Please show me the word "Christ" in the U.S. Constitution.

[Kosh]

Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..

Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..

right... all the jurists over the last 200 years should just go give back their law licenses.

moron.

So in other words you have no posts showing that you truly understand the constitution beyond what your far left programming tells you it is..

Well we already knew that one..

what a braindead troll... *yawn*

i'm going to figure you're still in middle school and have serious comprehension issues.

Yes the irony impaired far left just drones on and on..

Yes the far let is often boring, but I am only as good as those far left programmed droneposts allow..

I understand... the discussion is above your head, little boy. you have nothing to say, know you don't understand our caselaw or constitution , so play the "I know you are, but what am I" game.

like I said.

poor little troll....

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

 

[Kosh]

btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.

Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.

So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..

Please show them all se we can see!

Failure on her part to provide you any or her justification of how what Obama did as not being the same will be more proof of what you said.

except his Obama derangement syndrome proves nothing but that he is Obama-deranged. I understand if you are too. it's a common afflication among rightwingnuts on this board.

So yes you are far left as I pointed out and thus you posted a lie when you claimed you were not!

Yet the troll rants begin because you call out the far left for what they are..

Can not handle being far left, that is no one else's problem but your own..

 

[Kosh]

btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.

Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.

So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..

Please show them all se we can see!

your premise is a fallacy. again, you would have to understand the constitution, our caselaw and our laws for any conversation to be meantingful.

your idiocy, trolling and Obama-derangement syndrome indicate none of those.

you really should probably let the grown ups talk. you only prove the idiocy of the rabid right. and there are rightwingers hwere who actually present an intellectual challenge.

you aren't one of them, little boy.

You're puckering up to Obama's ass proves what he claimed. That you use Liberal buzzwords makes it even more apparent.

so not being Obama-deranged is somenow "puckering up".

I love rightwingnuts, so dense... so ignorant.

Yes more proof that you are a far left programmed drone..

Oh my the iron impaired far left just can not admit when they are wrong or when they have been caught.

Reminds me of a two year old..

 

[MrDVS1]

There is a reason why there are so many amendments.

Yeah, and the biggest one is that we are 20 or so constitutional conventions behind.

 

[Valerie]

Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!

you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.

so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.

Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..

Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..

except that you're the braindead twit who doesn't understand our legal system.

here... learn something, wackadoodle....

Stare decisis

Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).

Stare decisis Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

what is actually ironic is a rightwingnut toon spewing nonsense while insulting the people who actually understand our legal system.

go learn something. seriously.

My oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again and proves that they do not understand the constitution..

your repetition of the same idiotic statement proves nothing but that you're an idiot and a troll.

when you can come back with some type of actual constitutional argument that doesn't pretend an idiot like you decides what is constitutional, i'll be interested in what you have to say.

until then... run along.

don't hold your breath waiting!

 

[orogenicman]

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

how 'bout you PROVE you can write an intelligible post...

You are asking the impossible. lol

 

[Kosh]

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

how 'bout you PROVE you can write an intelligible post...

Oh the irony impaired far left shines through once again..

 

[Kosh]

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

how 'bout you PROVE you can write an intelligible post...

You are asking the impossible. lol

And another far left drone backs up the first!

Who would have thought that!

Then again they have to hide the fact that the far left does not understand the Constitution at all costs..

 

[Kosh]

Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!

you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.

so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.

Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..

Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..

except that you're the braindead twit who doesn't understand our legal system.

here... learn something, wackadoodle....

Stare decisis

Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).

Stare decisis Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

what is actually ironic is a rightwingnut toon spewing nonsense while insulting the people who actually understand our legal system.

go learn something. seriously.

My oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again and proves that they do not understand the constitution..

your repetition of the same idiotic statement proves nothing but that you're an idiot and a troll.

when you can come back with some type of actual constitutional argument that doesn't pretend an idiot like you decides what is constitutional, i'll be interested in what you have to say.

until then... run along.

don't hold your breath waiting!

Yep waiting for the irony impaired far left propaganda drone to post that they understand the Constitution..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

how 'bout you PROVE you can write an intelligible post...

The funniest part is he PAYS to be here and make the same post a hundred times a day.

 

[Conservative65]

Just sayin'...


How many times does "God" or "Christ" appear in the 27 Amendments to the Constitution?


0

Zero.


None?

Not at all?

Nil.

Nein.

Zip.

Zippo.

Ziltch.


You'd think our "Christian" founders would have included something, someone so important to their beliefs.

Maybe the liberals have secretly removed it when the country wasn't looking...

The same number of time words like healthcare and food stamps do. The difference is the ones who say there is a total separation of religion and governme because of what you ask don't have a problem supporting things for which no such words exist.

I had a similar conversation with a self proclaimed Liberal Christian. The issues were same sex marriage and abortion. He said that while I had every right to believe what I believed on them, I shouldn’t intertwine them with government action and that religion shouldn’t play a role in policy. He hinted that while he also believed in God, the word was not in the Constitution. I asked him if he supported programs such as food stamps and Obamacare to which he said “yes”. I asked him why he supported them. His response was “because it’s the Christian thing to do”. He never did explain when asked how it was OK for his religious beliefs to be intertwined with the government yet things supported by religious beliefs of others with which he disagree was wrong. Typical Liberal.

 

[Conservative65]

btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.

Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.

So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..

Please show them all se we can see!

your premise is a fallacy. again, you would have to understand the constitution, our caselaw and our laws for any conversation to be meantingful.

your idiocy, trolling and Obama-derangement syndrome indicate none of those.

you really should probably let the grown ups talk. you only prove the idiocy of the rabid right. and there are rightwingers hwere who actually present an intellectual challenge.

you aren't one of them, little boy.

You're puckering up to Obama's ass proves what he claimed. That you use Liberal buzzwords makes it even more apparent.

so not being Obama-deranged is somenow "puckering up".

I love rightwingnuts, so dense... so ignorant.

Calling those of us that disagree with him Obama deranged is. I love you lefwing nuts. You say you aren't something but everything you speak shows that you are.

 

[Conservative65]

btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.

Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.

So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..

Please show them all se we can see!

Failure on her part to provide you any or her justification of how what Obama did as not being the same will be more proof of what you said.

except his Obama derangement syndrome proves nothing but that he is Obama-deranged. I understand if you are too. it's a common afflication among rightwingnuts on this board.

The common afflication is people like you thinking anyone that disagrees with Obama is deranged and racists.

 

[Valerie]

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

how 'bout you PROVE you can write an intelligible post...

The funniest part is he PAYS to be here and make the same post a hundred times a day.

i'm sure he imagines that membership banner somehow legitimizes his posts..

vendors everywhere are thankful it doesn't take much intellect to spend a few bucks on paypal!

 

[orogenicman]

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

how 'bout you PROVE you can write an intelligible post...

You are asking the impossible. lol

And another far left drone backs up the first!

Who would have thought that!

Then again they have to hide the fact that the far left does not understand the Constitution at all costs..

You have yet to demonstrate that you've even read it, much less understand it. Congratulations.

 

[Mustang]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

There's no mention of capitalism either.

 

[jasonnfree]

Please show me the word Charity in the US Constitution.

Nope. No welfare, medicaide or other social bullshit. Zip. Nada. None. Zero.

Also ain't no Obamacare in there either. In fact there is no mention of healthcare at all in the Constitution.

There's no mention of capitalism either.

Or corporations for that matter.

 

[jasonnfree]

right... all the jurists over the last 200 years should just go give back their law licenses.

moron.

So in other words you have no posts showing that you truly understand the constitution beyond what your far left programming tells you it is..

Well we already knew that one..

what a braindead troll... *yawn*

i'm going to figure you're still in middle school and have serious comprehension issues.

Yes the irony impaired far left just drones on and on..

Yes the far let is often boring, but I am only as good as those far left programmed droneposts allow..

I understand... the discussion is above your head, little boy. you have nothing to say, know you don't understand our caselaw or constitution , so play the "I know you are, but what am I" game.

like I said.

poor little troll....

Yes the iron impaired far left can not prove the understand the constitution..

Prove the understand the constitution? Huh???

 

[TooTall]

Healthcare was not a significant portion of the average family's budget then.

Plus, in early America if you had whatever they could treat and could not pay they just MIGHT have thrown you out in the street to die. In the 50's something changed. Medical science evolved and some costly treatments came about. Seemed we picked a socialist system then where most everyone had a right to them expensive treatments.

If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?

Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?

the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.

and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.

one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.

Like this millionaire?

"A federal appeals court in Boston today upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her severe gender identity disorder."

thanks for the deflection. it simply has nothing to do with what we were discussing. surely you can do better than that.

You posted:
"one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness."

I merely pointing out one of thousands of examples of people who are not millionaires that get FREE treatment. Seemed germane to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?

Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?

the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.

and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.

one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.

Like this millionaire?

"A federal appeals court in Boston today upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her severe gender identity disorder."

thanks for the deflection. it simply has nothing to do with what we were discussing. surely you can do better than that.

You posted:
"one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness."

I merely pointing out one of thousands of examples of people who are not millionaires that get FREE treatment. Seemed germane to me.

Gee, if onlymillionaires get treated then there must be a ton of unemployed doctors and nurses since there are maybe 1M millioanires in the country.
More fantasy from the poseur in chief of USMB.