SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Only infidels, protestants, and renegades prefer to worship Loki the god of deceivers, hypocrites, and tricksters; instead of being Faithful to their Lord and Savior and a Bible.

LOL! So you're just going to make it up wholesale now?

Well ok.. Let's you and I engage in a discussion utilizing your own patented logical construct, shall we?

I will now begin to apply your construct to demonstrate the viability of your design:

"Only refrigerators ground laundry. After I flop the laundry, I am stairwell to the toothbrush where I will use my quarterback to fly me. Once drew, bicycle is northstar so as to porpoise down the hat.

Smoke plywood from up grass, which barf coil on side toucan."

nothing but fallacy for your Cause; only True disciples of Loki have nothing but fallacy while proclaiming they are for the "gospel Truth" in public venues.

Well, from time to time, one comes across a would-be 'contributor', who simply lacks the intellectual means to sustain lucidity.

We've come across yet another member of the Intellectually Less Fortunates who consistently fails to rise to the minimal intellectual threshold required to qualify for consideration by reasonable people.

Thus reason requires that such unenviable examples be removed from the access to reason, as such is beyond their means to negotiate... therefore to continue to allow their participation is as cruel to them, as it is tedious for the soundly reasoned.

With that said, the cognitive derelict 'danielpalos' is hereby sentenced to: LIFE IN IGNORE!

(Say "HI" to the other reprobates for me, will ya? TTFE)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OH! Looky there... that cleaned up the thread nicely.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The best part of making a fool of you is when you have no idea you've been made a fool of.

Well... Isn't that swell Gilligan? Looks like you've managed a win for both of us.

GOOD FOR YOU!

(Don't explain it to it. It has absolutely no capacity for nuance... )

 

[danielpalos]

Only infidels, protestants, and renegades prefer to worship Loki the god of deceivers, hypocrites, and tricksters; instead of being Faithful to their Lord and Savior and a Bible.

LOL! So you're just going to make it up wholesale now?

Well ok.. Let's you and I engage in a discussion utilizing your own patented logical construct, shall we?

I will now begin to apply your construct to demonstrate the viability of your design:

"Only refrigerators ground laundry. After I flop the laundry, I am stairwell to the toothbrush where I will use my quarterback to fly me. Once drew, bicycle is northstar so as to porpoise down the hat.

Smoke plywood from up grass, which barf coil on side toucan."

nothing but fallacy for your Cause; only True disciples of Loki have nothing but fallacy while proclaiming they are for the "gospel Truth" in public venues.

Well, from time to time, one comes across a would-be 'contributor', who simply lacks the intellectual means to sustain lucidity. We've come across yet another member of the Intellectually Less Fortunates who fail to consistently rise to the minimal intellectual threshold required to offer prose which qualify for consideration by reasonable people.

Thus, reason requires that such unenviable examples be removed from the access to reason, as such is beyond their means to negotiate...

With that said, the cognitive derelict 'danielpalos' is hereby sentenced to: LIFE IN IGNORE!

(Say "HI" to the other reprobates for me, will ya? TTFE)

thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have enough Faith to come up with.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not name calling, it's proper labeling. Name calling is continuously using the F word when describing gay men.

F word meaning Faggot? Yes militant homosexuals are faggots. The not "in your face" homosexuals are gays.

Translation: Gays that fight for their equal rights are the f word for gay man. Gays that stay in the closet are okay.

Tell us again how you're not homophobic?

"tell us?" Is that a royal plural sweetheart? Honey, I like you, why are you pushing me? You are not going to get
anything from me to insult you.

I'm not trying to get you to insult me, I'm trying to get you to realize that your behaviors are those of an anti gay bigoted misogynist.

I am not misogynist and not anti gay. I am anti faggot. The militant in your face cocksuckers. I know through my friend how things are. You know, the day the ruling came down, she got married and since we were busy at work and such, we just went out the next day, only two of us and got shitfaced so bad. OMG. I mean shitfaced.

So you are okay with 'gay's just so long as they know their place and aren't too uppity.

 

[Syriusly]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Of course, there are states that allow 14 year-olds to marry and there are states that allow first cousins to marry. And other states have to recognize the validity of those marriages.

Your disdain for process and rules has been noted several times. If we want to change the document, we use the amendment process, not the whims of some un-elected lawyers.

On your second point, you get no argument from me.

Of course the Supreme Court doesn't change the Constitution- the Supreme Court decides questions of constitutional law- like it has 3 times before in issues regarding the Constitutionality of state marriage laws.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

 

[HappyJoy]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

 

[HappyJoy]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

 

[Skylar]

because no one has argued (to my knowledge) to the Supreme Court a problem with First Cousins and Age of Consent.

If you open Pandora's box on the whole "living constitution" crap, be careful what pops out.

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

Yeah, but you may not like Keyes' posts when he starts getting 'interesting'. They involve a lot of StormFront bullshit, massacres in 'Blacktown' by 'whiteyville', masturbatory fantasies about new civil wars, the mass murder of homosexuals and deporting the Negro back to their native lands.

Batshit crazy at least has the merit of being interesting.

 

[g5000]

I am not misogynist and not anti gay. I am anti faggot. The militant in your face cocksuckers. I know through my friend how things are. You know, the day the ruling came down, she got married and since we were busy at work and such, we just went out the next day, only two of us and got shitfaced so bad. OMG. I mean shitfaced.

The I'm-Not-Bigoted-Some-Of-My-Best-Friends-Are-Gay gambit.

 

[Seawytch]

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

Yeah, but you may not like Keyes' posts when he starts getting 'interesting'. They involve a lot of StormFront bullshit, massacres in 'Blacktown' by 'whiteyville', masturbatory fantasies about new civil wars, the mass murder of homosexuals and deporting the Negro back to their native lands.

Batshit crazy at least has the merit of being interesting.

Sure...if you're a psychology major...he's a great study.

 

[HappyJoy]

Meh, not really. Maybe we need to stop making rulings based on 'What would the Founding Slave Rapists think?" and on "Hey, that makes a lot of sense in the here and now", we'd be a lot better off.

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

Yeah, but you may not like Keyes' posts when he starts getting 'interesting'. They involve a lot of StormFront bullshit, massacres in 'Blacktown' by 'whiteyville', masturbatory fantasies about new civil wars, the mass murder of homosexuals and deporting the Negro back to their native lands.

Batshit crazy at least has the merit of being interesting.

Maybe, I'm not picking up anything especially meaningful that I couldn't read from the comments of a buzzfeed video on Youtube,

 

[Skylar]

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

Yeah, but you may not like Keyes' posts when he starts getting 'interesting'. They involve a lot of StormFront bullshit, massacres in 'Blacktown' by 'whiteyville', masturbatory fantasies about new civil wars, the mass murder of homosexuals and deporting the Negro back to their native lands.

Batshit crazy at least has the merit of being interesting.

Sure...if you're a psychology major...he's a great study.

He's dime a dozen. Bigots and religious zealots are almost always certain that they must be right and what they believe must be 'objective truth'.

Problem is, by their own reasoning....they're almost certainly wrong.

Most religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be the 9 avatars of Shiva AND Jesus. Its one or the other. Which means by the standards of religion at best -at absolute best- almost all of the religious faithful as self deluded folks who believe in fallacious nonsense.

And here's the kicker: there's nothing that requires that ANY of them got it right. Its entirely possible that all of them are wrong. That all of the religious are self deluded, that all of the religious believe in fallacious nonsense.

So we're left with 3 mutually exclusive scenarios:

1) That there is no god, nor objective truth.

2) That there is a god and objective truth, but that no one understands it.

3) That there is god and objective truth but in only ONE religion out of all the billions of faithful, thousands of faith and thousands of sects got it right.

Which means, at best, its almost certain that any given religious person is a self deluded fallacy follower. All by the standards and logic of religion.

Which is why certainty is such a chump's play. Like investing your life savings in the lottery, the odds of things working out are virtually none.

 

[Skylar]

Once again we find the perspective of the mouthy British socialist to be representative of Foreign Ideas that are Hostile to American Principle.

Rendering such to be disqualified from consideration by Americans.

Why is it every time I read one of your posts I think you are the love child of David Dunning and Justin Kruger

Oh! That's most likely the result of your starkly limited intellectual means.

There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, so you shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

Yeah, but you may not like Keyes' posts when he starts getting 'interesting'. They involve a lot of StormFront bullshit, massacres in 'Blacktown' by 'whiteyville', masturbatory fantasies about new civil wars, the mass murder of homosexuals and deporting the Negro back to their native lands.

Batshit crazy at least has the merit of being interesting.

Maybe, I'm not picking up anything especially meaningful that I couldn't read from the comments of a buzzfeed video on Youtube,

True. But at least it would be interesting!

 

[HappyJoy]

Which is why certainty is such a chump's play. Like investing your life savings in the lottery, the odds of things working out are virtually none.

Great, back to the drawing board on my retirement plan.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

LOL!

First, I haven't attacked anyone, for anything.

And second, if you aren't happy with the natural standard of marriage, you should probably take it to nature, which designed human physiology, from which marriage extends.

And while it's super sweet of ya to share your feelings, you should probably know that I don't really give a damn, what ya feel.

You'll either find a means to reason soundly, or I'll send you to ignore where you can cry with the other idiots.

Last chance... .

 

[Skylar]

No, seriously, you attack other posters for not having facts while you mindlessly write tropes about a marriage only being between one man and one woman (with obvious little regard for the laws at hand) and provide little. You're kind of boring and offer no clear conservative perspective. You are a nutjob rhetorical soundboard with nothing to offer.

LOL!

First, I haven't attacked anyone, for anything.

And second, if you aren't happy with the natural standard of marriage, you should probably take it to nature, which designed human physiology, from which marriage extends.

There's no such thing as a 'natural state of marriage'. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Fucking does. Marriage is our invention. Thus its 'natural state' is whatever we say it is.

And in 37 of 50 States, that includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

 

[JoeB131]

Your disdain for process and rules has been noted several times. If we want to change the document, we use the amendment process, not the whims of some un-elected lawyers.

On your second point, you get no argument from me.

Naw, fuck that. We are one unelected lawyer from getting whatever the fuck we want on everything.

No playing nice with you idiots.