Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
32,747
Reaction score
15,017
Points
1,600

eddiew

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
10,047
Reaction score
2,821
Points
185
Not Liberty?? Then must be Bob Jones U with a stop over at Trump U
^^^More babble from an embarrassed mental midget^^^
A trump nitwit like you orange can't ever embarrass me. You don't have the IQ ,,,Double digit I bet
Your personal attacks arent winning the argument. You're showing yourself to be just another hypocritical leftist without principles
LOL Trump and I have principles,,,,""big principles
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,614
Points
1,893
Your personal attacks arent winning the argument. You're showing yourself to be just another hypocritical leftist without principles
He's squirming because his intellect can't measure up.
 

eddiew

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
10,047
Reaction score
2,821
Points
185
Your personal attacks arent winning the argument. You're showing yourself to be just another hypocritical leftist without principles
He's squirming because his intellect can't measure up.
I've said what I've wanted to say,,,Now there are some horses running that I need to bet on .. The pleasure was all yours .
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,614
Points
1,893
I've said what I've wanted to say,,,Now there are some horses running that I need to bet on .. The pleasure was all yours .
As the humiliation was all yours.
Hopefully you'll have better luck at the track.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,808
Reaction score
6,556
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,808
Reaction score
6,556
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,808
Reaction score
6,556
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,808
Reaction score
6,556
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,808
Reaction score
6,556
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,808
Reaction score
6,556
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,416
Reaction score
9,371
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to it's true intent.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top