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

[P@triot]

Read it carefully.

Prayer in the Public Schools and the Establishment Clause

There are so many flaws in your "logic" here, I don't even know where to begin.

• The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .". Is a mayor "congress"?
  
  
• Furthermore, ignoring the first glaring fact for a moment, is a mayor praying "establishing a religion"?
  
  
• Further still, you're completely irrelevant court cases in the link are all school-related. Are you under the impression that a mayor operates inside of a school or something?

Considering I have a 100% rate of absolutely tearing you apart like a rapid pit bull with a kitten every time you broach the Constitution, I'm stunned you don't steer completely clear of that document at all costs.

Because aside from being an angry snotty militant lesbian, she is also a flaming far left moonbat lib. And far left wing moonbat libs are prone to standing in the middle of the room full of people screaming that it is everyone else that is wrong...And now here is the hypocrisy.....She is also a capitalist.

holy shit is that freaking hilarious....

 

[rdean]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

 

[Seawytch]

And apparently (not to mention, sadly), you two cannot see that a mayor does not lose his citizenship - and thus his Constitutional 1st Amendment rights - simply because he won an election.



A mayor can lead a prayer any ******* time he wants - and as a matter of fact - the mayor of my great city does damn near monthly. If you don't like it, you are free not to listen to it and participate.

As a private citizen, a mayor can pray all he wants.....and many probably do....however, in his OFFICIAL capacity as a government official, he cannot LEAD a prayer....he represents the government and the government cannot favor one religion over another or even religion over no religion.



It's not that hard, really.

Says WHOM?.....Since there is no criminal law governing such things, there is little recourse for the objector other than to enlist the help of some smarmy lefty lawyer or the A-******* CLU

In 1983, the high court ruled that legislatures could begin their sessions with a prayer, as long as there is no attempt to proselytize or disparage any faith, and as long as the process for selecting the prayer-giver is not discriminatory.

 

[P@triot]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

You would know all about hate, wouldn't you - being a Dumbocrat at all. We leave hate and racism to your side of the aisle.

Our side is too busy solving the problems Dumbocrats create. We do that by forming sound, Constitutional policy.

I 100% defend SeaWytch and her lifestyle. Realizing that her gay marriage is a sham which actually creates real discrimination (once you declare that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, you have zero grounds to stop a man and 10 women from having a legal marriage or a woman and a goat) is not "hate". It's called being informed, understanding the issue, and grasping sound policy. Things that you Dumbocrats will never do. You're brains are too filled with hate and racism I guess - there's no room left for understanding issues.

 

[candycorn]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

There is no end in sight to their hatred...it's good news for the Dems. For those of us who wish there were two Parties...not so great.

 

[rdean]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

There is no end in sight to their hatred...it's good news for the Dems. For those of us who wish there were two Parties...not so great.

On one side, you have 90% white, that's the GOP.

On the other side, you have everyone else. That's called a coalition party.

Vast difference.

 

[Seawytch]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

There is no end in sight to their hatred...it's good news for the Dems. For those of us who wish there were two Parties...not so great.

The GOP, just like churches, will adapt or die.

 

[Faun]

...just for the record, I don't follow your instructions.

That's Faun code for "I've been owned once again by Rottweiler"...

You live in a world of delusion. The only question remaining at this point is, why are you still posting here? You said you would leave if someone showed you were the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself and you were shown.

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

 

[P@triot]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

There is no end in sight to their hatred...it's good news for the Dems. For those of us who wish there were two Parties...not so great.

Oh please.... Nobody wishes there was a one party, fascist, oppressive Dumbocrat stranglehold more than you. It's amazing how much you lie.

Hey, I know - why don't you tell us again how the Dumbocrats are the party for women!

How Anthony Weiner went from spectacle to just plain sad (Dumbocrats continue to humiliate their wives and treat women as sexual playgrounds...)

San Diego mayor scandal: 8th accuser comes forward | abc7.com (Dumbocrats continue to humiliate their wives and treat women as sexual playgrounds...)

Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal (Dumbocrats continue to humiliate their wives and treat women as sexual playgrounds...)

Secret Service: "Kennedy was a cheating, reckless husband whose aides snuck women into the White House to appease his sexual appetite" (Dumbocrats continue to humiliate their wives and treat women as sexual playgrounds...)

Sexual Assaults in Occupy Wall Street Camps

Woman Describes Rapes at Occupy Wall Street

Note to Occupy Wall Street: Rape, riots, murder, arson, pushing old ladies down the stairs, lice, and crapping in public don’t poll well

Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts | Mail Online

No Equal Pay For Women In White House Despite Ledbetter Law - Investors.com

Obama's record on paying women White House aides not stellar - Washington Times

Women in Obama White House earn less than men, amid 'equal pay' debate

Obama's Top White House Aides are All Men | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Obama Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter: "Women aren’t concerned about the past"

HBO Actress Stars in New Obama Campaign Ad Focused Almost Exclusively on Socials Issues

ObamaCare: no mammograms for women under 50

Joe Salazar Rape Comment: Women Don't Need Guns, Even If They Fear Sexual Assault

Colorado Democrat: Women Don't Need Guns If They Feel Like They're Going To Be Raped *UPDATED | RedState

War on Women! Rape survivor dissed by Colorado Democrats

Mayor Michael Bloomberg during holiday party: "Look at the ass on her" - NY Daily News

 

[P@triot]

...just for the record, I don't follow your instructions.

That's Faun code for "I've been owned once again by Rottweiler"...

You live in a world of delusion. The only question remaining at this point is, why are you still posting here? You said you would leave if someone showed you were the Constitution grants the U.S.S.C. the power to rule on the Constitution itself and you were shown.

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

And all you did was copy and paste the section of the Constitution which proved I was correct.

You lose cum-guzzler!

 

[Faun]

[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!

You really are the dumbest idiot on the planet, ChoadBreath. "ALL cases" include cases which challenge the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison is but one example where the Supreme Court ruled on the power of judicial review.

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

 

[P@triot]

Right wingers promise me. Never let the gay shit go. Hold on to the hate as long as you can.

There is no end in sight to their hatred...it's good news for the Dems. For those of us who wish there were two Parties...not so great.

The GOP, just like churches, will adapt or die.

Yeah, you've been "predicting" your fantasy for years. And all that has happened is the GOP has dominated the political landscape. 60% of the entire nation is run by a GOP governor. 232 seats in the House are filled by a GOP Congressman. And you don't even want to get started on conservative mayors, county auditors, judges, city council members, etc. who occupy positions thanks to the record 2010 mid-term ass-kicking (it was a bloodbath).

Now tell us for the 132,000th time how the GOP is "dead". The reality is, the GOP is stronger than ever because the Tea Party is weeding out liberal RINO's and replacing them with great leaders like Rand Paul.

 

[Faun]

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).

Cries the rightard who thinks "all cases" "arising under the Constitution" doesn't include the Constitution.



Hey, rightard, tell the forum again how the Constitution instructs the president to sign a Constitutional amendment to ratify it......

 

[Redfish]

There is no end in sight to their hatred...it's good news for the Dems. For those of us who wish there were two Parties...not so great.

The GOP, just like churches, will adapt or die.

Yeah, you've been "predicting" your fantasy for years. And all that has happened is the GOP has dominated the political landscape. 60% of the entire nation is run by a GOP governor. 232 seats in the House are filled by a GOP Congressman. And you don't even want to get started on conservative mayors, county auditors, judges, city council members, etc. who occupy positions thanks to the record 2010 mid-term ass-kicking (it was a bloodbath).

Now tell us for the 132,000th time how the GOP is "dead". The reality is, the GOP is stronger than ever because the Tea Party is weeding out liberal RINO's and replacing them with great leaders like Rand Paul.

exactly, and that is why the dem/libs are so scared. They see the tide turning away from their failed liberalism and all they can do is spread hate.

Somewhere deep in their small brains there are a few cells that realize that liberalism is wrong, and that creates a conflict that they are not able to deal with.

Liberalism is a mental illness.

 

[Faun]

State laws cannot be forced on churches. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

WTF do guns have to do with church, rightard?? Just how ******* crazy are you?

Now go away sweetie and play with your dolls. Let the adults talk.

Hey, look who's gay. Rottie's a flaming ***.

 

[Faun]

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

Yes, I do think you are stupid. State laws cannot be forced on churches. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Says the asshole who claims the U.S. Constitution is "open to interpretation". What happens when a cum-guzzling **** like you claims that laws can be forced on churches? I mean, you Dumbocrats just forced Obamacare abortions on the churches...

You are insanely stupid, ChoadBreath. ObamaCare does not force abortions on anyone or any establishment.

 

[Faun]

State laws cannot be forced on churches. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Cum-guzzler here tried to claim that the Supreme Court was empowered to interpret the U.S. Constitution. When I challenged her to show me where in the Constitution the Supreme Court derives this power, she couldn't do it.

I now challenge you - once again - to show me where in the U.S. Constitution I can find "the separation of church and state"?

(Hint - you can't do it because it doesn't exist cum-guzzler . But hey, just like the last challenge, I'm sure that won't stop you from humiliating yourself trying)

You've been shown, rightard. It ain't my fault you're too stupid to understand the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

Which part of my post do you not agree with?

1.) Did racist southerners not create the KKK?
2.) Have the Democratic/Republican Parties not changed at all since 1870?
3.) Did Lincoln not wish to abolish slavery via Federal (and not state) action?

Put your money where your mouth is Thanatos, and explain exactly where I was incorrect.

Thanatos, still awaiting a response on the above post. You called me a F*cking idiot, and would appreciate you to elaborate why by going through the three bulleted points above.

Why? I answered all of them before you posted you just refuse to believe democrats were, are and always will be racists

tapatalk post

If it's the Democrats who are racist, then how is it out of 43 blacks in Congress, Democrats elected 42 of them while Republicans elected only 1?

 

[P@triot]

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"

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!

You really are the dumbest idiot on the planet. "ALL cases" include cases which challenge the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison is but one example where the Supreme Court ruled on the power of judicial review.

You're lack of reading comprehension is painfully obvious...

First of all, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. If the law was "open to interpretation" it would be impossible to obey as each person would "interpret" it differently. You've already admitted, cum-guzzler, that lower laws like the speed limit, rape, and murder are not open to "interpretation" - yet you're so ignorant you want to make the argument that higher laws are?

Second, another illustration of your lack of reading comprehension is that I specifically addressed Bodecea and SeaWytch in my challenge. I did not offer the challenge to the entire board. So even if someone had actually provided you with information that made you correct for the first time in your miserable life as parasite-draining burden on the U.S., I still would not be required to leave USMB to keep my word, cum-guzzler.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you (on more than one occasion).

Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.

On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.

I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.

Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...

Obviously cum-guzzler Fauny fancies himself a lady. It's also obvious why she can't understand the Constitution since she can't understand a simple post on USMB. You must really love my dick Fauny, because you go out of your way to have me bend you over in front of everyone on USMB every day

 

[P@triot]

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!

You really are the dumbest idiot on the planet. "ALL cases" include cases which challenge the Constitution. Marbury vs Madison is but one example where the Supreme Court ruled on the power of judicial review.

You're lack of reading comprehension is painfully obvious...

First of all, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. If the law was "open to interpretation" it would be impossible to obey as each person would "interpret" it differently. You've already admitted, cum-guzzler, that lower laws like the speed limit, rape, and murder are not open to "interpretation" - yet you're so ignorant you want to make the argument that higher laws are?

Second, another illustration of your lack of reading comprehension is that I specifically addressed Bodecea and SeaWytch in my challenge. I did not offer the challenge to the entire board. So even if someone had actually provided you with information that made you correct for the first time in your miserable life as parasite-draining burden on the U.S., I still would not be required to leave USMB to keep my word, cum-guzzler.

Now now...Rottie knows so much more than the Supreme Court.

On this issue (the power of the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution) - your goddamn right I do.

I'll make you ladies a deal right here and now. If you can provide the article and section of the Constitution which authorizes the Supreme Court to alter the Constitution (or even rule on the Constitution itself), I'll leave USMB and I will never come back.

Can't do it? Yeah, I didn't think so...

Obviously cum-guzzler Fauny fancies himself a lady. It's also obvious why she can't understand the Constitution since she can't understand a simple post on USMB. You must really love my dick Fauny, because you go out of your way to have me bend you over in front of everyone on USMB every day

Seriously folks - this is one of the more epic beat downs here. The original post for all to see and I even included the post number and the page number of the original quote (which I thought was an especially nice touch for making [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] my *****).

It's glaring proof of just how profoundly ignorant fauny is....