What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

[G.T.]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

No one said that, what is wrong with you?

Our government IS corrupted by money. The idiocy is leftists like you say that, you are right, then ...

... you keep screaming for more government.

That is the problem

Pardon me for being blunt.

You dont know who the **** I am.

Kay back to your chest beating strawman boxing match *****.

Actually, Chickie Poo you are posting on a message board. Furthermore, you are being intentionally vague on your position and evasive as far as addressing questions. I have every right to call you out on that

I wasnt vague at all dipshit.

I said greed

You asked me to clarify

I specified corruption in politics caused by greed

You agreed it existed, then went on some diatribe as though you know my politics

You dont


Think someone is being deliberately obtuse, and its not me. Ive been crystal, douchebag.

 

[Ava]

So with Islamic Extremists, liberals keep trying to defuse and blame religious extremism in general or even Christians who did the Crusades centuries ago. They bring up McVeigh who wasn't a Christian and didn't do it for religion as an endless counter example. The liberal media tries to hide the Muslim names of every Islamic nut job who murders or tries to murder more people. And they still want our border open even though Al Qaeda can fly to Mexico City and walk across our border.

Yet gay marriage, hat's their obsession in any gay thread, that and the right to force bakers to make them cakes for their ... gay weddings. They bring up gay marriage in economic threads, military and everything else. They equate blacks getting lynched and shot with water canons to gays not getting tax breaks. You'd think this is the greatest issue that ever faced mankind

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

Anything but themselves.

 

[kaz]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

No one said that, what is wrong with you?

Our government IS corrupted by money. The idiocy is leftists like you say that, you are right, then ...

... you keep screaming for more government.

That is the problem

Pardon me for being blunt.

You dont know who the **** I am.

Kay back to your chest beating strawman boxing match *****.

Actually, Chickie Poo you are posting on a message board. Furthermore, you are being intentionally vague on your position and evasive as far as addressing questions. I have every right to call you out on that

I wasnt vague at all dipshit.

I said greed

You asked me to clarify

I specified corruption in politics caused by greed

You agreed it existed, then went on some diatribe as though you know my politics

You dont


Think someone is being deliberately obtuse, and its not me. Ive been crystal, douchebag.

Everyone agrees "corruption in politics" is an issue. However, leftists think that corruption means the rich and businesses lobbying for their own interests is corruption while unions, environmentalists, peaceniks, and other leftists groups are not. Rights wingers are bothered by the left wing groups but not the military, the NRA or other right wing groups. We libertarians would like them all to crawl off and die but we have no way to make them without violating legitimate rights so we want government to be small and their potential impact thus limited.

You know exactly what you are doing. You are saying you are against "corruption" then dodging any and all statements what that means. As I said you could say that and be anywhere from libertarian to authoritarian leftist or anything in between. You said nothing, you are shucking and jiving and evading. You have the right to do that, I have the right to call it out. You said nothing.

 

[G.T.]

Oh so our government is not corrupted by money?



Kay guys, gotcha!

No one said that, what is wrong with you?

Our government IS corrupted by money. The idiocy is leftists like you say that, you are right, then ...

... you keep screaming for more government.

That is the problem

Pardon me for being blunt.

You dont know who the **** I am.

Kay back to your chest beating strawman boxing match *****.

Actually, Chickie Poo you are posting on a message board. Furthermore, you are being intentionally vague on your position and evasive as far as addressing questions. I have every right to call you out on that

I wasnt vague at all dipshit.

I said greed

You asked me to clarify

I specified corruption in politics caused by greed

You agreed it existed, then went on some diatribe as though you know my politics

You dont


Think someone is being deliberately obtuse, and its not me. Ive been crystal, douchebag.

Everyone agrees "corruption in politics" is an issue. However, leftists think that corruption means the rich and businesses lobbying for their own interests is corruption while unions, environmentalists, peaceniks, and other leftists groups are not. Rights wingers are bothered by the left wing groups but not the military, the NRA or other right wing groups. We libertarians would like them all to crawl off and die but we have no way to make them without violating legitimate rights so we want government to be small and their potential impact thus limited.

You know exactly what you are doing. You are saying you are against "corruption" then dodging any and all statements what that means. As I said you could say that and be anywhere from libertarian to authoritarian leftist or anything in between. You said nothing, you are shucking and jiving and evading. You have the right to do that, I have the right to call it out. You said nothing.

You need me to detail what i mean by corruption when i say corruption so that you can categorize me into one of your little partisan hack lists?

You can kiss my ass.

Im not shucking. Im against all of the corruption...left right and center, thats not specific enough?

Guess what? Fah q.

 

[kaz]

You need me to detail what i mean by corruption when i say corruption so that you can categorize me into one of your little partisan hack lists?

No, I asked you to clarify it so I know what you're saying. Both sides say they are against corruption, but they both mean what the other side does.

You can kiss my ass.

Depends. Are you cute, sweetie?

Im not shucking. Im against all of the corruption...left right and center, thats not specific enough?

Not when everyone says they are against "corruption," no.

Here's a few, are teacher unions lobbying for more pay "corruption?" Are environmental groups lobbying against offshore drilling "corruption?" Is the NRA lobbying for gun owners "corruption?" Is the Tea Party lobbying for lower taxes and spending "corruption?"

Guess what? Fah q.

Still not grasping a message board, are you Holmes? Anyway eff off

 

[danielpalos]

ambiguation by the Right via the political convenience of Religion.

 

[RicO'Shea]

So with Islamic Extremists, liberals keep trying to defuse and blame religious extremism in general or even Christians who did the Crusades centuries ago. They bring up McVeigh who wasn't a Christian and didn't do it for religion as an endless counter example. The liberal media tries to hide the Muslim names of every Islamic nut job who murders or tries to murder more people. And they still want our border open even though Al Qaeda can fly to Mexico City and walk across our border.

Yet gay marriage, hat's their obsession in any gay thread, that and the right to force bakers to make them cakes for their ... gay weddings. They bring up gay marriage in economic threads, military and everything else. They equate blacks getting lynched and shot with water canons to gays not getting tax breaks. You'd think this is the greatest issue that ever faced mankind

American Muslims don't impose on the constitution like American Christians do. If there were Muslims running for president in America and they believed their religious freedom allowed them to discriminate, I would have the same angst towards them as I do Christian conservatives.

Having beliefs and living by them is not discrimination. If you choose to live in a muslim country, then you are subject to the beliefs and rules of that country.

Discrimination is defined by the rules that a society creates for itself. Our constitution and bill of rights were put in place and ratified by majority vote. Rights are created by majority vote.

The constitution and bill of rights are silent on gay marriage. The only way to settle it is to amend the constitution, or let each state decide by state referendum.

You can have all the beliefs you want, but if they violate the rights of others and they break the law you need to rethink your position.

With the constitution and the Bill of Rights silent on marriage period, it means that marriage is all inclusive. You can't assume that since marriage isn't mentioned that one type of marriage is legal and another type isn't.

Thats the question---------is it legal or not? SCOTUS may make a ruling next month. If they rule against gay marriage will you shut up and accept the ruling of the highest court in the land?

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

 

[kaz]

So with Islamic Extremists, liberals keep trying to defuse and blame religious extremism in general or even Christians who did the Crusades centuries ago. They bring up McVeigh who wasn't a Christian and didn't do it for religion as an endless counter example. The liberal media tries to hide the Muslim names of every Islamic nut job who murders or tries to murder more people. And they still want our border open even though Al Qaeda can fly to Mexico City and walk across our border.

Yet gay marriage, hat's their obsession in any gay thread, that and the right to force bakers to make them cakes for their ... gay weddings. They bring up gay marriage in economic threads, military and everything else. They equate blacks getting lynched and shot with water canons to gays not getting tax breaks. You'd think this is the greatest issue that ever faced mankind

American Muslims don't impose on the constitution like American Christians do. If there were Muslims running for president in America and they believed their religious freedom allowed them to discriminate, I would have the same angst towards them as I do Christian conservatives.

Having beliefs and living by them is not discrimination. If you choose to live in a muslim country, then you are subject to the beliefs and rules of that country.

Discrimination is defined by the rules that a society creates for itself. Our constitution and bill of rights were put in place and ratified by majority vote. Rights are created by majority vote.

The constitution and bill of rights are silent on gay marriage. The only way to settle it is to amend the constitution, or let each state decide by state referendum.

You can have all the beliefs you want, but if they violate the rights of others and they break the law you need to rethink your position.

With the constitution and the Bill of Rights silent on marriage period, it means that marriage is all inclusive. You can't assume that since marriage isn't mentioned that one type of marriage is legal and another type isn't.

Thats the question---------is it legal or not? SCOTUS may make a ruling next month. If they rule against gay marriage will you shut up and accept the ruling of the highest court in the land?

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

 

[G.T.]

American Muslims don't impose on the constitution like American Christians do. If there were Muslims running for president in America and they believed their religious freedom allowed them to discriminate, I would have the same angst towards them as I do Christian conservatives.

Having beliefs and living by them is not discrimination. If you choose to live in a muslim country, then you are subject to the beliefs and rules of that country.

Discrimination is defined by the rules that a society creates for itself. Our constitution and bill of rights were put in place and ratified by majority vote. Rights are created by majority vote.

The constitution and bill of rights are silent on gay marriage. The only way to settle it is to amend the constitution, or let each state decide by state referendum.

You can have all the beliefs you want, but if they violate the rights of others and they break the law you need to rethink your position.

With the constitution and the Bill of Rights silent on marriage period, it means that marriage is all inclusive. You can't assume that since marriage isn't mentioned that one type of marriage is legal and another type isn't.

Thats the question---------is it legal or not? SCOTUS may make a ruling next month. If they rule against gay marriage will you shut up and accept the ruling of the highest court in the land?

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

What are your legal qualifications to make said determination, and how do your qualifications stack up against the Scotus at the time?

Pass the bar? Successful career studying Law? What?

 

[Dot Com]

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

domestic white extreme rw libertard-types.

 

[kaz]

Having beliefs and living by them is not discrimination. If you choose to live in a muslim country, then you are subject to the beliefs and rules of that country.

Discrimination is defined by the rules that a society creates for itself. Our constitution and bill of rights were put in place and ratified by majority vote. Rights are created by majority vote.

The constitution and bill of rights are silent on gay marriage. The only way to settle it is to amend the constitution, or let each state decide by state referendum.

You can have all the beliefs you want, but if they violate the rights of others and they break the law you need to rethink your position.

With the constitution and the Bill of Rights silent on marriage period, it means that marriage is all inclusive. You can't assume that since marriage isn't mentioned that one type of marriage is legal and another type isn't.

Thats the question---------is it legal or not? SCOTUS may make a ruling next month. If they rule against gay marriage will you shut up and accept the ruling of the highest court in the land?

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

What are your legal qualifications to make said determination, and how do your qualifications stack up against the Scotus at the time?

Pass the bar? Successful career studying Law? What?

No, but I have two lawyers who work for me. And LOL, I have to have a law degree to post my opinion of a SCOTUS ruling on a message board, got it. You follow that yourself, right? You never comment on SCOTUS rulings since you don't have a law degree?

So your first ridiculous premise aside, let's go to the second one. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the lawyers," right? No wait, that isn't it It's "We the People." And that's your standard, seriously? That We The People are not qualified to read the Constitution? We need lawyers to do it and explain it to us? Really?

So back from the lala land you live in to reality. Read the 10th amendment. Or in your case, hire a lawyer to read it for you and explain it to you since that's what you claim your standard is. Just so you know, the 10th says if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a Federal power and the Federal government is actually prohibited from getting involved either way. I know Roe. V. Wade is a Constitutional abomination because neither abortion nor murder are in the Constitution. They are State laws, not Federal. So the Federal government is prohibited from either declaring it legal or illegal.

The States should allow abortions, it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel a women to carry babies to term or charge them with murder. But that is not up to the feds, they have no Constitutional Authority to say that. You can ask a lawyer what that means.

 

[kaz]

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

domestic white extreme rw libertard-types.

Isn't that "Amerika" to you Comrade?

Have you figured out why no one takes you seriously yet? I'd read this post again, it might help

 

[Dot Com]

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

domestic white extreme rw libertard-types.

Isn't that "Amerika" to you Comrade?

Have you figured out why no one takes you seriously yet? I'd read this post again, it might help

"Comrade"? I served. You? When, where?

 

[G.T.]

You can have all the beliefs you want, but if they violate the rights of others and they break the law you need to rethink your position.

With the constitution and the Bill of Rights silent on marriage period, it means that marriage is all inclusive. You can't assume that since marriage isn't mentioned that one type of marriage is legal and another type isn't.

Thats the question---------is it legal or not? SCOTUS may make a ruling next month. If they rule against gay marriage will you shut up and accept the ruling of the highest court in the land?

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

What are your legal qualifications to make said determination, and how do your qualifications stack up against the Scotus at the time?

Pass the bar? Successful career studying Law? What?

No, but I have two lawyers who work for me. And LOL, I have to have a law degree to post my opinion of a SCOTUS ruling on a message board, got it. You follow that yourself, right? You never comment on SCOTUS rulings since you don't have a law degree?

So your first ridiculous premise aside, let's go to the second one. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the lawyers," right? No wait, that isn't it It's "We the People." And that's your standard, seriously? That We The People are not qualified to read the Constitution? We need lawyers to do it and explain it to us? Really?

So back from the lala land you live in to reality. Read the 10th amendment. Or in your case, hire a lawyer to read it for you and explain it to you since that's what you claim your standard is. Just so you know, the 10th says if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a Federal power and the Federal government is actually prohibited from getting involved either way. I know Roe. V. Wade is a Constitutional abomination because neither abortion nor murder are in the Constitution. They are State laws, not Federal. So the Federal government is prohibited from either declaring it legal or illegal.

The States should allow abortions, it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel a women to carry babies to term or charge them with murder. But that is not up to the feds, they have no Constitutional Authority to say that. You can ask a lawyer what that means.

They have the Authority - you just dont understand the legalese behind it because youre an uneducated lame.

We the People Vote on the process, the Presidency - we dont become SCOTUS ourselves.

Thats not what we the people means. It doesnt mean "we are all the judicial branch, lawyers, judges and non!"

No, it doesnt mean that at all. I should have only had to explain that to a child, but again, youre a lame.

 

[kaz]

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

domestic white extreme rw libertard-types.

Isn't that "Amerika" to you Comrade?

Have you figured out why no one takes you seriously yet? I'd read this post again, it might help

"Comrade"? I served. You? When, where?

You know the Bolshevik army doesn't exist anymore

 

[kaz]

Thats the question---------is it legal or not? SCOTUS may make a ruling next month. If they rule against gay marriage will you shut up and accept the ruling of the highest court in the land?

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

What are your legal qualifications to make said determination, and how do your qualifications stack up against the Scotus at the time?

Pass the bar? Successful career studying Law? What?

No, but I have two lawyers who work for me. And LOL, I have to have a law degree to post my opinion of a SCOTUS ruling on a message board, got it. You follow that yourself, right? You never comment on SCOTUS rulings since you don't have a law degree?

So your first ridiculous premise aside, let's go to the second one. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the lawyers," right? No wait, that isn't it It's "We the People." And that's your standard, seriously? That We The People are not qualified to read the Constitution? We need lawyers to do it and explain it to us? Really?

So back from the lala land you live in to reality. Read the 10th amendment. Or in your case, hire a lawyer to read it for you and explain it to you since that's what you claim your standard is. Just so you know, the 10th says if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a Federal power and the Federal government is actually prohibited from getting involved either way. I know Roe. V. Wade is a Constitutional abomination because neither abortion nor murder are in the Constitution. They are State laws, not Federal. So the Federal government is prohibited from either declaring it legal or illegal.

The States should allow abortions, it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel a women to carry babies to term or charge them with murder. But that is not up to the feds, they have no Constitutional Authority to say that. You can ask a lawyer what that means.

They have the Authority - you just dont understand the legalese behind it because youre an uneducated lame.

We the People Vote on the process, the Presidency - we dont become SCOTUS ourselves.

Thats not what we the people means. It doesnt mean "we are all the judicial branch, lawyers, judges and non!"

No, it doesnt mean that at all. I should have only had to explain that to a child, but again, youre a lame.

It takes a lawyer to see something in the Constitution that isn't there, a simple layman can't do it. Or in your native tongue, baaaaaaaa

 

[Dot Com]

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

domestic white extreme rw libertard-types.

Isn't that "Amerika" to you Comrade?

Have you figured out why no one takes you seriously yet? I'd read this post again, it might help

"Comrade"? I served. You? When, where?

You know the Bolshevik army doesn't exist anymore

so you haven't served? Message recieved

 

[G.T.]

No, why should I? The SCOTUS ruled on abortion and the right won't accept it. Freedom for all, remember??

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

What are your legal qualifications to make said determination, and how do your qualifications stack up against the Scotus at the time?

Pass the bar? Successful career studying Law? What?

No, but I have two lawyers who work for me. And LOL, I have to have a law degree to post my opinion of a SCOTUS ruling on a message board, got it. You follow that yourself, right? You never comment on SCOTUS rulings since you don't have a law degree?

So your first ridiculous premise aside, let's go to the second one. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the lawyers," right? No wait, that isn't it It's "We the People." And that's your standard, seriously? That We The People are not qualified to read the Constitution? We need lawyers to do it and explain it to us? Really?

So back from the lala land you live in to reality. Read the 10th amendment. Or in your case, hire a lawyer to read it for you and explain it to you since that's what you claim your standard is. Just so you know, the 10th says if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a Federal power and the Federal government is actually prohibited from getting involved either way. I know Roe. V. Wade is a Constitutional abomination because neither abortion nor murder are in the Constitution. They are State laws, not Federal. So the Federal government is prohibited from either declaring it legal or illegal.

The States should allow abortions, it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel a women to carry babies to term or charge them with murder. But that is not up to the feds, they have no Constitutional Authority to say that. You can ask a lawyer what that means.

They have the Authority - you just dont understand the legalese behind it because youre an uneducated lame.

We the People Vote on the process, the Presidency - we dont become SCOTUS ourselves.

Thats not what we the people means. It doesnt mean "we are all the judicial branch, lawyers, judges and non!"

No, it doesnt mean that at all. I should have only had to explain that to a child, but again, youre a lame.

It takes a lawyer to see something in the Constitution that isn't there, a simple layman can't do it. Or in your native tongue, baaaaaaaa

The Constitution isnt something a layman can just read and interpret and thinks hes correct just cuz.

Its a document that is studied, a degreed study even, and attached to it is hundreds upon hundreds of Court cases which establish what they call "precedent."

To think you can just spout off at the jibs like you know better how to read and interpret the Constitution than men and women who ACTUALLY have devoted their lives to the practice and have the accolades to back it?

Youre a deluded ******* busy body

 

[kaz]

What do the left consider the greatest threat to America?

domestic white extreme rw libertard-types.

Isn't that "Amerika" to you Comrade?

Have you figured out why no one takes you seriously yet? I'd read this post again, it might help

"Comrade"? I served. You? When, where?

You know the Bolshevik army doesn't exist anymore

so you haven't served? Message recieved

No idea what that means. Is it supposed to mean you are more important than the rest of us?

 

[kaz]

I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, there was no basis for that ruling at all. Pure legislating from the bench by a rogue Supreme Court

What are your legal qualifications to make said determination, and how do your qualifications stack up against the Scotus at the time?

Pass the bar? Successful career studying Law? What?

No, but I have two lawyers who work for me. And LOL, I have to have a law degree to post my opinion of a SCOTUS ruling on a message board, got it. You follow that yourself, right? You never comment on SCOTUS rulings since you don't have a law degree?

So your first ridiculous premise aside, let's go to the second one. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the lawyers," right? No wait, that isn't it It's "We the People." And that's your standard, seriously? That We The People are not qualified to read the Constitution? We need lawyers to do it and explain it to us? Really?

So back from the lala land you live in to reality. Read the 10th amendment. Or in your case, hire a lawyer to read it for you and explain it to you since that's what you claim your standard is. Just so you know, the 10th says if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a Federal power and the Federal government is actually prohibited from getting involved either way. I know Roe. V. Wade is a Constitutional abomination because neither abortion nor murder are in the Constitution. They are State laws, not Federal. So the Federal government is prohibited from either declaring it legal or illegal.

The States should allow abortions, it's not a legitimate use of government force to compel a women to carry babies to term or charge them with murder. But that is not up to the feds, they have no Constitutional Authority to say that. You can ask a lawyer what that means.

They have the Authority - you just dont understand the legalese behind it because youre an uneducated lame.

We the People Vote on the process, the Presidency - we dont become SCOTUS ourselves.

Thats not what we the people means. It doesnt mean "we are all the judicial branch, lawyers, judges and non!"

No, it doesnt mean that at all. I should have only had to explain that to a child, but again, youre a lame.

It takes a lawyer to see something in the Constitution that isn't there, a simple layman can't do it. Or in your native tongue, baaaaaaaa

The Constitution isnt something a layman can just read and interpret and thinks hes correct just cuz.

Its a document that is studied, a degreed study even, and attached to it is hundreds upon hundreds of Court cases which establish what they call "precedent."

To think you can just spout off at the jibs like you know better how to read and interpret the Constitution than men and women who ACTUALLY have devoted their lives to the practice and have the accolades to back it?

Youre a deluded ******* busy body

Your hypocrisy reeks, girlie poo. You are posting on a message board! You are stating your opinion! You're a deluded ******* busy body. Shut up and keep your views to yourself where you say they belong