The Left Loses Ground...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

His decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012.

There have been over two score rulings all over the country by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats. What's the current "score"? Fifty plus rulings in favor of same sex couples having full and equal access to civil marriage and like one or two that said "nah, gays are icky"?

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

That did not answer my question and had nothing to do with what I said.

A surprising number of judges who rule for gay marriage are Republicans

OH! "REPUBLICANS", therefore axiomatically "Conservative"...

ROFLMNAO!

Not hardly. The biggest problem the GOP has, is the infection of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle, held by the Progressive... OKA: Moderate Republicans. We, the Americans in the GOP are working VERY hard to boot you allies in the GOP, OUT OF THE GOP.

Yeah, it turns out that when a DEMOCRAT WHO RESIDES WITHIN OUR CAMP, "COMPROMISES" WITH THE LEFT... we end up being blamed for the entire thing.

One need go back no further than the Collapse of the International Economy due to the catastrophic failure of Socialist Policy, to see how THAT works.

(Reader, you'll find that whenever a Leftist policy creates catastrophe, the Left runs to find a Republican who voted for such, so that they can blame the entire thing on the GOP.


ObamaScare being a glorious exception, in that not so much as a single Republican voted for it... not even the GOP Progs. And that's why they need to go all the way back to RomneyScare to blame that boondoggle on us.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

Hey pea brain, why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of showing everyone how stupid you are? All you have to is READ the thread.

Post # 100


Majority of U.S. Catholics’ opinions run counter to church on contraception, homosexuality

Pope Francis already has made headlines for several reasons in his six months as pontiff, but an interview that became public Thursday may contain some of his most attention-grabbing comments.

The pope said that the Roman Catholic church cannot be “obsessed” with imposing certain doctrines and that he wants to “find a new balance.” Although he did not directly mention abortion, gay marriage and contraception in that immediate context, he had referred specifically to those three issues earlier.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” Francis told Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

The church teaches that abortion, artificial contraception and homosexual activity are wrong. However, majorities of American Catholics have opinions on contraception and homosexuality that run counter to church doctrine.

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey pea brain, why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of showing everyone how stupid you are? All you have to is READ the thread.

Post # 100


Majority of U.S. Catholics’ opinions run counter to church on contraception, homosexuality

Pope Francis already has made headlines for several reasons in his six months as pontiff, but an interview that became public Thursday may contain some of his most attention-grabbing comments.

The pope said that the Roman Catholic church cannot be “obsessed” with imposing certain doctrines and that he wants to “find a new balance.” Although he did not directly mention abortion, gay marriage and contraception in that immediate context, he had referred specifically to those three issues earlier.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” Francis told Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

The church teaches that abortion, artificial contraception and homosexual activity are wrong. However, majorities of American Catholics have opinions on contraception and homosexuality that run counter to church doctrine.

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

So you admit you think the Beatles were all communists. Dont deny it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

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

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

Its clear they arent as some states have passed laws banning them.
You are the biggest numskull on this board.

States have banned all semi-automatics? Are you sure about that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

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

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

Its clear they arent as some states have passed laws banning them.
You are the biggest numskull on this board.

States have banned all semi-automatics? Are you sure about that?

So you admit that machine guns ought to be handed out in schools?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

So you admit you think the Beatles were all communists. Dont deny it.

He claimed what you claimed. That the polls showing Catholics favor birth control being permitted were not evidence.

He's like you. He only accepts polls he likes.

 

[The Rabbi]

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

So you admit you think the Beatles were all communists. Dont deny it.

He claimed what you claimed. That the polls showing Catholics favor birth control being permitted were not evidence.

He's like you. He only accepts polls he likes.

So you admit you think the Pope is a homosexual. Isnt that typical?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

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

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

Its clear they arent as some states have passed laws banning them.
You are the biggest numskull on this board.

States have banned all semi-automatics? Are you sure about that?

So you admit that machine guns ought to be handed out in schools?

I'm asking you why every single sort of gun needs to be named in the Constitution for it to be protected by the 2nd amendment,

in the same manner you believe that the right to privacy can only be protected if the word 'privacy' is in the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

Why are the Liberal judges needed to overturn the will of the people?

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Founders are turning in their graves. We need to go after these activist judges with tar and feathers.

You are a very silly person.

Your admission of defeat is noted.
The USSC will hand the homos their asses. They know if they legalize gay marriage they will open the floodgates of lawsuits against every religious institution in this country. The Solicitor General already copped to that.

Yes, you've "defeated" me. I have no response to your silly "tar and feathering".

Judges appointed and elected by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled on Same Sex marriage cases.

A surprising number of judges who rule for gay marriage are Republicans

So, drama queen, our system of government is being followed. Gays are redressing their grievances through the courts. Civil Rights have been won this way. We have a long history of it.

I'm sorry there's no "It Get's Better" videos for old bigots. Maybe you found your niche.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

It's a Self-evident truth, Gilligan, which I defined for you when I said:

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

You'd think the consistent landslide rejection of the Left since 2008 would have clue'd ya in. It started with obamaScare, then doubled down when Lesbians started ruining the lives of innocent people, like they were unwanted pregnancies. But hey... I say you idiots should just keep rollin' right along like ya have been.

Sooner or later we're bound to boot the GOP Royalty from the Legislative Leadership and maybe even an American President.

THEN.... maybe we can give you an idea of what a viable government looks like, just before you fall into irrelevance.

Which part of that would you like to formally deny?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

So you admit you think the Beatles were all communists. Dont deny it.

He claimed what you claimed. That the polls showing Catholics favor birth control being permitted were not evidence.

He's like you. He only accepts polls he likes.

So you admit you think the Pope is a homosexual. Isnt that typical?

Your tell is showing.

 

[The Rabbi]

They weren't all "liberal judges". Appeals court after appeals court in pretty much all the circuit courts have ruled in favor of gays civilly marrying. It was like one, the 6th that didn't...which is why the SCOTUS heard it.

Was it a "liberal" SCOTUS that overturned "the will of the people" in 1967?

What was the "will of the people" in 1967?

"A federal judge in North Carolina’s Western District issued an order late Friday afternoon striking down the state’s anti-LGBT constitutional amendment. The order permanently prohibiting the state in a United Church of Christ lawsuit from enforcing the ban. Additionally, the judge denied Republican state leaders’ motion to intervene in the case."
Judge overturns anti-LGBT amendment in North Carolina QNotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Founders are turning in their graves. We need to go after these activist judges with tar and feathers.

You are a very silly person.

Your admission of defeat is noted.
The USSC will hand the homos their asses. They know if they legalize gay marriage they will open the floodgates of lawsuits against every religious institution in this country. The Solicitor General already copped to that.

Yes, you've "defeated" me. I have no response to your silly "tar and feathering".

Judges appointed and elected by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled on Same Sex marriage cases.

A surprising number of judges who rule for gay marriage are Republicans

So, drama queen, our system of government is being followed. Gays are redressing their grievances through the courts. Civil Rights have been won this way. We have a long history of it.

I'm sorry there's no "It Get's Better" videos for old bigots. Maybe you found your niche.

There is no civil rights issue here. Another fallacy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

So you're claiming that all the polls taken about Obamacare that showed a slight majority opposing it were simply polls that were manipulated by the pollster to get that result?

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

It's a Self-evident truth, Gilligan, which I defined for you when I said:

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

You'd think the consistent landslide rejection of the Left since 2008 would have clue'd ya in. It started with obamaScare, then doubled down when Lesbians started ruining the lives of innocent people, like they were unwanted pregnancies. But hey... I say you idiots should just keep rollin' right along like ya have been.

Sooner or later we're bound to boot the GOP Royalty from the Legislative Leadership and maybe even an American President.

THEN.... maybe we can give you an idea of what a viable government looks like, just before you fall into irrelevance.[/qoute]

Which part of that would you like to formally deny?

You can't prove that most Americans oppose socialized medicine so you can't state it as fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's never been a slight majority that opposes socialized medicine in the US. The VAST MAJORITY OF THE US HAS ALWAYS OPPOSED IT.

.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Or are you just lying?

So you admit you think the Beatles were all communists. Dont deny it.

He claimed what you claimed. That the polls showing Catholics favor birth control being permitted were not evidence.

He's like you. He only accepts polls he likes.

So you admit you think the Pope is a homosexual. Isnt that typical?

Your tell is showing.

You mean abortions up to Age 5 ought to be legal? No shock you think that.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Bottom line: if there is any such war, the side that is losing is Christianity.

To me, you simply made her point. There is a war on religion. But alas, those of you who supposedly support gay rights ignore what is happening to gays around the world. Yes, there are gay people outside of America. Perhaps you should stop reading the pamphlets the DNC sends you in the mail and see the real world.

Gays are being summarily executed for being what they are, yet the only gays that matter are the ones here in America? How myopic. How shortsighted can you be? If you truly care about gay rights you fight for all of them, not some of them. But since you insist on the contrary, I see your campaign for gay rights as hollow and disingenuous.

Go forth in shame. Hypocrite.

I'm a bit confused by your response. I don't see how my post showed that there is in fact a war a war on religion. Showing that something is in decline doesn't mean there's a war against it. There's been a decline in bowling leagues over the last 20 years in the US. I don't think anyone would claim that this is evidence of a war against bowling.

I'm also confused by your notion that there's hypocrisy at hand here. People have the ability to focus on more than one problem at a time, and it shouldn't be surprising if humans frequently focus on things close to home. Do you think people who donate to local foodbanks are hypocrites because there are people who are worse off in Africa than their local homeless?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bottom line: if there is any such war, the side that is losing is Christianity.

To me, you simply made her point. There is a war on religion. But alas, those of you who supposedly support gay rights ignore what is happening to gays around the world. Yes, there are gay people outside of America. Perhaps you should stop reading the pamphlets the DNC sends you in the mail and see the real world.

Gays are being summarily executed for being what they are, yet the only gays that matter are the ones here in America? How myopic. How shortsighted can you be? If you truly care about gay rights you fight for all of them, not some of them. But since you insist on the contrary, I see your campaign for gay rights as hollow and disingenuous.

Go forth in shame. Hypocrite.

I'm a bit confused by your response. I don't see how my post showed that there is in fact a war a war on religion. Showing that something is in decline doesn't mean there's a war against it. There's been a decline in bowling leagues over the last 20 years in the US. I don't think anyone would claim that this is evidence of a war against bowling.

I'm also confused by your notion that there's hypocrisy at hand here. People have the ability to focus on more than one problem at a time, and it shouldn't be surprising if humans frequently focus on things close to home. Do you think people who donate to local foodbanks are hypocrites because there are people who are worse off in Africa than their local homeless?

He lost so many arguments on the actual issues that now all he does is make ad hominem hypocrisy attacks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

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

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

You dont' see it, because it's not there... what IS there is "ARMS" in the sense of the period, where the term referred to the state of the art weaponry essential to the state of freedom.

But hey... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known THAT!

 

[JoshuaZ]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...

So I'm not going to address the fact that no such war exists, and I'm not going to address that many members of the American left are Christian and that many Christians support gay rights.

Let's instead say you are completely correct that there's a war between the secular left against religion, especially Christianity. In that case, you picked an absolutely terrible time to claim that the left is losing while Christianity is winning. The most recent Pew study on religion showed a continuing decline in the fraction of Americans who self-identify as Christian. The actual study can be found here. The study showed that in percentage of total population every major Christian group is down over the last few years, and that for most of them, the absolute numbers are also down. Meanwhile, the percentages identifying as either no religion, atheist or agnostic, have all gone up and continue to increase. There's a decent argument that the level of decline of Christianity is being overstated in the popular press but even those making that argument acknowledge a real decline.

Bottom line: if there is any such war, the side that is losing is Christianity.

The reason that the Pew study was created was exactly because the culture war is losing steam.
It is there to convince you that the Left is winning.

If it was.....why would judges be needed to keep changing what voters choose?

As for your final question, worth noting that in the early 2000s many more people were against gay marriage than are today. See here. As to your second statement, are you seriously arguing that Pew is part of some left-wing conspiracy making up studies to try to promote the left's failing agenda? Do you know who Pew is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

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

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

You dont' see it, because it's not there... what IS there is "ARMS" in the sense of the period, where the term referred to the state of the art weaponry essential to the state of freedom.

But hey... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known THAT!

So you agree with me, i.e., that people like the Rabbi and PoliticalChic are full of shit when they start arguing that privacy is not a protected right in the Constitution because the specific word 'privacy' doesn't appear in the document.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

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

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

I don't see the words 'semi-automatic rifle' in the 2nd amendment. Do you assume they are not protected by that amendment?

You dont' see it, because it's not there... what IS there is "ARMS" in the sense of the period, where the term referred to the state of the art weaponry essential to the state of freedom.

But hey... in your defense, as an imbecile, there was no way you could have known THAT!

So you agree with me, i.e., that people like the Rabbi and PoliticalChic are full of shit when they start arguing that privacy is not a protected right in the Constitution because the specific word 'privacy' doesn't appear in the document.

So you're saying the Constitution means whatever you think it ought to mean?