Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

[konradv]

...says the guy who wants to take away my inherent right to self-defense.

More fairy tales. When have I ever said that? You have to start trying to live in the real world.

Really? You don't want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own weapons?

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning weapons. I do have a problem with some people wanting to put up roadblocks to determining who the law-abiding citizens are. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

 

[The Professor]

There you are, once again....on the outside drooling in….

See....there's a title....

....then there is a reading comprehension passage, that follows.



The bad news, you've utterly failed.
The good news?
Having achieved a zero, you have nowhere to go but up.

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

Read the OP.....I challenge you to respond rather than obfuscate.

My dearest lady, you know that I respect you. I have enjoyed your posts and have shown my admiration for your works by the many "thanks" and reps. However, I doubt that most liberals know the meaning of "obfuscate."

Perhaps, I am too ******* cynical.

 

[The Professor]

When you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.

once again for you lying loons...

red states take more money from the feds than they put in

blue states put in more money than they take...

tell ya what.. stop living off of OUR dime.

thanks for playing.

now please go back to collecting your government check and using our government medical services.... while you drive on government roads and use government-subsidized gasoline... and eat government subsidized farm products...

Government-subsidized gasoline ????

You're kidding, right?

You don't have a clue how much the government TAXES each gallon of gas, do you. The government which you admire makes more on each gallon than the oil companies you detest. On average government makes $.50 on each gallon, and in some states such as California and New York, the tax is almost $.70 a gallon. What's really funny is that those politicians you admire want to increase this tax !!

As for government subsidized food, I wish you would give me an example. I would argue that government policies actually make food cost more, not less. I would remind you that government regulations on ethanol raised the price of corn and many other food items. There are many other examples I could give; however, I prefer to wait for your example(s) of how government makes my food cheaper.

Well, the fair lady jullian has disappeared from the scene. No surprise there.

My dearest jullian (you know I really mean that, right???) I gave you the opportunity to debate me; I really wanted you to debate you, but you obviously cannot. I don't know what you're afraid of other than the fact that my intelligence is so far above yours that I doubt we're even in the same species.

I have read literally thousands of books during my lifetime and 10s of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of posts on the Internet. You submission may not have been the most stupid one I've ever read, but it certainly ranked in the top 100.

You really believe that the government makes gas and food cheaper for the consumer?? Frankly I have more respect for adults who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

I must confess, my motives were quit selfish. I wanted to debate you to show everyone on this forum how stupid you are. You see, you are the retarded fool who gave me a neg rep and called me a hack because I gave you the truth about gun control. Now I am taking the sign that says “hack” and putting it around YOUR neck where it deserves to be. Your claims about how government reduces the cost of gasoline and food to consumers confirms that you are simply repeating the absurd and discredited claims of the liberals in power. Or are you really that dumb?

Now, my intellectually challenged co-poster, let me suggest the following: you give me a negative rep, I return the favor by you giving me a neg rep and we both get on with our lives. Works for me.

OK, jullian, I am through with you. I reserve time during each day for drinking and debauchery, and I'll be damn if I am going to waste my time on your drivel.

You ******* hack.

 

[konradv]

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

Read the OP.....I challenge you to respond rather than obfuscate.

My dearest lady, you know that I respect you. I have enjoyed your posts and have shown my admiration for your works by the many "thanks" and reps. However, I doubt that most liberals know the meaning of "obfuscate."

Perhaps, I am too ******* cynical.

A touch perhaps, since obfuscation what you're doing here, posting something that really doesn't say anything to confound rather than elucidate a topic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. State your case.

Although the case is very simple....it remains far too abstruse for those of your limitations.

Here we are discussing the Constitution, and you claim to have cachet in the discussion....yet you have no idea of the enumerated powers.


To be clear... I am not removing you from the discussion...it is your paucity of knowledge that makes you ineligible.

On the other hand, I enjoy your attempts to embarrass yourself.
Proceed.

In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation.

The smokescreen of bluster and feigned superiority you throw up in lieu of an intelligent argument,

well, you insult my intelligence to think that I can't see through that.

1. There are no protections for the fetus as a person in the Constitution.

2. In the absence of that constitutional protection, the abortion becomes a permissible act protected by a woman's right to privacy.

3. Any state or federal law that would violate that right to privacy is in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

Ya' learn something new every day!

I always thought I was just needling you, saying that you had A.D.D.....little did I know that it was true!!

You actually are Oblivius de Havilland!




Did you actually just post: "In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation."


Of course I don't like the decision! And I explained why earlier, when I said:


"Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers."


AND I directed you to look up 'laboratories of democracy'....which you avoided doing, as width every other homework assignment in your less than illustrious academic career.



"well, you insult my intelligence..."
That is a knee-slapper right there!
There ain't none!!!


"...feigned superiority..."
There are flat worms with higher SAT's than you!!!



"1. There are no protections for the fetus as a person in the Constitution."
Nor are there amendments prohibiting J-walking....


2. " In the absence of that constitutional protection, the abortion becomes a permissible act protected by a woman's right to privacy."
Abortion is not covered in Article I, section 8....
..but is via the 10th amendment.


3. "Any state or federal law that would violate that right to privacy is in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional."
Where is 'privacy' mentioned in the Constitution??
Which amendment adds it to the Constitution??

Obviously, when I mentioned 'your penumbra of intelligence' earlier you didn't get the reference.



Explaining this to one with your level of education is like putting an elevator in an outhouse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you STILL didn't answer my question. You've got a lot of nerve politicizing self-respect when you have none yourself.

Read the OP.....I challenge you to respond rather than obfuscate.

My dearest lady, you know that I respect you. I have enjoyed your posts and have shown my admiration for your works by the many "thanks" and reps. However, I doubt that most liberals know the meaning of "obfuscate."

Perhaps, I am too ******* cynical.

No one on this board obfuscates more than PC. That is her trademark.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read the OP.....I challenge you to respond rather than obfuscate.

My dearest lady, you know that I respect you. I have enjoyed your posts and have shown my admiration for your works by the many "thanks" and reps. However, I doubt that most liberals know the meaning of "obfuscate."

Perhaps, I am too ******* cynical.

No one on this board obfuscates more than PC. That is her trademark.

Another lie from the dim-wit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Although the case is very simple....it remains far too abstruse for those of your limitations.

Here we are discussing the Constitution, and you claim to have cachet in the discussion....yet you have no idea of the enumerated powers.


To be clear... I am not removing you from the discussion...it is your paucity of knowledge that makes you ineligible.

On the other hand, I enjoy your attempts to embarrass yourself.
Proceed.

In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation.

The smokescreen of bluster and feigned superiority you throw up in lieu of an intelligent argument,

well, you insult my intelligence to think that I can't see through that.

1. There are no protections for the fetus as a person in the Constitution.

2. In the absence of that constitutional protection, the abortion becomes a permissible act protected by a woman's right to privacy.

3. Any state or federal law that would violate that right to privacy is in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

Ya' learn something new every day!

I always thought I was just needling you, saying that you had A.D.D.....little did I know that it was true!!

You actually are Oblivius de Havilland!




Did you actually just post: "In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation."


Of course I don't like the decision! And I explained why earlier, when I said:


"Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers."


AND I directed you to look up 'laboratories of democracy'....which you avoided doing, as width every other homework assignment in your less than illustrious academic career.

You want me to divine and write your opinions for you? Because you are wholly incapable of coherently and concisely expressing them yourself?

The power of the Constitution to protect the civil rights of citizens is not an enumerated power? That's your argument against Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to an abortion?

That's a bit ironic given the original topic of this thread.

 

[daveman]

Is the right to an abortion a natural right? Is it an inalienable right, an endowment from the Creator.

If not why not?

It's not, because it takes an innocent life.

No. I don't consider it an innocent life. It is not even considered an innocent life in the US Constitution that was written by the men who also, generally, signed onto the Declaration of Independence which is one of the sources of this concept of inalienable rights.

Isn't it my inalienable right to decide what is or isn't a natural right? Didn't my Creator endow me with that liberty?

It's very convenient for you conservative dictators to first decide what game we're going to have to play,

and then decide that it's you conservative dictators who will dictate the rules of that game.

According to the conservative,

there are of course natural rights that God chose to endow us with, and now I'll tell you what they are,

because, by some form of magic, I, the conservative dictator, was chosen to speak for God.

You know how you like to pretend you're clever?

You're not. You're a pompous gasbag.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My dearest lady, you know that I respect you. I have enjoyed your posts and have shown my admiration for your works by the many "thanks" and reps. However, I doubt that most liberals know the meaning of "obfuscate."

Perhaps, I am too ******* cynical.

No one on this board obfuscates more than PC. That is her trademark.

Another lie from the dim-wit.

Prove me wrong. Show me a post of yours that is clear, concise, direct, to the point, on-topic, and substantive, on any given subject of argument,

and I'll show you one of yours that is obfuscatory,

and we'll see who runs out first.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not, because it takes an innocent life.

No. I don't consider it an innocent life. It is not even considered an innocent life in the US Constitution that was written by the men who also, generally, signed onto the Declaration of Independence which is one of the sources of this concept of inalienable rights.

Isn't it my inalienable right to decide what is or isn't a natural right? Didn't my Creator endow me with that liberty?

It's very convenient for you conservative dictators to first decide what game we're going to have to play,

and then decide that it's you conservative dictators who will dictate the rules of that game.

According to the conservative,

there are of course natural rights that God chose to endow us with, and now I'll tell you what they are,

because, by some form of magic, I, the conservative dictator, was chosen to speak for God.

You know how you like to pretend you're clever?

You're not. You're a pompous gasbag.

Did you not just insist that abortion was not a natural right? On your say-so only?

My direct question to you then is, who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

 

[daveman]

More fairy tales. When have I ever said that? You have to start trying to live in the real world.

Really? You don't want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own weapons?

You are not entitled to unfettered, unlimited rights in the Constitution.

Yes, we already know you hate the Second Amendment and would strike it down if you could.

 

[daveman]

There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

1. Is it constitutional for the government to prevent you (as best it can) from exercising your right to jump off the Empire State Building?

2. If suicide is a God given natural right, doesn't that make assisted suicide, for both the assisted and the assistant, natural rights? And thus doesn't that make any governmental action to make illegal, criminalize, etc.,

assisted suicide a human rights violation?

You've never read the Constitution, have you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation.

The smokescreen of bluster and feigned superiority you throw up in lieu of an intelligent argument,

well, you insult my intelligence to think that I can't see through that.

1. There are no protections for the fetus as a person in the Constitution.

2. In the absence of that constitutional protection, the abortion becomes a permissible act protected by a woman's right to privacy.

3. Any state or federal law that would violate that right to privacy is in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional.

Ya' learn something new every day!

I always thought I was just needling you, saying that you had A.D.D.....little did I know that it was true!!

You actually are Oblivius de Havilland!




Did you actually just post: "In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation."


Of course I don't like the decision! And I explained why earlier, when I said:


"Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers."


AND I directed you to look up 'laboratories of democracy'....which you avoided doing, as width every other homework assignment in your less than illustrious academic career.

You want me to divine and write your opinions for you? Because you are wholly incapable of coherently and concisely expressing them yourself?

The power of the Constitution to protect the civil rights of citizens is not an enumerated power? That's your argument against Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to an abortion?

That's a bit ironic given the original topic of this thread.

What???


A neg from this piece of trash merely because I correctly identified him a a liar!
You wrote:
"No one on the board obfuscates more than PC. That's her trademark."


You are not just a liar...but an ignorant fool who lies to hide his lack of education.


What better proof could there be that I was correct.


Get lost, slime.

 

[daveman]

More fairy tales. When have I ever said that? You have to start trying to live in the real world.

Really? You don't want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own weapons?

I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning weapons. I do have a problem with some people wanting to put up roadblocks to determining who the law-abiding citizens are. The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.

Then I was right, wasn't I?

 

[daveman]

No. I don't consider it an innocent life. It is not even considered an innocent life in the US Constitution that was written by the men who also, generally, signed onto the Declaration of Independence which is one of the sources of this concept of inalienable rights.

Isn't it my inalienable right to decide what is or isn't a natural right? Didn't my Creator endow me with that liberty?

It's very convenient for you conservative dictators to first decide what game we're going to have to play,

and then decide that it's you conservative dictators who will dictate the rules of that game.

According to the conservative,

there are of course natural rights that God chose to endow us with, and now I'll tell you what they are,

because, by some form of magic, I, the conservative dictator, was chosen to speak for God.

You know how you like to pretend you're clever?

You're not. You're a pompous gasbag.

Did you not just insist that abortion was not a natural right? On your say-so only?

My direct question to you then is, who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

Liberals, apparently, guided by their agenda.

Killing unborn children is a right.

Carrying a legal weapon to protect school children is NOT a right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ya' learn something new every day!

I always thought I was just needling you, saying that you had A.D.D.....little did I know that it was true!!

You actually are Oblivius de Havilland!




Did you actually just post: "In other words, you don't like abortion rights, you don't like Roe v. Wade, you can proclaim it wrong,

but you don't have a clue as to how to make a case to support that proclamation."


Of course I don't like the decision! And I explained why earlier, when I said:


"Poorly decided decision.
It is not in the enumerated powers."


AND I directed you to look up 'laboratories of democracy'....which you avoided doing, as width every other homework assignment in your less than illustrious academic career.

You want me to divine and write your opinions for you? Because you are wholly incapable of coherently and concisely expressing them yourself?

The power of the Constitution to protect the civil rights of citizens is not an enumerated power? That's your argument against Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to an abortion?

That's a bit ironic given the original topic of this thread.

What???


A neg from this piece of trash merely because I correctly identified him a a liar!
You wrote:
"No one on the board obfuscates more than PC. That's her trademark."


You are not just a liar...but an ignorant fool who lies to hide his lack of education.


What better proof could there be that I was correct.


Get lost, slime.

Name someone on this board who obfuscates more than you do. And then we'll put it to the test. Maybe you can prove me wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know how you like to pretend you're clever?

You're not. You're a pompous gasbag.

Did you not just insist that abortion was not a natural right? On your say-so only?

My direct question to you then is, who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

Liberals, apparently, guided by their agenda.

Killing unborn children is a right.

Carrying a legal weapon to protect school children is NOT a right.

Are you trying to prove me wrong in saying that Political Chic is the most obfuscatory poster on this board?

Who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right? That is the question. I can answer it. There is no authority.

What's your answer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have the right to jump off the Empire State building...but due to safeguards engineered into the building, I do not have the ability to exercise that right.

Does that mean I don't have the right to jump?

1. Is it constitutional for the government to prevent you (as best it can) from exercising your right to jump off the Empire State Building?

2. If suicide is a God given natural right, doesn't that make assisted suicide, for both the assisted and the assistant, natural rights? And thus doesn't that make any governmental action to make illegal, criminalize, etc.,

assisted suicide a human rights violation?

You've never read the Constitution, have you?

You claimed suicide as one of your rights. That means that any law that tries to infringe on your right to suicide is a violation of your rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know how you like to pretend you're clever?

You're not. You're a pompous gasbag.

Did you not just insist that abortion was not a natural right? On your say-so only?

My direct question to you then is, who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

Liberals, apparently, guided by their agenda.

Killing unborn children is a right.

Carrying a legal weapon to protect school children is NOT a right.

Is a gun-free school zone unconstitutional? In your opinion?