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

[thanatos144]

Sure, uh-huh. And the 42 black Democrats out of 43 blacks in Congress are really Republicans.

Oh, and the flag hanging at the tea party, not being held by anyone, was really planted there by a covert Democrat.

Do you think blacks can't be racist?

tapatalk post

And there it is -- the white flag of diversion.

How is it a diversion when I was talking about democrats being racist?

tapatalk post

 

[P@triot]

Of course judges can (and do) interpret the law.

It's called, "precedent,"

This is the problem in dealing with immature high school girls like [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] here. They try to use words they don't even understand to sound "smart". Incidentally, how sad that this little cum-guzzler doesn't even know a basic word like "precedent"?

Precedent, my ignorant little cum-guzzler, is not "interpreting law". Precedent is taking past rulings and using them to apply to a present ruling of a case similar in nature to the past ruling.

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Are you really this ****'n stupid? More importantly, are you really this lazy that you couldn't even look up the definition of a word you didn't know before humiliating yourself by posting a false definition? Do you the word "interpret" in there anywhere?

 

[P@triot]

Do you think blacks can't be racist?

tapatalk post

And there it is -- the white flag of diversion.

How is it a diversion when I was talking about democrats being racist?

tapatalk post

You'll have to forgive Faun, she's a bit on the immature side (high school) and a lot on the ignorant side. I've schooled her on the Constitution in this thread and she can't deal with it. She keeps insisting that she's "right" even though she can't answer any basic questions or even highlight in blue the part that proves she's "right".

What are you going to do? Kids just don't have the reading comprehension necessary to understand the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

Except I'm not the one sounding angry and unhinged, you are.

Good luck with your plural marriage Strawman...er, fight. Polygamy has already lost at the SCOTUS level but you're welcome to keep trying.

Gay marriage also lost at every level for over 100 years. It's only a matter of time until you Dumbocrats appoint the next unqualified, unhinged idiot to the Supreme Court who believes their job is not to uphold the Constitution, but rather to advance the liberal agenda of collapsing society and then collapsing the U.S. (I would say "justice", but you buffoons actually appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and that troll had never been a judge in her life ).

By the way, you sound like an idiot screaming "strawman" in every post like someone with Tourette's. You're a hypocrite. Be a big girl and own it.

LOL

Yup!

Rotten's gonna be butthurt over the DOMA and Prop 8 ruling for a long, loooong time!

[MENTION=34247]sfcalifornia[/MENTION] is so dumb, even after I posted a link (from CNN no less) to it, she still hasn't figured out that the Supreme Court refused to rule on Prop 8...

 

[Faun]

You were shown where the Constitution grants the power to the Supreme Court (and given a case example) to rule on the Constitution itself, yet you refuse to be a man of your word and leave, as you said you would.

Now you're being the forum *****, looking for an out by acting as if only certain people were allowed to prove what a dumbfucking rightard you are.



Now begone, *****!

One problem my little cum-guzzler - what you posted proved I was right (and proved you're an idiot with a serious reading comprehension problem). I then further proved you're reading comprehension problem by posting my original quote, along with the post number, the page number, and the link to it.

You've been whipped in so many ways (and that's why you're desperate for me to leave - because I've humiliated you with facts).

Another question you can't answer - how can a law be obeyed if it is "open to interpretation"? The fact that you can't answer this is glaring evidence that you are wrong (and my personal ***** on USMB).

Like I said, *****, it ain't my problem that you can't understand the written English of the Constitution. I even cited case law (not that it helps you any since you're still too ******* retarded to comprehend it). It doesn't matter what color I highlight it in, color is not going to lend you any intelligence.

As far as answering your question about interpreting law -- this is yet another shining example of just how ******* stupid you are. I already explained it to you ...

Precedent.

I can't help that your single digit IQ can't grasp the implication of precedent on interpreting law.

Oh, and your idiotic question, "how can a law be obeyed if it is "open to interpretation"?" is beyond retarded since your question is false as most laws are black and white and easy to rule on. Precedent is for those gray areas of the law which are not black and white and require interpretation.

Here, Chief Justice Waite provides an example so plainly, hopefully even a moron like you can understand ...

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."​

Now begone, *****!

 

[Iceman]

Gay shit is all the left talks about. They have an uhealthy obsession with gay shit.

 

[Iceman]

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.

If it is just a piece of ******* paper? Why are their panties so wadded up about getting it? Civil Unions offer the same rights, what is wrong with those?

 

[Faun]

Of course judges can (and do) interpret the law.

It's called, "precedent,"

This is the problem in dealing with immature high school girls like [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] here. They try to use words they don't even understand to sound "smart". Incidentally, how sad that this little cum-guzzler doesn't even know a basic word like "precedent"?

Precedent, my ignorant little cum-guzzler, is not "interpreting law". Precedent is taking past rulings and using them to apply to a present ruling of a case similar in nature to the past ruling.

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Are you really this ****'n stupid? More importantly, are you really this lazy that you couldn't even look up the definition of a word you didn't know before humiliating yourself by posting a false definition? Do you the word "interpret" in there anywhere?

Holyfuckingshit, there is no limit to your idiocy ...

The "earlier event" in the definition you provide is the precedent. Meaning there was no "example" previously.

You are the dumbest ******* imbecile I have ever seen post in a forum. The funniest part is how you try to hide it by calling your betters, 'stupid.' But, ChoadBreath, just so ya know -- you're such an imbecile, there is no hiding it.

Oh, and try a legal dictionary, dumbfuck ...

PRECEDENT

Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.​

 

[P@triot]

Oh, and your idiotic question, "how can a law be obeyed if it is "open to interpretation"?" is beyond retarded since your question is false as most laws are black and white and easy to rule on. Precedent is for those gray areas of the law which are not black and white and require interpretation.

First of all, how can a question be "false"? It's a question, stupid. Only an answer can be false (this cum-guzzler continues to raise the bar on stupidity to jaw-dropping levels).

Second, why are you running from such a simple question like a coward? Because it exposes you for the ignorant broad that you are? How can people be compliant with a law if it is "open to interpretation"?

You just said it yourself (which is what I've been saying all along) - laws are written and black & white specifically without gray area so that they can be obeyed. A law which is "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be followed.

I love watching you have a meltdown because I make you my personal ***** on USMB. Now open wide sweetie...

 

[P@triot]

Of course judges can (and do) interpret the law.

It's called, "precedent,"

This is the problem in dealing with immature high school girls like [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] here. They try to use words they don't even understand to sound "smart". Incidentally, how sad that this little cum-guzzler doesn't even know a basic word like "precedent"?

Precedent, my ignorant little cum-guzzler, is not "interpreting law". Precedent is taking past rulings and using them to apply to a present ruling of a case similar in nature to the past ruling.

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Are you really this ****'n stupid? More importantly, are you really this lazy that you couldn't even look up the definition of a word you didn't know before humiliating yourself by posting a false definition? Do you the word "interpret" in there anywhere?

Holyfuckingshit, there is no limit to your idiocy ...

The "earlier event" in the definition you provide is the precedent. Meaning there was no "example" previously.

You are the dumbest ******* imbecile I have ever seen post in a forum. The funniest part is how you try to hide it by calling your betters, 'stupid.' But, ChoadBreath, just so ya know -- you're such an imbecile, there is no hiding it.

Oh, and try a legal dictionary, dumbfuck ...

PRECEDENT

Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.​

Even with the definition of "precedent" posted, she still attempts to claim that precedence means "interpret the law" (word-for-word from her original post).

Sweetie, "precedence" has nothing to do with "interpret". Lets post the definition again (maybe you can have mumsy read it and explain it to you?):

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

I don't see "interpret law" or anything even remotely similar there (nor does anyone not named faun). And, as we've already established, law is not open to "interpretation" or it would be impossible to obey (a 25mph speed limit means 25mph cum-guzzler, it is not "open to interpretation").

Now open wide sweetie....

 

[JakeStarkey]

"laws are written and black & white specifically without gray area so that they can be obeyed. A law which is "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be followed."

The above is the silliest convoluted use of semantics this morning already.

Many laws have gray areas, which is why courts are required for review.

 

[mal]

"laws are written and black & white specifically without gray area so that they can be obeyed. A law which is "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be followed."

The above is the silliest convoluted use of semantics this morning already.

Many laws have gray areas, which is why courts are required for review.

Exactly!... Like how the Despotic Branch was able to find a Mother's "Right" to End the Heartbeat of her and the Father's Child in her Womb for Convenience and without any say from 1/2 of it's Creation.

Clearly the Founders left the Constitution a little gray for things like that.



peace...

 

[mal]

Of course judges can (and do) interpret the law.

It's called, "precedent,"

This is the problem in dealing with immature high school girls like [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] here. They try to use words they don't even understand to sound "smart". Incidentally, how sad that this little cum-guzzler doesn't even know a basic word like "precedent"?

Precedent, my ignorant little cum-guzzler, is not "interpreting law". Precedent is taking past rulings and using them to apply to a present ruling of a case similar in nature to the past ruling.

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Are you really this ****'n stupid? More importantly, are you really this lazy that you couldn't even look up the definition of a word you didn't know before humiliating yourself by posting a false definition? Do you the word "interpret" in there anywhere?

Holyfuckingshit, there is no limit to your idiocy ...

The "earlier event" in the definition you provide is the precedent. Meaning there was no "example" previously.

You are the dumbest ******* imbecile I have ever seen post in a forum. The funniest part is how you try to hide it by calling your betters, 'stupid.' But, ChoadBreath, just so ya know -- you're such an imbecile, there is no hiding it.

Oh, and try a legal dictionary, dumbfuck ...

PRECEDENT

Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.​

^Liberals are so Angry when they are Wrong...

Keyword in Rottweiler's post?...

Anyone?... Anyone?...



peace...

 

[Gadawg73]

"laws are written and black & white specifically without gray area so that they can be obeyed. A law which is "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be followed."

The above is the silliest convoluted use of semantics this morning already.

Many laws have gray areas, which is why courts are required for review.

Exactly!... Like how the Despotic Branch was able to find a Mother's "Right" to End the Heartbeat of her and the Father's Child in her Womb for Convenience and without any say from 1/2 of it's Creation.

Clearly the Founders left the Constitution a little gray for things like that.



peace...

I personally oppose abortion but know the law and history of it here.
Ronald Reagan wrote in his book, doubt you ever picked it up, about how abortion was a common procedure in colonial times through the late 19th century.
Abortion was legal when the Constitution was written and for how many years before that and how many years after? In all British colonies abortion was legal.
The widespread use of abortion being a modern innovation is all fantasy in your pea brain.

 

[Seawytch]

Watching you get angry because you know I'm right is always amusing...

I asked a simple question. Who the **** are you to tell someone else they must choose ONE person when you demanded the "right" (which we both know doesn't exist anyway - but I digress) to marry someone of the same sex? If you don't have to recognize one man and one woman, who are you to tell someone else they must recognize a single partner?

Quick, fill the board with snarky responses while you desperately call all of your pals in the gay community looking for some sort of response to this question which exposes you as a hypocrite and pins you in the corner from which you can't escape...

Except I'm not the one sounding angry and unhinged, you are.

Good luck with your plural marriage Strawman...er, fight. Polygamy has already lost at the SCOTUS level but you're welcome to keep trying.

Gay marriage also lost at every level for over 100 years. It's only a matter of time until you Dumbocrats appoint the next unqualified, unhinged idiot to the Supreme Court who believes their job is not to uphold the Constitution, but rather to advance the liberal agenda of collapsing society and then collapsing the U.S. (I would say "justice", but you buffoons actually appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and that troll had never been a judge in her life ).

By the way, you sound like an idiot screaming "strawman" in every post like someone with Tourette's. You're a hypocrite. Be a big girl and own it.

Slavery and interracial marriage bans were also upheld for decades. Do you not understand that times they are a changin' and we have a Constitution that can grow with our changing society?

Justice Roberts...never a judge
Samuel Alito...never a judge

Polygamy is a strawman Rotty. It comes down to basic math so I'm taking a chance you can do that. Same sex marriages have the same number of people that all heterosexual marriages now have. Each partner is married to the other, and only to the other. Their rights and obligations are to one another, to any children they may have, and contractual obligations are clear. No changes to existing law has to occur. No interpretation of what the law implies is needed.

That’s not true with polygamy.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage also lost at every level for over 100 years. It's only a matter of time until you Dumbocrats appoint the next unqualified, unhinged idiot to the Supreme Court who believes their job is not to uphold the Constitution, but rather to advance the liberal agenda of collapsing society and then collapsing the U.S. (I would say "justice", but you buffoons actually appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and that troll had never been a judge in her life ).

By the way, you sound like an idiot screaming "strawman" in every post like someone with Tourette's. You're a hypocrite. Be a big girl and own it.

LOL

Yup!

Rotten's gonna be butthurt over the DOMA and Prop 8 ruling for a long, loooong time!

You need to read the ruling because it doesn't say what you think it does

tapatalk post

Oh? And what do YOU think the rulings were and what they mean?

 

[Seawytch]

If it is just a piece of ******* paper? Why are their panties so wadded up about getting it? Civil Unions offer the same rights, what is wrong with those?

Well, to start with they don't offer the same rights. IRS Recognizes all Marriages but not Civil Unions

Secondly, when you say things like "I can have marriage but you can have Civil Unions" that's called "Separate but Equal" and in case you weren't aware, that's unconstitutional.

Now, if you want to remove the word marriage from all legal, civil marriages and call them civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, I'd be fine with that.

 

[bodecea]

Watching you get angry because you know I'm right is always amusing...

I asked a simple question. Who the **** are you to tell someone else they must choose ONE person when you demanded the "right" (which we both know doesn't exist anyway - but I digress) to marry someone of the same sex? If you don't have to recognize one man and one woman, who are you to tell someone else they must recognize a single partner?

Quick, fill the board with snarky responses while you desperately call all of your pals in the gay community looking for some sort of response to this question which exposes you as a hypocrite and pins you in the corner from which you can't escape...

Except I'm not the one sounding angry and unhinged, you are.

Good luck with your plural marriage Strawman...er, fight. Polygamy has already lost at the SCOTUS level but you're welcome to keep trying.

Gay marriage also lost at every level for over 100 years. It's only a matter of time until you Dumbocrats appoint the next unqualified, unhinged idiot to the Supreme Court who believes their job is not to uphold the Constitution, but rather to advance the liberal agenda of collapsing society and then collapsing the U.S. (I would say "justice", but you buffoons actually appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and that troll had never been a judge in her life ).

By the way, you sound like an idiot screaming "strawman" in every post like someone with Tourette's. You're a hypocrite. Be a big girl and own it.

^continues shrill meltdown

 

[bodecea]

Gay shit is all the left talks about. They have an healthy obsession with gay shit.

Yeah...all gay threads are started by Lefties...and gay lefties at that.

 

[Faun]

This is the problem in dealing with immature high school girls like [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] here. They try to use words they don't even understand to sound "smart". Incidentally, how sad that this little cum-guzzler doesn't even know a basic word like "precedent"?

Precedent, my ignorant little cum-guzzler, is not "interpreting law". Precedent is taking past rulings and using them to apply to a present ruling of a case similar in nature to the past ruling.

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Are you really this ****'n stupid? More importantly, are you really this lazy that you couldn't even look up the definition of a word you didn't know before humiliating yourself by posting a false definition? Do you the word "interpret" in there anywhere?

Holyfuckingshit, there is no limit to your idiocy ...

The "earlier event" in the definition you provide is the precedent. Meaning there was no "example" previously.

You are the dumbest ******* imbecile I have ever seen post in a forum. The funniest part is how you try to hide it by calling your betters, 'stupid.' But, ChoadBreath, just so ya know -- you're such an imbecile, there is no hiding it.

Oh, and try a legal dictionary, dumbfuck ...

PRECEDENT

Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.​

Even with the definition of "precedent" posted, she still attempts to claim that precedence means "interpret the law" (word-for-word from her original post).

Sweetie, "precedence" has nothing to do with "interpret". Lets post the definition again (maybe you can have mumsy read it and explain it to you?):

prec·e·dent
noun
ˈpresid(&#601nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

I don't see "interpret law" or anything even remotely similar there (nor does anyone not named faun). And, as we've already established, law is not open to "interpretation" or it would be impossible to obey (a 25mph speed limit means 25mph cum-guzzler, it is not "open to interpretation").

Holyfuckingshit!

You don't "see" it because you're a ******* rightard. You also have no character, so you do not possess the ability to admit you're wrong. Exactly how many times must I explain that to you? What part of Justice Waite's example don't you understand, *****?

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."​

Now begone, ChoadBreath!

Now open wide sweetie....

Sorry, Flamer. I have a wife and I'm not gay like you. You'll have to troll for "public bathroom" sex with Larry Craig.