8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

[Alias]

Because it came from Dixie.

The first time I ever saw it used was by Poet.

Do you know what Poet is talking about by this woman with 15 kids trying to emulate "white privilege".?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Bull Shit. A fetus has not been recognized as a living human being...and therein lies the rub.

Again, if the argument is; Is abortion legal and a fetus not considered a human being (or citizen)? ..They you are correct, and I haven't argued that point, as it would be absurd to argue that abortion isn't legal under the current definitions of the court. I think we can all agree, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, that abortion is constitutional and legal, and the fetus doesn't have civil rights. In the 1800s, the SCOTUS also ruled that black slaves weren't citizens as well, and it wasn't illegal to own them as property.

A fetus belongs to a woman as a content of her body...and the law is predicate upon viability outside of the womb. Like it or fucking not.

A fetus is a living organism of some kind, it is most likely human, if it's in a human's body. The law and biology are two completely different things. Although the SCOTUS doesn't recognize the fetus as a human being, doesn't mean biology recognizes this. The same can also be said of the slaves and the SCOTUS rulings that slaves belonged to their master. And yes... like it or fucking not, the SCOTUS has ruled as they have, and abortion is legal and constitutional, no argument from me on that!

And I hardly need a lecture from you on the tenets of homosexuality. It is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality is. That is a talking point and a further attempt to discriminate against gays by deeming their sexual orientation, which is intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, as a "style of life", much like "the lifestyles of the rich and famous".

Regardless of whether it is intrinsic or a lifestyle, it is not afforded a 'special protection' under the Constitution, and there is no Constitutional basis on which to afford it a 'special protection'. Gay people have every single right a straight person has, and everything they are not permitted to do, the rest of society is also not permitted to do. In order to exemplify the stupidity of your premise, let me present the following analogy: Imagine if some special interest group wanted to pass a law that said any ordained minister is free from any and all government taxation of any kind? The rationale being, these are religious leaders who are doing God's work, helping the needy, feeding the hungry, giving charity... therefore, they shouldn't have to be burdened with taxation like everyone else, we should make this 'special protection' for them, because of their lifestyle choice. Would you be alright with that? It's the same 'special protection' for an exception you've created over a lifestyle choice. And yes, homosexual behavior, is a choice.

Who the fuck are you to dictate policy?

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO DICTATE POLICY, ASSWIPE?

And please stop espousing your narrow-minded views. I, along with millions of others see things much differently than you. You're free to believe that nonsense.

Nothing I have posted is either narrow-minded or nonsensical. I have just presented factual accounts of what Madison said with regard to the "general welfare" clause, and how it can't possibly mean what you think it means. And that it's absurd and retarded to presume it does! You're right that I am free to think this, because it's the truth, and I am free to think... and you are correct that millions of people agree with you, but unfortunately.... we do not live in a pure democracy. As of now, so many millions disagree with you, that the most liberal president in the history of America and his VP, couldn't stand to put Gay Marriage in their political platform. In large cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, San FranWacko.... the majority are in favor of it, but virtually every other place in America, it is completely opposite, the people don't agree with you and are NOT in favor of it. This is why it continues to fail at the ballot box, in all but the most liberal of places.

But don't expect me, or others to subscribe to it.

Oh, I don't expect YOU to subscribe to a damn thing I have to say, you have proven yourself to be the most stubborn of bigots, and I learned long ago, a bigot isn't ever going to agree with your views or change their minds, that's why they are bigots... it's what they do! I am not posting to change your mind, idiot. I am posting so that people can see that you have no idea of what you're talking about, with regard to the Constitution and what is and isn't outlined in it. If others "subscribe" to it, fine... if they don't, fine! I really don't care.

I'm not suggesting freedom be inhibited...you are. Soon, you and others like you, will "die off", and more, "clear-thinking", progressive-minded individuals will agree with folks who think like me. It's inevitable. Best you get into some acceptance. Or not.

You're probably right, and that's what you are going to need to happen, because right now, too many living people are opposed to your liberal progressive ideology, and plan to vote liberal progressives completely out of political power in the future. But it's not really the old farts you need to be worried about, it is the young people growing up now, a generation or two behind you, those are the ones who will be deciding where the culture of society travels to in the future, not you.... because you spent all your time trying to shape and form a square peg into a round hole with us old timers, you have lost touch and failed. Your time is over. If history is any indicator, the cultural pendulum will swing the other way, and who knows... maybe homosexual behavior will once again be shunned by society as a whole and condemned? It wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened, you know?

 

[poet]

Again, if the argument is; Is abortion legal and a fetus not considered a human being (or citizen)? ..They you are correct, and I haven't argued that point, as it would be absurd to argue that abortion isn't legal under the current definitions of the court. I think we can all agree, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, that abortion is constitutional and legal, and the fetus doesn't have civil rights. In the 1800s, the SCOTUS also ruled that black slaves weren't citizens as well, and it wasn't illegal to own them as property.



A fetus is a living organism of some kind, it is most likely human, if it's in a human's body. The law and biology are two completely different things. Although the SCOTUS doesn't recognize the fetus as a human being, doesn't mean biology recognizes this. The same can also be said of the slaves and the SCOTUS rulings that slaves belonged to their master. And yes... like it or fucking not, the SCOTUS has ruled as they have, and abortion is legal and constitutional, no argument from me on that!



Regardless of whether it is intrinsic or a lifestyle, it is not afforded a 'special protection' under the Constitution, and there is no Constitutional basis on which to afford it a 'special protection'. Gay people have every single right a straight person has, and everything they are not permitted to do, the rest of society is also not permitted to do. In order to exemplify the stupidity of your premise, let me present the following analogy: Imagine if some special interest group wanted to pass a law that said any ordained minister is free from any and all government taxation of any kind? The rationale being, these are religious leaders who are doing God's work, helping the needy, feeding the hungry, giving charity... therefore, they shouldn't have to be burdened with taxation like everyone else, we should make this 'special protection' for them, because of their lifestyle choice. Would you be alright with that? It's the same 'special protection' for an exception you've created over a lifestyle choice. And yes, homosexual behavior, is a choice.



WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO DICTATE POLICY, ASSWIPE?




Nothing I have posted is either narrow-minded or nonsensical. I have just presented factual accounts of what Madison said with regard to the "general welfare" clause, and how it can't possibly mean what you think it means. And that it's absurd and retarded to presume it does! You're right that I am free to think this, because it's the truth, and I am free to think... and you are correct that millions of people agree with you, but unfortunately.... we do not live in a pure democracy. As of now, so many millions disagree with you, that the most liberal president in the history of America and his VP, couldn't stand to put Gay Marriage in their political platform. In large cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, San FranWacko.... the majority are in favor of it, but virtually every other place in America, it is completely opposite, the people don't agree with you and are NOT in favor of it. This is why it continues to fail at the ballot box, in all but the most liberal of places.



Oh, I don't expect YOU to subscribe to a damn thing I have to say, you have proven yourself to be the most stubborn of bigots, and I learned long ago, a bigot isn't ever going to agree with your views or change their minds, that's why they are bigots... it's what they do! I am not posting to change your mind, idiot. I am posting so that people can see that you have no idea of what you're talking about, with regard to the Constitution and what is and isn't outlined in it. If others "subscribe" to it, fine... if they don't, fine! I really don't care.



You're probably right, and that's what you are going to need to happen, because right now, too many living people are opposed to your liberal progressive ideology, and plan to vote liberal progressives completely out of political power in the future. But it's not really the old farts you need to be worried about, it is the young people growing up now, a generation or two behind you, those are the ones who will be deciding where the culture of society travels to in the future, not you.... because you spent all your time trying to shape and form a square peg into a round hole with us old timers, you have lost touch and failed. Your time is over. If history is any indicator, the cultural pendulum will swing the other way, and who knows... maybe homosexual behavior will once again be shunned by society as a whole and condemned? It wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened, you know?

LOL. Totally laughable. Thanks for a side-splitter. LMAO. Sexual orientation is not "of choice". If so, provide the documentation supporting that viewpoint. Otherwise, STFU. STFU, anyway. Do you really think anyone here takes you seriously, except the resident miscreants? Dodo.

 

[Socrtease]

I completely agree with Dixie's assertion that the fetus is human. Genetically it has all the chromosomes required to define it has human. The pro-choice forces have hurt themselves by claiming any different. However, it is every bit as intellectually dishonest to equate a live born child with a fetus at 9 weeks gestation. There is some point where the life and existence of the fetus outweighs a woman's right to an abortion. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, 99 percent of all abortions are performed at less than 20 weeks gestation. A fetus at 20 weeks should not have the same protections as a born child. Nor should it have the same protections as a fetus at 34 weeks, 36 weeks etc. Both sides have got to come to some equilibrium on this.

 

[poet]

I completely agree with Dixie's assertion that the fetus is human. Genetically it has all the chromosomes required to define it has human. The pro-choice forces have hurt themselves by claiming any different. However, it is every bit as intellectually dishonest to equate a live born child with a fetus at 9 weeks gestation. There is some point where the life and existence of the fetus outweighs a woman's right to an abortion. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, 99 percent of all abortions are performed at less than 20 weeks gestation. A fetus at 20 weeks should not have the same protections as a born child. Nor should it have the same protections as a fetus at 34 weeks, 36 weeks etc. Both sides have got to come to some equilibrium on this.

I say the line is drawn at viability outside of the mother...say @ 32 weeks.

 

[Socrtease]

Viability is currently at about 27 weeks. As medicine advances that number will move backward. My oldest was born at 33 weeks and she required minimal care.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL. Totally laughable. Thanks for a side-splitter. LMAO. Sexual orientation is not "of choice". If so, provide the documentation supporting that viewpoint. Otherwise, STFU. STFU, anyway. Do you really think anyone here takes you seriously, except the resident miscreants? Dodo.

Sexual orientation is whether you are male or female in gender, it's relatively easy to determine, even in hermaphrodites. Sexual behavior is determined by many factors, and doesn't have much to do with orientation. We all have something that turns us on sexually speaking. each of us are ultimately in control of our sexual urges and desires, unless you want to argue that homosexuals are not in control, I don't see how you can say it's not a choice. Sexual behavior is most certainly predicated on a choice we make as humans. This often manifests itself in fetishes, and homosexual behavior falls into that category. Society can't do a thing about the fact that this fetish is more prevalent in a particular group of people, as this would only create a dichotomy, in that, ALL sexual fetishes would have to be equally legitimized, and this is something unacceptable to decent civilization. So you are stuck between a rock and hard place, homosexuality is never going to be the "norm" in society, and therefore it is destined to forever be queer.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Viability is currently at about 27 weeks. As medicine advances that number will move backward. My oldest was born at 33 weeks and she required minimal care.

The limit for abortion in the UK is 24 weeks, there was an unsuccessful attempt to reduce it to 22 weeks recently.

 

[icedancer2theend]

All human beings are entitled to a right of protection to life- Even those that are sentenced to die for a capital murder, after a fair adjudication via a lawful court hearing, are afforded that right. The location of that human being should never alter that right. To set an age as a litmus test i.e. fetal, is to make a distinction, based upon a moral code, that would claim that this life is less worthy of protection. The child within the womb is fair game because it has no voice. This is why those whose moral compass believes that all human beings are entitled to equal protection, should never accept the directive to STFU or to compromise.

 

[poet]

Viability is currently at about 27 weeks. As medicine advances that number will move backward. My oldest was born at 33 weeks and she required minimal care.

OK.

 

[poet]

Sexual orientation is whether you are male or female in gender, it's relatively easy to determine, even in hermaphrodites. Sexual behavior is determined by many factors, and doesn't have much to do with orientation. We all have something that turns us on sexually speaking. each of us are ultimately in control of our sexual urges and desires, unless you want to argue that homosexuals are not in control, I don't see how you can say it's not a choice. Sexual behavior is most certainly predicated on a choice we make as humans. This often manifests itself in fetishes, and homosexual behavior falls into that category. Society can't do a thing about the fact that this fetish is more prevalent in a particular group of people, as this would only create a dichotomy, in that, ALL sexual fetishes would have to be equally legitimized, and this is something unacceptable to decent civilization. So you are stuck between a rock and hard place, homosexuality is never going to be the "norm" in society, and therefore it is destined to forever be queer.

You're stupid. Sexual orientation has little to do with gender identification, you moron. Why would you confuse the two?
In fact, I'm not going to delve into your retarded diatribe any further than the first sentence. You don't know what you're talking about. STFU. Damn. Arrogant, self-serving, and retarded.

 

[poet]

All human beings are entitled to a right of protection to life- Even those that are sentenced to die for a capital murder, after a fair adjudication via a lawful court hearing, are afforded that right. The location of that human being should never alter that right. To set an age as a litmus test i.e. fetal, is to make a distinction, based upon a moral code, that would claim that this life is less worthy of protection. The child within the womb is fair game because it has no voice. This is why those whose moral compass believes that all human beings are entitled to equal protection, should never accept the directive to STFU or to compromise.

You have the audacity to talk about a moral compass, having been married 3 times. Love, honor and obey, until death do you part?????????? What were those? Idle words? Obviously. You have zero credibility. STFU, yourself.

 

[Alias]

I completely agree with Dixie's assertion that the fetus is human. Genetically it has all the chromosomes required to define it has human. The pro-choice forces have hurt themselves by claiming any different. However, it is every bit as intellectually dishonest to equate a live born child with a fetus at 9 weeks gestation. There is some point where the life and existence of the fetus outweighs a woman's right to an abortion. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, 99 percent of all abortions are performed at less than 20 weeks gestation. A fetus at 20 weeks should not have the same protections as a born child. Nor should it have the same protections as a fetus at 34 weeks, 36 weeks etc. Both sides have got to come to some equilibrium on this.

A heartbeat can be detected at 4 weeks.

 

[poet]

A heartbeat can be detected at 4 weeks.

Birth defects can be detected around the same time, I'm thinking. So friggin what? A birth is a miracle. To get here in one piece, and healthy is a friggin miracle. Every pregnancy is not meant to result in a birth. Children should arrive wanted, not as a casualty.

 

[icedancer2theend]

You have the audacity to talk about a moral compass, having been married 3 times. Love, honor and obey, until death do you part?????????? What were those? Idle words? Obviously. You have zero credibility. STFU, yourself.

At least I am not the bend over queen that you are bitch~ And your stupidity at making this some sort of moral equivalent proves all you will ever be is a bend over bitch.

 

[Socrtease]

A heartbeat can be detected at 4 weeks.

That is because a heart is required to pump blood through a system that is still growing. At four weeks there is no higher brain functions. When an adult is on life support with no higher brain function we allow life support to be withdrawn because the person is not really alive. The fact that the heart continues to beat does not change this. Heart beat does not an individual make.

 

[poet]

At least I am not the bend over queen that you are bitch~ And your stupidity at making this some sort of moral equivalent proves all you will ever be is a bend over bitch.

And you don't even have to bend over...you just half to gap those thunder thighs. For the hundredth time. Speculation is all you got. I got your number.

 

[Socrtease]

Sexual orientation is whether you are male or female in gender, it's relatively easy to determine, even in hermaphrodites. Sexual behavior is determined by many factors, and doesn't have much to do with orientation. We all have something that turns us on sexually speaking. each of us are ultimately in control of our sexual urges and desires, unless you want to argue that homosexuals are not in control, I don't see how you can say it's not a choice. Sexual behavior is most certainly predicated on a choice we make as humans. This often manifests itself in fetishes, and homosexual behavior falls into that category. Society can't do a thing about the fact that this fetish is more prevalent in a particular group of people, as this would only create a dichotomy, in that, ALL sexual fetishes would have to be equally legitimized, and this is something unacceptable to decent civilization. So you are stuck between a rock and hard place, homosexuality is never going to be the "norm" in society, and therefore it is destined to forever be queer.

You have got to be the most confused befuddled mind on here.

sexual orientation
Definition
sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tions Plural
NOUN
1.
nature of sexual preference: the direction of somebody's sexual desire, toward people of the opposite sex, people of the same sex, or people of both sexes
Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary[North American Edition]

gender
Definition
gen·der[ jéndər ]
gen·ders Plural
NOUN
1.
somebody's sex: the sex of a person or organism, or of a whole category of people or organisms ( often euphemistic to avoid the word "sex" )
2.
grammar categorization of nouns: the classification of nouns and pronouns in some languages according to the forms taken by adjectives, modifiers, and other grammatical items associated syntactically with them
3.
grammar category of noun: any one of the categories into which nouns and pronouns are divided in languages that have gender, e.g. masculine, feminine, neuter, or common
[ 14th century. < Old French gendre < Latin gener-, stem of genus "birth, kind" ]
gen·der·less ADJECTIVE
Word Usage
gender or sex?Traditionally, gender has referred to grammatical classifications in languages, and sex has referred to the biological classifications to which gender is analogous. For some time, however, anthropologists have used gender to distinguish cultural categories from biological ones: Gender roles are indistinct among the young of this society; the two sexes play together frequently. Cultural and biological categories are interrelated, of course, and thus at times it can be difficult to decide which word is more appropriate. Gender has become the preferred form in the 21st century, as in Gender is an important factor to consider when hiring new employees and in idiomatic expressions such as gender gap.

Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You have got to be the most confused befuddled mind on here.

sexual orientation
Definition
sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tions Plural
NOUN
1.
nature of sexual preference: the direction of somebody's sexual desire, toward people of the opposite sex, people of the same sex, or people of both sexes
Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary[North American Edition]

gender
Definition
gen·der[ jéndər ]
gen·ders Plural
NOUN
1.
somebody's sex: the sex of a person or organism, or of a whole category of people or organisms ( often euphemistic to avoid the word "sex" )
2.
grammar categorization of nouns: the classification of nouns and pronouns in some languages according to the forms taken by adjectives, modifiers, and other grammatical items associated syntactically with them
3.
grammar category of noun: any one of the categories into which nouns and pronouns are divided in languages that have gender, e.g. masculine, feminine, neuter, or common
[ 14th century. < Old French gendre < Latin gener-, stem of genus "birth, kind" ]
gen·der·less ADJECTIVE
Word Usage
gender or sex?Traditionally, gender has referred to grammatical classifications in languages, and sex has referred to the biological classifications to which gender is analogous. For some time, however, anthropologists have used gender to distinguish cultural categories from biological ones: Gender roles are indistinct among the young of this society; the two sexes play together frequently. Cultural and biological categories are interrelated, of course, and thus at times it can be difficult to decide which word is more appropriate. Gender has become the preferred form in the 21st century, as in Gender is an important factor to consider when hiring new employees and in idiomatic expressions such as gender gap.

Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary

NOTHING you posted indicates that sexual orientation is not a choice. As a matter of fact, BY DEFINITION it IS a choice.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[Socrtease]

NOTHING you posted indicates that sexual orientation is not a choice. As a matter of fact, BY DEFINITION it IS a choice.

Thank you for making my point.

Yes, let's just ignore the fact you were COMPLETELY WRONG about sexual orientation and gender.

So tell me, when did you decided to be heterosexual? What went into your decision? Did you weigh the pros and cons of sex with both men and women? Because if it is a choice for one group, then it is a choice for both, and ALL of us should be able to discuss the process which led us to the orientation we now hold.