I gave 3 specific examples of liberal policy under Bush. The fact that you can't cite ONE example that disputes my claim - and instead just make a personal attack - is glaring evidence that you know I'm right. But thanks for playing...
You can keep saying it over and over like the insane person you are, but it doesn't make it any more true. Bush was not a liberal. He was a conservative Republican that did pretty much the same thing every Republican does. Bush wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Not very liberal. Taking us into an unnecessary war with a country that didn't attack us? Not liberal. Cutting taxes AND spending...not liberal or even Democrat.
Those on the FAR right that claim Bush was a "liberal" are as certifiably insane as those on the far left that say there is no daylight between Bush and Obama. You're crazy, they're crazy.
The fact that you can't dispute what I said and instead are only left with "proof of your insanity" says it all. Like I've already stated, your a weak-minded dumbocrat who was conditioned to hate Bush. His every policy was liberal - and if he had a "D" behind his name, you would have been on your knees on USMB the past 8 years fellating this guy and referring to him as a God.
I didn't have to be conditioned to be opposed to the policies of the Bush administration. He made me hate his policies all on my own. Not him, just his policies.
I've provided evidence. Actual policies (Bush's), actual quotes (from the Communist Party U.S.A.), actual links. All you've done is provide your very uninformed, very uneducated opinion. 'Nough said sweetie...
You proved nothing. Bush wasn't a liberal and Democrats are not Communist. Of course, Obama isn't a liberal either, he's a centrist Democrat. I'm certain that I could find much in the creed of the KKK that you would agree with or that fits your professed ideology to a "T". Does that mean all far right crazy "conservatives" are white supremacists?
Arising under this Constitution" means "any laws, disputes, issues, etc." as they apply to the United State Constitution. It does not mean "the Supreme Court is hereby authorized to change, alter, or amend the Constitution as they see fit".
Since the SCOUTS isn't changing or creating laws, what is the point you are trying so badly to make?
Just out of curiosity, how many times are you going to call me stupid and then whine & snivel about how I'm attacking you for calling you crazy?
No you haven't - don't lie. It's so unbecoming... I have no doubt you swore an oath to uphold it, but you did so without reading it (and the oath does NOT include the Constitution itself). You have NEVER read the U.S. Constitution. I can tell just by talking to you.
Of course I have. I have not only read it, I keep a copy of both the US and state Constitutions on my devices and at my desk. There is nothing more arrogant that claiming you know something about someone you've never met and only had a few exchanges on an anonymous internet. If that's not the epitome of arrogance, I don't know what is.
Well, for once, you did get one thing correct. Our rights have already been infringed. There are not any arms that we are not Constitutionally entitled to own. None. Not a tank. Not an RPG. Not a grenade. It's just that simple. And you're not even capable of showing where that exists (which speaks volumes).
No they haven't been infringed, I was being factious. The SCOTUS has already said that restrictions on some "arms" is perfectly Constitutional.
As far as your "well regulated militia" desperate argument - it's completely nonsensical. It does NOT say "you may not own weapons unless you are a part of a militia"
And you claim you've read it. The 2nd is an Amendment, meaning not part of the original Constitution. It wasn't put in until 1791. So, what provision of the Constitution was it amending? What did the states find objectionable in the original Constitution?
Finally - it's amazing how libtards are too stupid to understand that even if that were the case (ie you can't have weapons unless you're part of a militia), all we would have to do is declare ourselves part of our own militia and each and every one of us could own anything we want
No you couldn't. There are very specific rules and
regulations for a militia.
Militia Act 1792
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
Oops...the black guy will be in charge of your Militia.
So first you say that Bush usurped the Constitution with the Patriot Act (which was accurate), and then you say "nobody is usurping the Constitution
I didn't say he did I said "except maybe the Patriot Act". Has it been challenged? What did the SCOTUS have to say?
Not only did Bush usurp it, but Obama has as well with Obamacare. They federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase anything. Period. It doesn't exist. You cannot find that power ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. I've asked you to provide it and you can't. All you keep saying is "the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS" as if they have the power to grant the federal government power
You might want to check your history, Skippy. You're missing some HUGE chunks.
The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.
ThatÂ’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.
Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. ThatÂ’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.
If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?
And you aren't forced to buy insurance. You're free not to. You just get taxed if you don't which is well within Congressional powers.
]You're on a roll today dear! You support a "woman's right to choose" but you don't support abortion?
You're so weak minded and thoroughly brainwashed, apparently you don't even realize "a woman's right to choose" is libtard code for ABORTION!
That's correct. They aren't diverging positions. As stated, I want to put an end to all abortions, I just want it done a different way than you do and believe that no one has a right to tell a women what she can and cannot do with her own body.
That's so stupid, it defies logic. Today we have sex slavery, abortion, child molestation, narcotics, rape without fear of reprisal (OWS demanded to their fellow women not to report rapes for the "cause") domestic violence, and promiscuity (AIDS didn't exist back then sweetie).
Oh look, there's "stupid" again from the insane person coupled with pure, unadulterated bullshit.
I believe that because of our civil rights advancements we are far more moral today than the 1700s and your unhinged rantings about some protest group isn't going to change that.
Did you know that Sharia Law requires women to walk behind their man like a dog, cover their face like they are property, and forbids them from going out in public without their husband? But hey, keep telling yourself that islam is making great strides for women's lib....
Did you read the article I posted AT ALL? I would have to guess "no" based on your response.
First of all, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's an undeniable FACT. If you change that, you have redefined it genius.
Then start the crying because marriage hasn't been only between a man and a women since...well, a hell of a long time, not just in recent years. Today it most certainly isn't only between a man and a woman or haven't you been paying attention? Gays can be legally married in 10 states (soon to be 11 with CA, 12 with DE) and over a dozen countries. Quite a few more states recognize the legal marriage of gays and another handful has civil unions. This is the undeniable fact, not your religious
opinions on marriage. If allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice "redefines" marriage, too late sucka!
Second, marriage is not a right. There is no right to get married. It doesn't exist (again, you would know this if you had ever actually read the U.S. Constitution). Therefor, the government "you pay taxes to support" does not have to do shit in recognizing what you want when it comes to marriage.
You think that the only rights we have are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Oh the irony of you repeatedly calling me stupid.
The right to marry DOES exist. The Supreme Court ruled marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. I can cite cases for you to ignore:
Loving v Virginia:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Zablocki v Redhail: The "right to marry" is mentioned no less than 10 times in this case
Turner v Safley: We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's
right to marry
So yes, there is a "right to marry" in this country...with restrictions. The deal with the "restrictions" is that you must use a reasonable person standard and provide an overriding harm in allowing the marriage. With gays and lesbians, you can't which is why you're losing in court just like other restrictions on marriage have. Learn from history, my friend, learn.
This is so typical of you libtards - actual rights (such as the 2nd Amendment) you people try to deny and/or attach conditions... while things that are NOT rights (such as healthcare, marriage, etc.), you libtards try to make the case that they are actual rights
No right is absolute. Every "right" has it's restrictions.
There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights
Do you see what a disgusting bigot you are? What's "fake" about the love a person has for their animal? Who are you to judge? Especially when you yourself has anything but a "normal". The hypocrisy of your average libtard is truly appalling.
And still you don't realize how irrational you sound. Both are "surgeons" only because someone legalized your gay marriage. And if someone legalizes marriage between man and animal, then they too will be "surgeons" in the analogy. As it stands now, marriage is ILLEGAL - and hence gay marriage is NOT a "surgeon[/B]" (and hence my analogy makes a HELL of a lot more sense than yours).
What are you talking about? I was referring to your piss poor analogy that you're is a surgeon marriage and mine is a layman or "fake" marriage. You tried to use the analogy I used well, and fucked it up beyond recognition.
Is your marriage the exact same as a man who is in love with his sheep? Male Pig fuckers usually pick the females...does that make it "normal".
Seriously dude, you're trying to equate having sex with an animal that cannot consent to it with consenting adult same sex partners wanting to love, honor, cherish and care for
each other the rest of their lives? That's not sane.
Consent? Since when does that mean ANYTHING to you? I consent to America owning military-grade weapons in accordance with our Constitutional rights but you don't give a shit about that. Once again the inconsistent hypocrisy comes through...
Somebody's getting unhinged and can't stay on topic. Animals, children, dead people and inanimate objects can't consent to a legal contract, which is what marriage is.
At one time, abortion and gay marriage were completely illegal. All we have to do is change the law and viola - an animal can suddenly "consent" to a marriage. Sad what hateful bigot you are - especially when you yourself engage in a very unusual form of love.
Good luck getting that passed. You've heard of PETA right?
Honestly, you are so crazy that this is nothing but fun.
Yeah, I'm stuck waaaaaaay back in.... 2009? A whopping 4 years ago? Man, remember the type of vehicles we had back then? Oh yeah, the same one's we are driving today.
I showed you actual proof that society's opinion has changed drastically in the last four years. Just because you can't evolve doesn't mean the rest of the country isn't doing it without you.
So, you want to bet me or not, chickenshit? I will bet you siggys or avatars that when the SCOTUS rules in June, gay marriage will be legal in CA and Section 3 of DOMA will be struck down. You must agree with me since you won't bet.
)
