I Am A Bigot And A Terrorist

[the_human_being]

My point is I am hardly the dumbass you contend and wish to portray me to be. A masters? In what? Church's Fried Chicken deep frying?

false you are exactly the dumb ass I say you are . your own words betray you.
an education does not make you intelligent
my masters is in technical theatre lighting and audio electrical
it's an engineering degree specialized for show business .
Virginia tech lol.

Have you made any money or are you just another wage slave? I employ a few guys with masters degrees. I have a daughter who holds one. She will be playing a major part in running my corp along with my son and other daughter. At present, I am completing two jet engine test facilities (my design) for the Navy. Three are finished and operational.

Nope. Don't believe you.

Not my problem.

You should take stock of your life and try to determine what it is that makes you want to pretend to be someone you aren't......on an anonymous message board.

My life is just fine. What I didn't like about it, I had the gumption to change years ago.

 

[the_human_being]

Have you made any money or are you just another wage slave? I employ a few guys with masters degrees. I have a daughter who holds one. She will be playing a major part in running my corp along with my son and other daughter. At present, I am completing two jet engine test facilities (my design) for the Navy. Three are finished and operational.

not that it's important but I'VE DONE RATHER WELL.
you'll understand when I say you are stretching the facts to the breaking point.

I understand you are most probably just another employee of some company. But hey, it takes employees to make the rest of us profitable.

that would be another false assumption.
although it is proof you understand very little or are willfully ignorant.

Oh, I think I have had your number all along. You're Obama's boyfriend or husband, correct. An all around loser and a sub-human homosexual freak of nature. That pretty well sums you up.

none of the above.
how could you have made as much money as you are claiming you have when you constantly make erroneous statements.

Simple. I worked for it. I realized early on that I couldn't make the kind of money I wanted to make working for someone else's corp.

 

[Silhouette]

You're at liberty to 'hold' whatever you want...But you must acknowledge the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, you must accept settled Constitutional jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court, not your ignorant, subjective, errant 'interpretation' and 'perception' of what you 'want' the Constitution to mean; you must acknowledge that the Constitution and its case law is the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, where the states are subordinate and subject to the inalienable rights of American citizens who reside in the states, where citizens' rights trump 'states' rights,' where one does not 'forfeit' his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and where the residents of the states have no authority to take from a citizen his inalienable rights through 'majority rule..

No I don't agree. Were the Supreme Court even close to being unanimous in their decision I would continue to proffer that they have their place in INTERPPRETING federal law but have no right to overturn the votes of the legal registered voters of any state on matters normally held to lie in the states jurisdiction. However, their decision was only an interpretation by a majority of one - not a binding law since legislation is the sole responsibility of the Congress.

your agreement is not relevant or necessary .they are called the supreme court for a reason.

1. Are children citizens of states? Yes?

2. Are children directly involved in and affected by what a society consideres "marriage". (I won't even ask you daws, cuz that's a "yes" also)

3. Did the one Justice responsible for tipping the scales in favor of your cult dismantling mother/father marriage consult with attorneys to the other implied parties at the Hearing last Spring? Or was the one and most important party to the contract's revision wholly unrepresented at that time?

Let me answer for you. There were no attorney's there representing children's unique interests in the marriage contract. None. No arguments were taken and none were heard. In fact, when children tried to insert their voices in the discussions which lead to the illegal Decision in June, they were completely ignored as far as I know in the Opinion's verbage. Multiple children raised in gay homes as young adults now submitted amicus briefs describing to the court that while they loved their "parents", they felt a deep lack in their lives from missing the opposite gender in their daily lives growing up. Those pleas from sharers-of-the-contract in question, the ones that it stands to affect the most according to its structure and newly-expanded terms (done by the Judicial as human being said, and not the Legislative as would have been proper)...those plaintive cries "don't set this up to happen to more of us!"...fell on deaf ears. They were wholly disregarded.

According to contract law, all those who are party to a contract must be invited to the table and heard before its revision. This was not done. Ergo, June's Decision is illegal. There were no guardians ad litem either present at the Hearing. It was a complete shut-out of children.

 

[bravoactual]

It does not matter whether or not you accept the decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding Same Sex. The matter is settled law.

Your personally held, private religious beliefs are exactly that. Personal and Private. You cannot in anyway, shape and/or form use your Freedom of Religion to restrict, deny or prohibit the Rights of Others. Your religion cannot be used a reason/excuse to deny Rights to others that are not already granted under the Constitution.

You can hate all you want, which I'm sure you do. But your hate is your own.

 

[Silhouette]

It does not matter whether or not you accept the decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding Same Sex. The matter is settled law.

Your personally held, private religious beliefs are exactly that. Personal and Private. You cannot in anyway, shape and/or form use your Freedom of Religion to restrict, deny or prohibit the Rights of Others. Your religion cannot be used a reason/excuse to deny Rights to others that are not already granted under the Constitution.

You can hate all you want, which I'm sure you do. But your hate is your own.

It absolutely DOES matter whether the citizens accept or reject that Decision if it was arrived at by mistrial....which it was. Contract law says that when a contract is revised, ALL parties must either be at or have representation at the table when its fundamental provisions are redacted. There is no more fundamental revision of the marriage contract imaginable than it being newly minus a father or mother for children: the implicit third party to the contract.

It was a mistrial since not only were they not represented, when they tried to represent themselves (amicus briefs filed by grown kids of gay homes saying "this isn't a good idea for us"), they were treated as if they didn't exist at all. I haven't see a single discussion of their briefs in the Opinion. Have you? The matter is UNsettled law because it was a mistrial.

 

[bravoactual]

The decision of the Supreme Court stands. Same-Sex Marriage is, under the Equal Protection of the 14th. Amendment stands.

Your wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

The decision of the Supreme Court stands. Same-Sex Marriage is, under the Equal Protection of the 14th. Amendment stands.

Your wrong.

No, it was about revising the marriage contract to include new people that have never been combined in it in such a way before. One party to the contract was missing and actively barred from participation of the discussion of that revision. That is the definition of a mistrial. It is no more legal than if Kennedy and pals decided to find that the 1st Amendment no longer means a person may object to participation in promoting certain behaviors if secular law requires them to defy their deeply held religious beliefs. Both would be mistrials. The Judicial cannot override their own contract laws. They also can't override the US Constitution. What SCOTUS did in June was to say "children no longer have a voice at the table on any contract they are a part of". That's an open door to child exploitation, for those that are taking a little while to get up to speed on this..

 

[daws101]

You're at liberty to 'hold' whatever you want...But you must acknowledge the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, you must accept settled Constitutional jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court, not your ignorant, subjective, errant 'interpretation' and 'perception' of what you 'want' the Constitution to mean; you must acknowledge that the Constitution and its case law is the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, where the states are subordinate and subject to the inalienable rights of American citizens who reside in the states, where citizens' rights trump 'states' rights,' where one does not 'forfeit' his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and where the residents of the states have no authority to take from a citizen his inalienable rights through 'majority rule..

No I don't agree. Were the Supreme Court even close to being unanimous in their decision I would continue to proffer that they have their place in INTERPPRETING federal law but have no right to overturn the votes of the legal registered voters of any state on matters normally held to lie in the states jurisdiction. However, their decision was only an interpretation by a majority of one - not a binding law since legislation is the sole responsibility of the Congress.

your agreement is not relevant or necessary .they are called the supreme court for a reason.

1. Are children citizens of states? Yes?

2. Are children directly involved in and affected by what a society consideres "marriage". (I won't even ask you daws, cuz that's a "yes" also)

3. Did the one Justice responsible for tipping the scales in favor of your cult dismantling mother/father marriage consult with attorneys to the other implied parties at the Hearing last Spring? Or was the one and most important party to the contract's revision wholly unrepresented at that time?

Let me answer for you. There were no attorney's there representing children's unique interests in the marriage contract. None. No arguments were taken and none were heard. In fact, when children tried to insert their voices in the discussions which lead to the illegal Decision in June, they were completely ignored as far as I know in the Opinion's verbage. Multiple children raised in gay homes as young adults now submitted amicus briefs describing to the court that while they loved their "parents", they felt a deep lack in their lives from missing the opposite gender in their daily lives growing up. Those pleas from sharers-of-the-contract in question, the ones that it stands to affect the most according to its structure and newly-expanded terms (done by the Judicial as human being said, and not the Legislative as would have been proper)...those plaintive cries "don't set this up to happen to more of us!"...fell on deaf ears. They were wholly disregarded.

According to contract law, all those who are party to a contract must be invited to the table and heard before its revision. This was not done. Ergo, June's Decision is illegal. There were no guardians ad litem either present at the Hearing. It was a complete shut-out of children.

Another completely off topic and useless post by silly wet.

 

[bravoactual]

It does not matter whether or not you accept the decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding Same Sex. The matter is settled law.

Your personally held, private religious beliefs are exactly that. Personal and Private. You cannot in anyway, shape and/or form use your Freedom of Religion to restrict, deny or prohibit the Rights of Others. Your religion cannot be used a reason/excuse to deny Rights to others that are not already granted under the Constitution.

You can hate all you want, which I'm sure you do. But your hate is your own.

It absolutely DOES matter whether the citizens accept or reject that Decision if it was arrived at by mistrial....which it was. Contract law says that when a contract is revised, ALL parties must either be at or have representation at the table when its fundamental provisions are redacted. There is no more fundamental revision of the marriage contract imaginable than it being newly minus a father or mother for children: the implicit third party to the contract.

It was a mistrial since not only were they not represented, when they tried to represent themselves (amicus briefs filed by grown kids of gay homes saying "this isn't a good idea for us"), they were treated as if they didn't exist at all. I haven't see a single discussion of their briefs in the Opinion. Have you? The matter is UNsettled law because it was a mistrial.

The Supreme Court has reached it's decision. Get over it. You do not have the right to deny other people their rights. You never had that right.

Doesn't matter whether or not you accept that decision, the decision has been made and is now established law.

 

[daws101]

It does not matter whether or not you accept the decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding Same Sex. The matter is settled law.

Your personally held, private religious beliefs are exactly that. Personal and Private. You cannot in anyway, shape and/or form use your Freedom of Religion to restrict, deny or prohibit the Rights of Others. Your religion cannot be used a reason/excuse to deny Rights to others that are not already granted under the Constitution.

You can hate all you want, which I'm sure you do. But your hate is your own.

It absolutely DOES matter whether the citizens accept or reject that Decision if it was arrived at by mistrial....which it was. Contract law says that when a contract is revised, ALL parties must either be at or have representation at the table when its fundamental provisions are redacted. There is no more fundamental revision of the marriage contract imaginable than it being newly minus a father or mother for children: the implicit third party to the contract.

It was a mistrial since not only were they not represented, when they tried to represent themselves (amicus briefs filed by grown kids of gay homes saying "this isn't a good idea for us"), they were treated as if they didn't exist at all. I haven't see a single discussion of their briefs in the Opinion. Have you? The matter is UNsettled law because it was a mistrial.

The Supreme Court has reached it's decision. Get over it. You do not have the right to deny other people their rights. You never had that right.

Doesn't matter whether or not you accept that decision, the decision has been made and is now established law.

silly wet is an obsessed crank , he's more interested in homosexuality than homosexuals are.

 

[bravoactual]

It does not matter whether or not you accept the decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding Same Sex. The matter is settled law.

Your personally held, private religious beliefs are exactly that. Personal and Private. You cannot in anyway, shape and/or form use your Freedom of Religion to restrict, deny or prohibit the Rights of Others. Your religion cannot be used a reason/excuse to deny Rights to others that are not already granted under the Constitution.

You can hate all you want, which I'm sure you do. But your hate is your own.

It absolutely DOES matter whether the citizens accept or reject that Decision if it was arrived at by mistrial....which it was. Contract law says that when a contract is revised, ALL parties must either be at or have representation at the table when its fundamental provisions are redacted. There is no more fundamental revision of the marriage contract imaginable than it being newly minus a father or mother for children: the implicit third party to the contract.

It was a mistrial since not only were they not represented, when they tried to represent themselves (amicus briefs filed by grown kids of gay homes saying "this isn't a good idea for us"), they were treated as if they didn't exist at all. I haven't see a single discussion of their briefs in the Opinion. Have you? The matter is UNsettled law because it was a mistrial.

The Supreme Court has reached it's decision. Get over it. You do not have the right to deny other people their rights. You never had that right.

Doesn't matter whether or not you accept that decision, the decision has been made and is now established law.

silly wet is an obsessed crank , he's more interested in homosexuality than homosexuals are.

People are usually obsessed over things or persons they do not understand.

Either that he is just plain jealous that some people get laid more often than he does.

 

[bravoactual]

I will try and gentle as I explain this.

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. of The United States of The United States.

A person, regardless of their Gender, Gender Identity, Race, Religion, Creed or National Origin (Naturalized Citizen) cannot be denied Rights granted to ALL CITIZENS.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are Citizens of the United States and the State wherein they resid. No State shall or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Nor Deny To Any Person Within Its Jurisdiction The Equal Protection of The Laws.

Equal Rights under the law.

A person cannot be denied their Equal Rights just because another person does not like/hate/abhors their Sexual Identity.

You do not have the Right To Grant or Deny Rights based on Sexual Identity.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Same-Sex Marriage is both valid and legal.

Suck it up.

 

[bravoactual]

Kim Davis looses yet again.

Federal judge rejects Kim Davis’ latest attempt to avoid giving same-sex couples marriage licenses.

The United States IS NOT GOVERNED BY RELIGIOUS (SHARIA) LAW!!!!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's "worst nightmare"..

Bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation are all part of the badass creed.

Do you actually read the Leftie posts here? My old Sister Mary Margaret would rap their knuckles bloody over their "grammer", make-believe spelling and contorted syntax.

What's "grammer"?

Is that native American for Grandma?

He's speaking engrish. Your native tongue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cons love their freedom, but are more than willing to restrict the freedom of others.

"All Men Are Created Equal". Equal Laws, not separate law.

Yet, you believe in a doctrine of "equal but separate."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Kim Davis looses yet again.

Federal judge rejects Kim Davis’ latest attempt to avoid giving same-sex couples marriage licenses.

The United States IS NOT GOVERNED BY RELIGIOUS (SHARIA) LAW!!!!!!

So Kim Davis is a Muslim? Huh? Lat time I checked, we obey the Ten Commandments, not Sharia Law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's "worst nightmare"..

Bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation are all part of the badass creed.

Correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation are all signs of an insufficient argument to the original post.

And LOL at you using the Oxford commas to make yourself look smart.

 

[daws101]

It's "worst nightmare"..

Bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation are all part of the badass creed.

Correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation are all signs of an insufficient argument to the original post.

And LOL at you using the Oxford commas to make yourself look smart.

3 absolutely meaningless posts.

 

[bravoactual]

Cons love their freedom, but are more than willing to restrict the freedom of others.

"All Men Are Created Equal". Equal Laws, not separate law.

Yet, you believe in a doctrine of "equal but separate."

No I do not.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But unlike you, I'm a happy American.

You don't sound happy.

At all.

Indeed? Because unlike you, I'm not a victim of something or another?

You were just fallaciously whining you are a victim of DHS!!! This entire topic is predicated on that victimhood on your part.

Yeah, but a victimhood complex consist of one that is constantly offended by one act, circumstance or statement or another. One who calls people bigots, misogynists, and racists for having a contrary opinion. One , who in college academia, tries to eliminate the use of gender pronouns and replacing them with unintelligible words that don't resemble English, all to avoid offending someone; one who in TV syndication takes down a show for having a perceived symbol of hatred and racism painted atop an orange 1969 Dodge Charger.

Victimhood...

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.