Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[Redfish]

A homophobic rant is hardly the death knell to a gop career. Rubio is sort of doing a Randian Paul on immigration. He was for comprehensive reform, until he saw THAT as the death knell go his gop career. So, he flipped to the tried and true gop position of no consideration of any permanent status for illegal aliens till the border is secured. Nevermind fewer people are coming over, or that we've increased funding for border security consistently.

DHS Budget Homeland Security

We'll never keep out all illegal aliens with a fence or something. The border's like 1200 miles or something. People have been coming and going long before Mexico and the United States have been around. But, when there aren't jobs, they don't come. But, the gop doesn't want to improve employment verification until the border "is secure." Which means never.

It's the Dems job to force the question of when Marco will return to support better everify and permanent status with a path to citizenship.

Saudi Arabia has a border fense and no one enters that country illegally. A fense will work if the govenment wants it to.

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but it's spelled "fence".

And, you're right. If we had the political will, we could build a fence that would keep out the illegal immigrants. Me? I'm thinking that placing a barracks every 50 miles, staffed by 10 people who keep hours similar to what firemen do (a couple days on duty, a couple of days off), with a port and starboard crew. Every 5 stations, you would build a small airfield that is capable of launching and recovering Predator surveillance drones. Then...............staff the stations with returning Iraq vets who already know how to do the job and fly the drones.

A Predator has a surveillance range of around 250 miles, and you could put up sensors that detect people crossing the border. And, because the stations are every 50 miles, the response distance would only be around 25 miles from the station, and they could be there fairly quickly, and the Predators could keep tabs on where they went.

that would work, but the troops would also have to be given the permission to stop intruders and turn them around. Today they aren't allowed to do that.

sorry about the typo on fence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Equal in the eyes of the law is an interpretation issue, which is why we give judges the power to interpret the law.

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

 

[Seawytch]

Redfish demonstrates that once again, despite the voting results that Hispanics don't vote for our GOP much, he cannot adapt to reality. Attacking me, Redfish, just demonstrates you have not a clue.

Keep telling them that they are fucked up for not voting GOP is not going to work any better next year than years in the past.

What you and your fellow libs fail to realize is that hispanics are just like the rest of americans, they want freedom to live as they choose, the ability to get good jobs and improve their lives, and worship when and how they choose. Their values are much closer to GOP values than to those of the dems who have moved to the far left under obozo the kenyan messiah.

The "rest of the country" isn't what you think it is.

Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues

Oh, and oops...

Myth Buster: Latinos Are Not "Natural Conservatives"

 

[Redfish]

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yep, unless you say something that offends gays, blacks, muslims, or liberals. Of course offending Christians or white people is perfectly OK.

BTW, you are FOS

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

and they have been interpreting wrong, and making law for about 3 decades now.

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

See, that's nothing more than your opinion, which changes case by case.

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, its consistent with a strict constructional viewpoint of the constitution.

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The strict constructionist view of the Constitution is just one opinion of it.

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which is irrelevant, given that the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason. Thus to know what the Constitution means is as simple as reading what it says; which is to say to read it as it is constructed and you'll know exactly what it means without fear of error.

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment.

Remember, it was YOU who said the Constitution's wording is clear and unambiguous and needs NO interpretation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged.

That is clear and unequivocal, with no need for 'interpretation', correct?

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

Is there a mention of 'debauchery' or 'misleading' in the 1st Amendment, regarding freedom of the press?

Where?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment.

Remember, it was YOU who said the Constitution's wording is clear and unambiguous and needs NO interpretation.

OH! So you are stupid. Go figure.

(Reader, the US Constitution was not written for a culture comprised of halfwits and debauched fools. It was written to govern a virtuous people.

You see, the non-virtuous cannot be free... the Founders understood this and sought to govern to the higher standard, thus the reason they determined to separate themselves and their culture from that of the non-virtuous cult of Britain.

The solution is today, as it was then, declare war in those opposed to the responsibilities intrinsic to the rightful
pursuit of the fulfillment of one's life, cull the non-virtuous from the collective and move on... or fail.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment.

Remember, it was YOU who said the Constitution's wording is clear and unambiguous and needs NO interpretation.

OH! So you are stupid. Go figure.

(Reader, the US Constitution was not written for a culture comprised of halfwits and debauched fools. It was written to govern a virtuous people.

You see, the non-virtuous cannot be free... the Founders understood this and sought to govern to the higher standard, thus the reason they determined to separate themselves and their culture from that of the non-virtuous cult of Britain.

The solution is today, as it was then, declare war in those opposed to the responsibilities intrinsic to the rightful
pursuit of the fulfillment of one's life, cull the non-virtuous from the collective and move on... or fail.)

So you concede that only a necessary interpretation of the ambiguous language of the 1st Amendment can lead to denying free press protections to those who would publish child pornography,

and thus you concede that your original claim was nonsensical.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... delight us with your wit, as you prove me wrong Gilligan?

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

Is there a mention of 'debauchery' or 'misleading' in the 1st Amendment, regarding freedom of the press?

Where?

In the words "freedom of speech" and "press".

Freedom is a state that comes from what Gilligan?

Does Freedom come as a result of the absence of bondage, or the bearing of the responsibilities that sustain the means to not be bound?

See... You 'feel' that we're interpreting here... when all we're doing is coming to understand the meaning of the words in play.

This is what happens to people who pretend that the meaning of words are whatever they need the meaning to be, to promote the fulfillment of their own personal needs.

That is called subjectivism, which is the rejection of objectivity... .

You 'feel' that subjectivism makes you free... when in truth, it binds you. As in most things worthy of consideration, the path to sustain freedom, is quite counter intuitive. And this is yet another of those things that demonstrates the difference between the higher function common to humanity and the lower base functions common to the lower species, which exists below humanity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you concede that only a necessary interpretation of the ambiguous language of the 1st Amendment can lead to denying free press protections to those who would publish child pornography,

and thus you concede that your original claim was nonsensical.

There's nothing ambiguous there, Gilligan.

And your ignorance of the obvious, doesn't make it so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you concede that only a necessary interpretation of the ambiguous language of the 1st Amendment can lead to denying free press protections to those who would publish child pornography,

and thus you concede that your original claim was nonsensical.

There's nothing ambiguous there, Gilligan.

And your ignorance of the obvious, doesn't make it so.

That freedom of the press cannot be abridged is unambiguous, correct. It's an absolute.

But publishing child pornography without restraint would be an exercise of unabridged freedom of the press.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment..

By understanding the words freedom of speech and press... and the responsibilities that are intrinsic to each.

You want to dismiss the meaning of the words, then declare that the enforcement of their meaning is a function of 'interpretation'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment..

By understanding the words freedom of speech and press... and the responsibilities that are intrinsic to each.

You want to dismiss the meaning of the words, then declare that the enforcement of their meaning is a function of 'interpretation'.

NO, the 'responsibilites' are not mentioned in the language of the 1st amendment.

The language is, as you put it,

the Constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language. Which does not require 'interpretation' at all, on any level, for any reason.

Since there are no stated exceptions to freedom of the press in the 1st amendment, the meaning of the words cannot be assumed to imply exceptions,

unless someone INTERPRETS them to contain implied exceptions. However, you claim no interpretation is required.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment..

By understanding the words freedom of speech and press... and the responsibilities that are intrinsic to each.

You want to dismiss the meaning of the words, then declare that the enforcement of their meaning is a function of 'interpretation'.

NO, the 'responsibilites' are not mentioned in the language of the 1st amendment.

Again, you need to believe that freedom means the absence of responsibility, when it means precisely the opposite.

Understand, the Framers did not write the constitution to govern imbeciles...

You see Gilligan, there is no means for imbeciles to be free.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then it must be unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography.

Based upon what Gilligan?

Based on your insistence that freedom of the press cannot be abridged, which is an absolute,

not open to interpretation.

Someone publishing child pornography is by your measure exercising his right to freedom of the press.

Please make your point Gilligan. Do you seriously want to contend that freedom includes the right to mislead people through debauchery?

I want to know how you constitutionally outlaw child pornography without interpreting the 1st Amendment.

Remember, it was YOU who said the Constitution's wording is clear and unambiguous and needs NO interpretation.

OH! So you are stupid. Go figure.

(Reader, the US Constitution was not written for a culture comprised of halfwits and debauched fools. It was written to govern a virtuous people.

You see, the non-virtuous cannot be free... the Founders understood this and sought to govern to the higher standard, thus the reason they determined to separate themselves and their culture from that of the non-virtuous cult of Britain.

The solution is today, as it was then, declare war in those opposed to the responsibilities intrinsic to the rightful
pursuit of the fulfillment of one's life, cull the non-virtuous from the collective and move on... or fail.)

Ben Franklin said that the day would come when the people would become so corrupt that they would accept despotism. This is that day.