Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[bodecea]

Your sad attempt at saying that you can come into another person's house (breaking and entering) and rape them because YOU interpret that they need sex is one of the saddest attempts at an analogy I've seen in a while....and I've seen some doozies.

Try it....and see what happens.

I didn't say I could - you did. You said the law was open to interpretation. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy at claiming laws that you like (ie against rape) are not open to interpretation, but laws you don't like (ie my RIGHT to own and carrya gun) you ignorantly declare are "open to interpretation". And that is why you are so angry right now. Because you realize how dumb you sound when laws you love are questioned.

So are you ready to be a big girl now [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and admit that you are 100% wrong? The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land (as dictated by the Supremacy Clause). And our laws - such as laws against rape - are not open to interpretation.

Should I interpret your silence to mean you acknowledge you are wrong [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]? I'm giving you ample opportunity to respond here.

Tell us some more about how you believe you can break into someone's house and rape them.

 

[Faun]

Are you ******* color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

Another RW welcher? What a surprise.

I didn't "welch" [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]. Fauny pasted a section of the Constitution which proved I was correct and she was WRONG (as always). She's now given up because I own her.

But I'll give you the opportunity now - please highlight in blue the section above (which Faun posted) which grants the Supreme Court the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

This is a very simple request. What's wrong, you guys don't know how to change the color of text on USMB?

This is your chance bodecea. Highlight the section in blue which shows the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution and I will permanently leave USMB.

How many wrong comments can you make is a single post???

"I didn't welch"

Wrong, You did welch. You said you would leave if you could be shown where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself. Despite being shown, you refuse to leave.

"Fauny pasted a section of the Constitution which proved I was correct..."

Wrong, I highlighted the text which proves you are dead wrong.

"...and she was WRONG (as always)."

Wrong, I'm a "he," not a "she."

"She's now given up..."

Wrong, I have not given up. You are too stupid to understand the difference between giving up an not responding within a couple of minutes.

"... because I own her."

Wrong, you don't own shit. In fact, you prove all the time you don't even know what that means. You just say it, even when it doesn't apply, because you like the way it sounds.

"This is a very simple request."

Wrong, it's a very stupid requests since the text was already highlighted for you.

"What's wrong, you guys don't know how to change the color of text on USMB?"

Wrong, you can't distinguish between someone unable to post in color from someone unwilling to post in color.

"which shows the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution and I will permanently leave USMB."

Wrong, you've already welched and proven you are not going to leave no matter what. You've been shown you were wrong, but you're not a man of your word. Rather than honor your word, you are willing to demonstrate for all here what a lowlife scum you really are and ignore the fact that you were shown where the Constitution empowers the U.S.S.C. to rule on the Constitution itself.

So basically, virtually everything in that post of yours was wrong, as I have demonstrated. To answer my own question above, 8 glaring errors in that one post. Pretty much like most of your posts, isn't that right, ChoadBreath?

Now begone, Loser!

 

[P@triot]

Are you ******* color blind? Is that the root of your problem? It's not enough that I highlighted the relevant text, you want it in blue too?

Moron, just for the record, I don't follow your instructions. I would have thought that is rather obvious without having to state it, but you are a special kind of stupid without a grasp on the obvious.

You said you would leave if someone could show you where the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself, you would cease posting here.

I showed you.

You now refuse to keep your word and leave (as predicted).

Is that simple enough for you? And look, nothing needed to be posted in blue which wasn't already highlighted for you.

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is afraid her ignorance will stand out! Thank you for proving that you simply pasted text which did NOT show that the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution itself.

Game. Set. Match.

This goes to show just how rightarded you are, rottie ... I did highlight the relevant text from the Constitution.

As far as your inability to understand what I highlighted, that's an entirely different subject.

Your ignorance aside, what I highlighted was where the Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court "judicial Power" (i.e., the power to rule on a case brought before them, that you denied they have) and that judicial power extends to "all Cases, in Law and Equity" and that "judicial power" to rule on "all cases" includes cases on the Constitution itself, "arising under this Constitution"

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

Oh...my....God! Just when I thought [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] ignorance could not possibly get any worse. You just defeated your own argument.

As you pointed out, it states judicial power for all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution - NOT the Constitution itself. It does not say law and equity arising IN this Constitution. It says UNDER this Constitution - as in laws that are written arising from the result of the Constitution we are creating here (ie the formation of Congress, etc.).

You can't understand basic English! And that is why you are a high-school drop out and supporting ignorant Dumbocrat redistribution of wealth.

You lose!

 

[P@triot]

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] is afraid her ignorance will stand out! Thank you for proving that you simply pasted text which did NOT show that the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on the Constitution itself.

Game. Set. Match.

This goes to show just how rightarded you are, rottie ... I did highlight the relevant text from the Constitution.

As far as your inability to understand what I highlighted, that's an entirely different subject.

Your ignorance aside, what I highlighted was where the Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court "judicial Power" (i.e., the power to rule on a case brought before them, that you denied they have) and that judicial power extends to "all Cases, in Law and Equity" and that "judicial power" to rule on "all cases" includes cases on the Constitution itself, "arising under this Constitution"

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

Oh...my....God! Just when I thought [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] ignorance could not possibly get any worse. You just defeated your own argument.

As you pointed out, it states judicial power for all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution - NOT the Constitution itself. It does not say law and equity arising IN this Constitution. It says UNDER this Constitution - as in laws that are written arising from the result of the Constitution we are creating here (ie the formation of Congress, etc.).

You can't understand basic English! And that is why you are a high-school drop out and supporting ignorant Dumbocrat redistribution of wealth.

You lose!

[MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] just illustrated her ignorance and her lack of understanding basic English for the world!

Faun, you've never read the Constitution. Ever. We all know it. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about. You desperately did a Google search and ignorantly posted the first thing you found mentioning the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for you, it simply reaffirms what I already stated - there is NO power for the Supreme Court to decide what the U.S. Constitution means.

Do you understand that can't exist? Do you understand that could never exist? And do you understand why? Of course not - because you're Dumbocrat cum-slurper.

Come on cum-slurper, please see if you can think beyond the second grade and realize why someone with an ounce of common sense would never grant ANY governing body the power to interpret or otherwise rule on something like the Constitution (this is going to be fall down hilarious watching this cum-slurper trip all over herself here).

 

[P@triot]

I didn't say I could - you did. You said the law was open to interpretation. I merely pointed out your hypocrisy at claiming laws that you like (ie against rape) are not open to interpretation, but laws you don't like (ie my RIGHT to own and carrya gun) you ignorantly declare are "open to interpretation". And that is why you are so angry right now. Because you realize how dumb you sound when laws you love are questioned.

So are you ready to be a big girl now [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] and admit that you are 100% wrong? The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land (as dictated by the Supremacy Clause). And our laws - such as laws against rape - are not open to interpretation.

Should I interpret your silence to mean you acknowledge you are wrong [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]? I'm giving you ample opportunity to respond here.

Tell us some more about how you believe you can break into someone's house and rape them.

Those are your words [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]. You're refusal to debate this is evidence of two things:

1.) You know you are wrong

2.) You realize you are mentally inferior and afraid to answer because you know I will drive the final nail in the debate coffin from which you will have no where left to go with your irrational and incorrect premise

It amazes me how Dumbocrats would rather carry the liberal narrative and be wrong, then be informed and be correct.

 

[thanatos144]

Check your christian morality bullshit at the door and LEARN to pick your fights. Gays are a minute voting block but they DO have the support of many others.
Losing elections over trivial bullshit that only affects a few people while the debt and everything else spirals out of control makes no sense.

Lets focus on the things that matter to everyone and stop picking fights that alienate us over small things.

Sin is sin for believers so stop bitching about what Sally does with her tongue when Johnny is no better off when he envies the Harley in his neighbors garage.
If they want to partake in the hell aka marriage give it to them. It's a piece of ******* paper ultimately.

Get over yourself . Stop telling people that they have to tolerate their 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion being destroyed just so you can feel good about your gay friends. If you think this is about marriage you are a idiot because it isn't. It is about forcing a Religion to change its ways... It is about destroying religion and you like the good progressive tool you are help them.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Check your christian morality bullshit at the door and LEARN to pick your fights. Gays are a minute voting block but they DO have the support of many others.
Losing elections over trivial bullshit that only affects a few people while the debt and everything else spirals out of control makes no sense.

Lets focus on the things that matter to everyone and stop picking fights that alienate us over small things.

Sin is sin for believers so stop bitching about what Sally does with her tongue when Johnny is no better off when he envies the Harley in his neighbors garage.
If they want to partake in the hell aka marriage give it to them. It's a piece of ******* paper ultimately.

Get over yourself . Stop telling people that they have to tolerate their 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion being destroyed just so you can feel good about your gay friends. If you think this is about marriage you are a idiot because it isn't. It is about forcing a Religion to change its ways... It is about destroying religion and you like the good progressive tool you are help them.

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

 

[thanatos144]

Check your christian morality bullshit at the door and LEARN to pick your fights. Gays are a minute voting block but they DO have the support of many others.
Losing elections over trivial bullshit that only affects a few people while the debt and everything else spirals out of control makes no sense.

Lets focus on the things that matter to everyone and stop picking fights that alienate us over small things.

Sin is sin for believers so stop bitching about what Sally does with her tongue when Johnny is no better off when he envies the Harley in his neighbors garage.
If they want to partake in the hell aka marriage give it to them. It's a piece of ******* paper ultimately.

Get over yourself . Stop telling people that they have to tolerate their 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion being destroyed just so you can feel good about your gay friends. If you think this is about marriage you are a idiot because it isn't. It is about forcing a Religion to change its ways... It is about destroying religion and you like the good progressive tool you are help them.

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

 

[bodecea]

Should I interpret your silence to mean you acknowledge you are wrong [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]? I'm giving you ample opportunity to respond here.

Tell us some more about how you believe you can break into someone's house and rape them.

Those are your words [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]. You're refusal to debate this is evidence of two things:

1.) You know you are wrong

2.) You realize you are mentally inferior and afraid to answer because you know I will drive the final nail in the debate coffin from which you will have no where left to go with your irrational and incorrect premise

It amazes me how Dumbocrats would rather carry the liberal narrative and be wrong, then be informed and be correct.

So....you didn't say this?:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8303684-post1431.html

Lets see if we can simplify this even further for you @bodecea and @Faun. Since your both women, I'll use an issue that hits close to home:

Am I arbitrarily allowed to decide to "interpret" the laws against rape for myself and then enter your home to rape you citing that I had "interpreted" that the law forbidding rape didn't apply because my "interpretation" of it is that the law is void if I deem you need sex and/or I deem that pro-creation was immediately necessary for the survival of mankind? Yes or No and why?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Obama was opposed to gay marriage.
Finger in the wind and WALAH!
He supports gay marriage.
At election time.

Well that's because Obama is a politician.

He realized gay people have money and while they may be a small voter block, evidently they have quite a bit of political pull these days.

You see, the angry, straight white man voter block is ever shrinking which is why Obama (and the Democrats in general) are targeting all the other groups which collectively far outnumber angry, straight white man voters.

Republicans have yet to figure this out, you see. Some are coming around....such as Gramps. And Gramps is right. If you über conservatives don't figure this out, you're gonna be left in the dust, not that I would give a shit frankly. The republicans are slowly just turning into the party of stupid thanks to bullshit like fighting against gay marriage, something that ultimately has no impact on your life whatsoever.

And maybe, just maybe, Obama figured out supporting gay marriage was simply the right thing to do. People do change, you know.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Get over yourself . Stop telling people that they have to tolerate their 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion being destroyed just so you can feel good about your gay friends. If you think this is about marriage you are a idiot because it isn't. It is about forcing a Religion to change its ways... It is about destroying religion and you like the good progressive tool you are help them.

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

When did that happen? I'd like case examples and judicial rulings as examples please. And if you can't provide any examples of this happening yet, then you are:

1). Uninformed as to how the law works regarding religion
2). The very chicken-little lunatic fringe Gramps is talking about.

 

[thanatos144]

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

When did that happen? I'd like case examples and judicial rulings as examples please. And if you can't provide any examples of this happening yet, then you are:

1). Uninformed as to how the law works regarding religion
2). The very chicken-little lunatic fringe Gramps is talking about.

Hey dumbass they already sued a baker for not making their cakes. Do you honestly think they wont sue a church? LOL I cant tell if your a lying ass or just stupid.

 

[Katzndogz]

If gays would not try to interfere with others who are trying to live according to their chosen religious principles they would have far less objection.

 

[bodecea]

Get over yourself . Stop telling people that they have to tolerate their 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion being destroyed just so you can feel good about your gay friends. If you think this is about marriage you are a idiot because it isn't. It is about forcing a Religion to change its ways... It is about destroying religion and you like the good progressive tool you are help them.

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

Right after "they" sue a church for not marrying an inter-racial couple. Which will be right after "they" sue a church for not marrying an inter-faith couple. Which will be right after "they" sue a church for not marrying a previously divorced couple.

 

[bodecea]

If gays would not try to interfere with others who are trying to live according to their chosen religious principles they would have far less objection.

Unfortunately, some seem to believe that "trying to live according to their chosen religious principles" means they get to tell others what they can or cannot do.

 

[Luissa]

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

When did that happen? I'd like case examples and judicial rulings as examples please. And if you can't provide any examples of this happening yet, then you are:



1). Uninformed as to how the law works regarding religion

2). The very chicken-little lunatic fringe Gramps is talking about.

Hey dumbass they already sued a baker for not making their cakes. Do you honestly think they wont sue a church? LOL I cant tell if your a lying ass or just stupid.

A discrimination claim was filed with labor and industries.
And someone can try to sue a church, but probably wouldn't win.

But that is your argument again gay marriage? How is that working for ya?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

Right after "they" sue a church for not marrying an inter-racial couple. Which will be right after "they" sue a church for not marrying an inter-faith couple. Which will be right after "they" sue a church for not marrying a previously divorced couple.

I bet they already do

 

[thanatos144]

When did that happen? I'd like case examples and judicial rulings as examples please. And if you can't provide any examples of this happening yet, then you are:



1). Uninformed as to how the law works regarding religion

2). The very chicken-little lunatic fringe Gramps is talking about.

Hey dumbass they already sued a baker for not making their cakes. Do you honestly think they wont sue a church? LOL I cant tell if your a lying ass or just stupid.

A discrimination claim was filed with labor and industries.
And someone can try to sue a church, but probably wouldn't win.

But that is your argument again gay marriage? How is that working for ya?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The truth is always better then the lies you tell.

 

[Katzndogz]

If gays would not try to interfere with others who are trying to live according to their chosen religious principles they would have far less objection.

Unfortunately, some seem to believe that "trying to live according to their chosen religious principles" means they get to tell others what they can or cannot do.

No. It's what they refuse to do when ordered by a homosexual.

After all, the baker didn't tell they gay couple they couldn't get married. He merely refused to participate himself.

 

[KevinWestern]

If gays would not try to interfere with others who are trying to live according to their chosen religious principles they would have far less objection.

What about all the gay employers that are being forced to put their personal values aside when they hire a Christian employee? To my knowledge it's illegal to "not hire"/fire someone because of their religious beliefs.

What about all of the gay bakers who are being FORCED every day in this country to make cakes for Christian weddings - a religion that often makes gay people out to be "perverted sinners"?

.