks "all cases" "arising under the Constitution" doesn't include the Constitution.

Notice how dumb-ass here altered her narrative after I owned her. Her initial post included LAWS arising under this Constitution". Because that's exactly what it is referring to - laws that come about as a result of the framework of government. It clearly states UNDER this Constitution, not IN this Constitution.

I love how you think you "own" people.

 

[thanatos144]

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

A complaint filed alleging an Establishment Clause violation can be made only against a public sector entity, such as a law or policy making body, not against private citizens.

And when a public sector entity is found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause, and the offending measure invalidated accordingly, it does not disallow private citizens to pray in the offending venue, nor does it manifest a violation of religious expression by private citizens, as many on the right have incorrectly maintained.

There is no Establishment Clause

tapatalk post

Your ignorance is as willful as it is consistent.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Establishment Clause | LII / Legal Information Institute

There is no separation of church and state Establishment Clause you lying sack of garbage

tapatalk post

 

[ShawnChris13]

Instead of name calling and trying to prove points that are too vague to prove why don't we turn around and restart gainful discussion?

The heart of the OP is about gay rights. Let's look at this from a different perspective. Instead of gay rights, let's just talk about rights.

If oh were on an island by yourself or with just a few other people and you could do anything as long as it did t hurt anyone else, what would be illegal? Murder, of course. Theft. Anything that directly hurt others. Rape? Yes.

But being gay and partaking in consensual sex? No. I don't agree with the lifestyle choices of others, but if people want to go home and live their lives, then let them do it. It is easy to find religious and legal arguments that support 'gay rights'.

 

[Katzndogz]

Instead of name calling and trying to prove points that are too vague to prove why don't we turn around and restart gainful discussion?

The heart of the OP is about gay rights. Let's look at this from a different perspective. Instead of gay rights, let's just talk about rights.

If oh were on an island by yourself or with just a few other people and you could do anything as long as it did t hurt anyone else, what would be illegal? Murder, of course. Theft. Anything that directly hurt others. Rape? Yes.

But being gay and partaking in consensual sex? No. I don't agree with the lifestyle choices of others, but if people want to go home and live their lives, then let them do it. It is easy to find religious and legal arguments that support 'gay rights'.

If gays allowed everyone else to live their lives as they see fit, you would be correct. But they don't and you aren't.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Instead of name calling and trying to prove points that are too vague to prove why don't we turn around and restart gainful discussion?



The heart of the OP is about gay rights. Let's look at this from a different perspective. Instead of gay rights, let's just talk about rights.



If oh were on an island by yourself or with just a few other people and you could do anything as long as it did t hurt anyone else, what would be illegal? Murder, of course. Theft. Anything that directly hurt others. Rape? Yes.



But being gay and partaking in consensual sex? No. I don't agree with the lifestyle choices of others, but if people want to go home and live their lives, then let them do it. It is easy to find religious and legal arguments that support 'gay rights'.

If gays allowed everyone else to live their lives as they see fit, you would be correct. But they don't and you aren't.

Gays aren't passing laws restricting you from marrying who you want. So how do they stop you?

 

[NLT]

Sure. Why not?

Because pussies like you sue to make sure they couldn't

tapatalk post

That is patently false.

Prayer in the Public Schools and the Establishment Clause

Seawytch do you know Holly Graf? you remind me of her, she was a man hating bull dyke as well. look her up

 

[NLT]

Read it carefully.

Prayer in the Public Schools and the Establishment Clause

There are so many flaws in your "logic" here, I don't even know where to begin.

• The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .". Is a mayor "congress"?
  
  
• Furthermore, ignoring the first glaring fact for a moment, is a mayor praying "establishing a religion"?
  
  
• Further still, you're completely irrelevant court cases in the link are all school-related. Are you under the impression that a mayor operates inside of a school or something?

Considering I have a 100% rate of absolutely tearing you apart like a rapid pit bull with a kitten every time you broach the Constitution, I'm stunned you don't steer completely clear of that document at all costs.

Because aside from being an angry snotty militant lesbian, she is also a flaming far left moonbat lib. And far left wing moonbat libs are prone to standing in the middle of the room full of people screaming that it is everyone else that is wrong...And now here is the hypocrisy.....She is also a capitalist.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

WTF do guns have to do with church, rightard?? Just how fucking crazy are you?

Bwahahahah!!!! I illustrated your ignorance and you have NO intelligent response!!!!

Guns have nothing to do with church. But you ignorantly claimed that "state laws can't be forced on churches" because of "separation of church and state". I merely pointed out how you Dumbocrats never obey the law - as the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms, yet you a Dumbocrats keep trying to ban guns. So since you don't respect the 2nd Amendment, why would you respect the 1st Amdendment (and you know this too - you just realize you got bent over and you had no intelligent response so all you could do is post "what do guns have to do with churches" in a desperate attempt to change the subject).

I freaking love making you my bitch fauny...

The Supreme Court made you their bitch.

DOMA gone forever. Prop 8 gone forever.

Gay people marrying now all over the place. Lawsuits being filed in states, PA and TX...

How does it feel to lose, fuck face?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Hey, look who's gay. Rottie's a flaming fag.

Hey [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] - just curious if you saw this post? This is a fellow Dumbocrat showing her "tolerance" for someone different from her.

"Flaming fag" - how accepting by this Dumbocrat. But I'm sure you'll attempt to defend this hateful homophobic rhetoric (and probably attempt to demonize conservatives in the process).

I don't know why you keep going on about tolerance from the left.

WHERE do you get the idea that we would be tolerant of YOU?