Amy Coney Barrett's America

[Colin norris]

You want the government to control our lives, so don't ***** when the government says who can, or can't get married. You can't have it both ways: be a commie and a Libertarian, too

Communist my arse. You're paranoid about it. You phones and credit cards etc give the government any control they want and you volunteered it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Horseshit! That is a real streach. For the reccord, gay rights have nothing to do with my rights. Now don't you feal just a little bit stupid? Freedom? What do you think that you are free to proliferate weapons that rob others of the freedome of life, while also seeking to rob families and children of the freedom to marry which harms no one?

westwall That's all you guys got?

 

[wamose]

Democrats hate Barrett because they hate the constitution. They'd rather make up their own rules as they go along.

 

[JusticeHammer]

What have I said that indicates that I want the government to controll our lives. That is just a go to moronic talking point that you people invoke when you have nothing else. I want the government to allow everyone to live there lives as full participants in society and only invoke control when it coms to protecting those rights againsgt those who would deny them. Read the Constitution

So you are a conservative?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Democrats hate Barrett because they hate the constitution. They'd rather make up their own rules as they go along.

Horseshit. That is just another go to moronic talking point that you people invoke when you have no actual argument. Barott is a theocrat who hates the Constitution. I have profound respect for the Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So you are a conservative?

No. Why would you think that? I am someone who believes that government exists to make the lives of ordinbary Americans better. To make the country a better place for everyone. It goes bck to the Progessive movement of the early 1900's spearheaded by Teddy Roosevelt. Read some history

Conservatives believe in a limited goverment that allows special interests, plutocrats and theocrats to run amoke and make lives difficult for those who do not have power

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Communist my arse. You're paranoid about it. You phones and credit cards etc give the government any control they want and you volunteered it.

I don't have to use a cell phone, landline, the internet, nor a credit/debit card. Might even be able to get away without using cash.

 

[JusticeHammer]

No. Why would you think that? I am someone who believes that government exists to make the lives of ordinbary Americans better. To make the country a better place for everyone. It goes bck to the Progessive movement of the early 1900's spearheaded by Teddy Roosevelt. Read some history

Conservatives believe in a limited goverment that allows special interests, plutocrats and theocrats to run amoke and make lives difficult for those who do not have power

No, that is republicans. Conservatives believe in small government and letting people make their own decisions. Everything I see is liberals are the big government thugs.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What have I said that indicates that I want the government to controll our lives. That is just a go to moronic talking point that you people invoke when you have nothing else. I want the government to allow everyone to live there lives as full participants in society and only invoke control when it coms to protecting those rights againsgt those who would deny them. Read the Constitution

Read the Constitution? You mean, like the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Colin norris]

I don't have to use a cell phone, landline, the internet, nor a credit/debit card. Might even be able to get away without using cash.

And yet here you are.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, that is republicans. Conservatives believe in small government and letting people make their own decisions. Everything I see is liberals are the big government thugs.

Yes republicans push small govermment when it suits them like when deregulating the banks and other indusrtry and allowing them to run amock and destroy the middle/working class and the environment. At other times you support big government that controlls womens right to choose, LGBT rights and retricts voting rights among other things. You seem to want it both ways, You can't

For me it is not the size of government that matters but what government does and for who. You can have small government that favors the priveledged few or large government that supports the many. I know where I stand and I know where you stand

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Read the Constitution? You mean, like the 2nd Amendment?

I mean the whole constution, all of the amendmnents including thr 14th, as well as case law

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes republicans push small govermment when it suits them like when deregulating the banks

What bank deregulation are you whining about?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I mean the whole constution, all of the amendmnents including thr 14th, as well as case law

No, you want your lame ass, Leftist interpretation of the Constitution. Your insistance on using "case law" proves my point . The courts can't make law, so technically, case law doesn't exist in The United States. The Constitution forbids case law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What bank deregulation are you whining about?

I'm not getting into that here. Think George W Bush and the crash of 2008.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Constitution forbids case law.

Seriously? So despite the ruling in Loving V. Virginia, interfracial marriage is not a right gauranteed under the Constitution?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Seriously? So despite the ruling in Loving V. Virginia, interfracial marriage is not a right gauranteed under the Constitution?

The court can't make law. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Feel free to show us where Article 3 gives the Judicial Branch power to make law.

A more credible argument would be: the government doesn't have the power to say who can and can't get married.

You people have no ******* clue about what the Constitution says. You don't want to follow the Constitution. You want to go by your fucked up interpretation of it, which is wrong, most often. Just like your belief that the courts can make law and amend the Constitution. That's stupid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The court can't make law. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Feel free to show us where Article 3 gives the Judicial Branch power to make law.

A more credible argument would be: the government doesn't have the power to say who can and can't get married.

You people have no ******* clue about what the Constitution says. You don't want to follow the Constitution. You want to go by your fucked up interpretation of it, which is wrong, most often. Just like your belief that the courts can make law and amend the Constitution. That's stupid.

So you support the right of states to ban interracial marriage? OK Got it.

But the court did did not write a law that says that there is a right to interracuial marriage, just like tey did not write a law saying that there is a right to same sex marriage. If you think that they did show it to me.

In both cases they simply invalidated state laws that prohibited those practices based on Consititutional law, specifically the right to equal protection under the law and due process. That is what they do

You say that "A more credible argument would be: the government doesn't have the power to say who can and can't get married." sp then you also think that child brides and fathers marrying their daughters shoould not be prohibited by law? The fact is that the courts can prohibit certain thing if the government cannot prove a compelling government intgerest, or in some cases a rational basis for doing so. That is why laws against interracial marriage and sanme sex marriage were thrown out.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

So you support the right of states to ban interracial marriage? OK Got it.

But the court did did not write a law that says that there is a right to interracuial marriage, just like tey did not write a law saying that there is a right to same sex marriage. If you think that they did show it to me.

In both cases they simply invalidated state laws that prohibited those practices based on Consititutional law, specifically the right to equal protection under the law and due process. That is what they do

You say that "A more credible argument would be: the government doesn't have the power to say who can and can't get married." sp then you also think that child brides and fathers marrying their daughters shoould not be prohibited by law? The fact is that the courts can prohibit certain thing if the government cannot prove a compelling government intgerest, or in some cases a rational basis for doing so. That is why laws against interracial marriage and sanme sex marriage were thrown out.

Don't put words in my mouth. That's idiotic.

You said the court made interracial marriages a guaranteed right. A guaranteed right, per the Constitution, is law.

You really should read the Constitution. You obviously don't know what it says.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not getting into that here. Think George W Bush and the crash of 2008.

You think Bush deregulated banks?

I understand why you don't want to "get into that". LOL!