T1B

War Wagon wrote:
so how do you rationalize the other 99% of pregnancies that result in abortion?

how do you rationalize the thousands and thousands of children sitting in foster care, orhanages, living on the streets and not raising a finger to help them?

your hypocrisy knows no bounds

Martyred wrote:

Mikey wrote:I'm pretty sure Marty is pro-lific.

As in pro-lifically worn out smack.

T1B should be pro-tected from your monkey-like shit-flinging.

That would seem a-pro-pos.

Your puns are about as funny as a rectal prolapse.

Felix wrote: how do you rationalize the thousands and thousands of children sitting in foster care, orhanages, living on the streets and not raising a finger to help them?

What would you have me do?

What have you done, except advocate for their murder? I'm pretty sure kids in foster care and orphanages deserve a chance.

No child of mine ever spent a day in foster care, btw.

War Wagon wrote:No child of mine ever spent a day in foster care, btw.

Jsc810 wrote:..the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is.

You've grown from misguided to stupid; tedious to insufferable; and ill-informed to brain-dead.

The Constitution, you flaming bag of dog fuck, is what WE the people say it is.

You are simply too fucking stupid to have ever taught constitutional law. The co-conspirators that abetted your three murders would have done us all a service had they stuck a #7 in your dome sucked out the essence that keeps you ambulatory.

not trying to one up Van (impossible!), but even better:

Truman wrote:you flaming bag of dog fuck

From your link:

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Which part of "government derives their powers from the consent of the governed" don't you get?

and likewise, which part of 32 states voted against same sex marriage don't you get?

sighh indeed.

you deify the Constitution and the SCOTUS when it suits your purpose. At other times, you may construe that document to be living but again, only if it suits your purpose.

so smug, it makes me want to punch you in your fat face. Truman is right. Insufferable.

and I have no idea how you believe 5 justices will vote for same sex marriage... projection much, same as your November prediction?

we'll see what happens soon enough.

Jsc, in the end, however, the People can still amend the Constitution. At that point all the SCOTUS can do is interpret what the People voted into being, provided a case is brought before them.

The People aren't limited to interpreting existing amendments the way the SCOTUS is. The People can amend the Constitution. The SCOTUS doesn't create amendments, and those amendments are the law of the land. Because the People have the ability to amend the Constitution, not merely interpret it, the SCOTUS does not have the final word. The People do.

War Wagon wrote:

What would you have me do?

join an organization to help find kids in need homes, advocate for foster care, join Big Brothers of America, mentor, do anything to give these kids hope and show them there are people who care

What have you done, except advocate for their murder?

I don't advocate for abortion, I advocate for a woman's right to choose....personally, I don't like the idea of abortion but that's not my choice, it's the woman's-and it's a choice she'll have to live with for the rest of her life....that's what always gets me about prolife dickheads, they think that when a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy that's all there is to it.....it's not I've never met a woman who chose to abort a pregnancy that didn't have constant feelings of remorse....

insofar as what I do....all of the things I suggest that you might want to try and a few more...I organize drives for used clothing as well as soliciting local businesses for donations of school supplies for under privileged kids....

I'm pretty sure kids in foster care and orphanages deserve a chance.

No child of mine ever spent a day in foster care, btw.

your kids obviously have it a lot better than some....but somehow the antiabortion types always seem to forget about the ones that have already been born and are in desperate need of help.....I guess that's why they're constantly cutting programs that would really help those kids out, because they care so much

so if you really want to save a kid, help the ones that are already here and quit worrying about the ones who aren't

Felix wrote:I don't advocate for abortion, I advocate for a woman's right to choose

Van wrote:The People aren't limited to interpreting existing amendments the way the SCOTUS is. The People can amend the Constitution. The SCOTUS doesn't create amendments, and those amendments are the law of the land. Because the People have the ability to amend the Constitution, not merely interpret it, the SCOTUS does not have the final word. The People do.

That's been pointed out to coathanger810 many times. He tends to ignore those facts which aren't so convenient towards his vision of how things should be.

I'm done debating with him on the subject of abortion and gay marriage other than to suggest ever more creative ways for him to abort himself.

JustSucksCock says he was involved in 3 of those "accidental" pregnancy's over the years.

He must either be a real cocks man that got laid a lot, and also has to be one of those one in a billion dudes who manages to knock up 3 women all on birth control. What are the odds of that anyway ?

There are very few accidents moron. There usually has to be at least 2 to 3 precursor events to be present or in place for an "accident" to occur.

Most of us spent our younger days trying to bang as many chicks as possible. I have no complaints about the action I got as a young man, and in all that time never got any woman pregnant. The girls liked getting laid just as much, but back in those days were pretty obsessed with NOT getting pregnant. Condoms, the pill all were in use.

The statistical probability of the same dude being involved in 3 of those 1% error rates is probably off the scale. Probably you and the dumb cunts you banged, just did not have a real good grip on human biological functions.

Van wrote:There's no mention in the Constitution regarding the rights of gays to marry. Nothing. Not a single word.

Oh contrair, Monswear:

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

While I think gay marriage is silly, I'm big on the whole "freedom" thing, and to advance that cause, any activity that doesn't hurt others in any way must be OK in my book. I'm begrudgingly with JSC on this -- it should be a really basic decision for the SCOTUS, when that day comes.

Your argument fails because it appears based on the notion that the Constitution grants rights to The People -- it does no such thing. It grants rights to the federal government -- nothing more, nothing less.

And constitutionally, I feel Roe v Wade was wayyyyyy out of line. A fetus isn't "born," therefore it has no rights under the 14th Amendment, therefore the SCOTUS (and for that matter, Congress) has no jurisdiction over it -- states do (sup, Ron Paul).

As far as abortion stances in a presidential election -- I didn't realize the VP got to vote on legal matters involving abortion... silly me. (Yes, I realize it could happen... and monkeys could fly out of my ass at an inopportune time, as well).

Dinsdale wrote:and monkeys could fly out of my ass at an inopportune time, as well.

And just what would you consider to be an opportune time for that?

That's the best you could do with a softball?

Dinsdale wrote:and monkeys could fly out of my ass at an inopportune time, as well.

If they could fight their way past all of your T1B posts.

Better.

Jsc810 wrote:The SCOTUS has the final word on interpreting the Constitution. Period.

Only when they agree with your position.

Dinsdale wrote:While I think gay marriage is silly, I'm big on the whole "freedom" thing, and to advance that cause, any activity that doesn't hurt others in any way must be OK in my book.

...the SCOTUS (and for that matter, Congress) has no jurisdiction over it -- states do (sup, Ron Paul).

You like freedom and states rights, but...


You know that until recent times, all STATES outlawed sodomy.

Sodomy may have been OK in Dinsdale's book, because it does not appear to hurt anyone else, but most states had made it illegal.


Does Dinsdale think states ought to be allowed to outlaw sodomy?

If not, why not?

But wait, 88, "the SCOTUS has the final word on interpreting the Constitution. Period."

/s/

The Triple Murderer

Jsc810 wrote:
By the way, you guys who happen to like to engage in oral or anal sex with your wife or girlfriend

Nope...no one here is into that kinky shit.