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

poet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah you "half" my number... :rofl:


You are a stupid drama queen bitch- Your number was had the moment you planted your over used ass in this forum.
 
Socrtease said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is best we ignore irrelevance. The fact is, homosexual behavior is a choice.

No, it's not a choice for all of us, nothing pertaining to sexual preferences ever pertains to all of us. But then, I never said that people choose to be homosexual, which is apparently what you thought you read. I said sexual behavior is a choice, and it is... for everyone. So you can try and twist what I said into a pretzel, then you can shove it up your perverted gay ass, because that's how you roll!
 
icedancer2theend said:
Yeah you "half" my number... :rofl:


You are a stupid drama queen bitch- Your number was had the moment you planted your over used ass in this forum.
Click to expand...

Wow, you discovered my faux pas? How many does that make. Don't you make one every post? My number was had? Which number was that? Ignorant slut.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, it is best we ignore irrelevance. The fact is, homosexual behavior is a choice.

No, it's not a choice for all of us, nothing pertaining to sexual preferences ever pertains to all of us. But then, I never said that people choose to be homosexual, which is apparently what you thought you read. I said sexual behavior is a choice, and it is... for everyone. So you can try and twist what I said into a pretzel, then you can shove it up your perverted gay ass, because that's how you roll!
Click to expand...

Sexual preference is never a choice, anymore than "right-handedness" or "left-handedness" or the ability to curl one's tongue or wiggle one's ears, is. If it were, given the bigotry and hate, who would choose it? And if it is "of choice", as you believe, where is the documentation supporting that belief? Nowhere. The only ones who believe that are religious bigots, who use that viewpoint to support their position that homosexuals are willful sinners, who are outside of God's law, love and protection, and are, therefore, to be "looked down upon" (by the "so-called" righteous), ridiculed, and shunned.
And you're a moron...and you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too?? In your twisted mind, sexual preference is not a choice "for all of us", only for "some of us", which is contradictory......but sexual behavior is a choice. Please explain how that is. You mean, you, can choose not to engage in sex, with whomever....for how long? When was the last time you had sex? And why? I mean, it's a choice, after all. Why couldn't you have contained yourself, and abstained? And when your partner shoved toys and salves up your ass, was that perverted...up your perverted "straight ass"? How the fuck do you know how someone rolls? And what kind of a name is Dixie, for a man? If I recall Dixie Carter was one of the cast members of Designing Women. Is there something you aren't telling us?
 
poet said:
Sexual preference is never a choice, anymore than "right-handedness" or "left-handedness" or the ability to curl one's tongue or wiggle one's ears, is. If it were, given the bigotry and hate, who would choose it? And if it is "of choice", as you believe, where is the documentation supporting that belief? Nowhere. The only ones who believe that are religious bigots, who use that viewpoint to support their position that homosexuals are willful sinners, who are outside of God's law, love and protection, and are, therefore, to be "looked down upon" (by the "so-called" righteous), ridiculed, and shunned.
And you're a moron...and you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too?? In your twisted mind, sexual preference is not a choice "for all of us", only for "some of us", which is contradictory......but sexual behavior is a choice. Please explain how that is. You mean, you, can choose not to engage in sex, with whomever....for how long? When was the last time you had sex? And why? I mean, it's a choice, after all. Why couldn't you have contained yourself, and abstained? And when your partner shoved toys and salves up your ass, was that perverted...up your perverted "straight ass"? How the fuck do you know how someone rolls? And what kind of a name is Dixie, for a man? If I recall Dixie Carter was one of the cast members of Designing Women. Is there something you aren't telling us?
Click to expand...

You are ridiculed and shunned because you glorify perverted behavior.

What kind of a "man" watches "Designing Women"? Do you sit down when you piss?
 
poet said:
Sexual preference is never a choice, anymore than "right-handedness" or "left-handedness" or the ability to curl one's tongue or wiggle one's ears, is. If it were, given the bigotry and hate, who would choose it? And if it is "of choice", as you believe, where is the documentation supporting that belief? Nowhere. The only ones who believe that are religious bigots, who use that viewpoint to support their position that homosexuals are willful sinners, who are outside of God's law, love and protection, and are, therefore, to be "looked down upon" (by the "so-called" righteous), ridiculed, and shunned.
And you're a moron...and you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too?? In your twisted mind, sexual preference is not a choice "for all of us", only for "some of us", which is contradictory......but sexual behavior is a choice. Please explain how that is. You mean, you, can choose not to engage in sex, with whomever....for how long? When was the last time you had sex? And why? I mean, it's a choice, after all. Why couldn't you have contained yourself, and abstained? And when your partner shoved toys and salves up your ass, was that perverted...up your perverted "straight ass"? How the fuck do you know how someone rolls? And what kind of a name is Dixie, for a man? If I recall Dixie Carter was one of the cast members of Designing Women. Is there something you aren't telling us?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Howell

This MAN named Dixie is from the REAL world, and not TV land. Now... please run find a fucking example of someone who's real name is "poet" (....and Micheal Jackson's children don't count!)

Let's be clear, sexual PREFERENCE is something we PREFER. Sexual BEHAVIOR is a CHOICE! You may PREFER having sex with a dead person, but having sex with a corpse is a crime, so you make the CHOICE not to engage in that type of sexual behavior. It's entirely up to you, it's your choice, unless you are mentally disturbed and can't comprehend right from wrong, and you can't control your sexual urges. Is that what you are claiming with regard to homosexuals, that they are mentally disturbed and can't control their sexual urges? You make the CHOICE to engage in sex with people of same gender, that's not illegal, so it's a choice you can make, but still... it's a CHOICE! You made the CHOICE because it is your PREFERENCE, and it's not illegal.
 
Horny Herman prefers sex with white women he's not married to, apparently.


Here's doublewide Dixie after hearing Horny Herman bailed....


739d5_baby_shower_invitation_wording_Sad+Animated+Gif+Animation+Crying.gif
 
poet said:
Wow, you discovered my faux pas? How many does that make. Don't you make one every post? My number was had? Which number was that? Ignorant slut.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly can't be the number of times you have been bent over (both actually and figuratively)- that's a number too high to count- bitch. :D
 
It seems Spermin' Herman believes in 'whites only' when it comes to cheating on his wife....


Meanwhile, doublewide Dixie continues to mourn.

739d5_baby_shower_invitation_wording_Sad+Animated+Gif+Animation+Crying.gif
 
Alias said:
You are ridiculed and shunned because you glorify perverted behavior.

What kind of a "man" watches "Designing Women"? Do you sit down when you piss?
Click to expand...

My behavior is no more perverted than your own. And where is the glorification? My admission that I'm a gay man? Am I sending up "allelujahs" and lighting incense? You and your homophobic riff raff have made it a big deal, when it is inconsequential. Why are you obsessed with my sex life?
I didn't and don't watch Designing Women...I only referenced "Dixie Carter", as an "actress" from the series. What man is named "Dixie"?
Do you sit down when you shit? What's the difference? Standing or sitting defines a man or a woman? Where are you from? The Middle Ages?
 
Dixie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Howell

This MAN named Dixie is from the REAL world, and not TV land. Now... please run find a fucking example of someone who's real name is "poet" (....and Micheal Jackson's children don't count!)

Let's be clear, sexual PREFERENCE is something we PREFER. Sexual BEHAVIOR is a CHOICE! You may PREFER having sex with a dead person, but having sex with a corpse is a crime, so you make the CHOICE not to engage in that type of sexual behavior. It's entirely up to you, it's your choice, unless you are mentally disturbed and can't comprehend right from wrong, and you can't control your sexual urges. Is that what you are claiming with regard to homosexuals, that they are mentally disturbed and can't control their sexual urges? You make the CHOICE to engage in sex with people of same gender, that's not illegal, so it's a choice you can make, but still... it's a CHOICE! You made the CHOICE because it is your PREFERENCE, and it's not illegal.
Click to expand...

Poet is my alias. It is one of the many things that I am, and therefore, "appropriate" as a label.

And your twisted logic is not going to distract me or change my mind, which is clear. Sexual orientation is not of choice, and predetermined or predestined from or near birth.
If you are oriented toward your own sex, then sex with the opposite sex is aberrant. And vice versa. You can cry "choice", until cows come home, but you'll be the only one believing it. You have some nerve lecturing me, with no authority. I've done my research. It's obvious, you haven't. Were you thinking of convincing me, or others here? LOL.

Btw. Dixie is feminine. (-ie, as a suffix, is feminine) Barbie. Jamie. Susie. Jackie. Billie. Yankie. Dixie.
 
Alias said:
And that's the only explanation you have because you don't understand the US Constitution. Stupid negro queer. What a fucking waste. You were taken out of the jungle, given your freedom, educated, and all you can show for all this progress is now you want to have anal sex while we all take care of you with our hard earned tax dollars. Parasite negro queer. Then you want to parade around here flicking your wrist while you tell us it's all the white man's fault. People like you, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are what's wrong with America. Nothing but lazy ass con artists preying on white guilt while you ridicule and mock the ones who support you. Parasite.
Click to expand...

You are one sick puppy. Seek help.
 
Dixie said:
In essence, your entire argument here is based on your totally false understandings and misconceptions of the Constitution. You want to stomp in the room and lay the law down, and insist you are the final arbiter on what is and isn't intended in the Constitution, and you just aren't. In fact, you are about the most clueless person on the planet, because you haven't bothered to read the Federalist Papers or try and understand what was envisioned. The Constitution lays the groundwork for a very LIMITED central government, with very LIMITED power, and most everything left to the people and the states. You see, while they were debating and arguing about a Constitution, the #1 biggest main concern the people of America had, was a fear of a tyrant government stealing their freedoms. So when these open-ended phrases came up in discussion, like "general welfare" or "common good" etc., people naturally wanted some clarification on just what the hell that meant, and the founders painstakingly explained it. As Madison so aptly put it, it would be silly and foolish to think that the general welfare clause granted Congress the authority to do anything it damn well pleased in the name of "general welfare." IF that had been the original intent, there would have been no need for a Constitution. We could have simply said, Congress has the power to do whatever they want, as long as it's for what they determine is our general welfare... does that make any logical sense at all to you?
Click to expand...

Let's talk about logical sense. General welfare. General welfare of what? What is the "common good"? The "common good" of what? I'd say it's logical to conclude they were talking about the welfare, the common good, of the country considering they were discussing forming a new country. They wouldn't be talking about the welfare, the common good, of England or Australia. So, we can definitely say they were discussing the welfare, the common good, of the country known as the United States of America.

Now, what defines a country? Well, there’s the borders and land and natural resources, etc. However, when the Founding Fathers were having their discussions there is little written about trees and rivers and mines, etc. The topic was people. The Constitution wasn’t saying trees had freedom of speech or bison could carry a weapon. They were designing a country, for lack of a better term, and their discussions centered on people. So, it’s “logical sense” to conclude “general welfare” and “common good” referred to the people. They were intelligent men. They realized it’s the people who make the country.

Now we connect the dots. The Preamble to the Constitution reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“

Promote the general welfare. We’ve established that “general welfare” refers to the people. The verb “promote” is what’s known as an active verb. It involves actively doing something. So, promoting the general welfare means promoting the general welfare of the people.

Following do far? Good.

Now we look at the study from Harvard that shows 45,000 people die, every year, from a lack of proper medical care. How can anyone possibly conclude that by doing nothing to correct such an injustice the government is promoting the general welfare? By what twisted, convoluted, irrational reasoning can anyone possibly say doing nothing to correct that situation is promoting the general welfare unless they believe in some sort of de-population ideal?

Then there are those who use the “limited government” argument to spout the old, tired, worn-out idea that “general welfare” doesn’t apply to individuals. Who do they think makes up the country but individuals? Each and every citizen is an individual and when talking about 45,000 people that’s a lot of individuals. That’s almost half a million every decade. Can anyone possessing even an infinitesimal amount of grey matter possibly argue the needless death of half a million people should not be a concern to the government?

As the Repub supporter said to Newt you’re an embarrassment so please stop making a fool of yourself.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dixie said:
I'm going to skip your outrageous diatribe about what the Tea Party or Michelle Bachmann would advocate, and we're going to talk about "general welfare" and what it means, according to the man who wrote it. You see, dimwit, the Founding Fathers debated the entire Constitution for years, mostly through a series of papers known as the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 41, Madison explains the "general welfare" clause:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter....But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare?

Since he is using language and parlance of the late 1700s, it is somewhat difficult to follow, but he is clearly saying the "general welfare" phrase, is followed by a specific enumeration to which it applies. Furthermore, he concludes you would have to be an absolute idiot to assume it means what Democrats currently claim it means.




The SCOTUS has also upheld that black people were not citizens, but property, owned by their masters. It seems to me, the SCOTUS and what they may have ruled, is not the best barometer for what is intended in the Constitution.



The Constitution does not mention gay marriage, or perverting religious traditions and customs for the sake of legitimizing a sexual lifestyle preference. It does say that you can't infringe on the right of religious exercise. The Constitution protects a right which no gay person is being denied, to my knowledge, a gay person has never been denied the right to enter into marriage with a person of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is, and this is the same right enjoyed by all.



It does neither. Sorry.




There is only ONE United States Income Tax Code. It applies to every person earning income in America, there are no exceptions, and no separate code which is applied to wealthy people. You are delusional.



Whether it's "under the guise" or not, the people have a right to maintain the integrity of the electorate and ensure the voters are legitimate. Pretty much everything you listed, falls into that category, so as usual, you are totally full of shit.



Since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been legal in the US. There is nothing in the Constitution which grants any authority either way on abortion, that was why there was a SCOTUS case, Roe v. Wade, I mentioned it earlier. Many people believe the SCOTUS got it wrong, and will one day find that the fetus is a human being, protected under the first amendment which guarantees a right to life. But for now, there is nowhere in the US, where a ban has been instituted. In this instance, you are not only wrong, you are just flat out lying through your shit stained teeth about it.



Again, we can go to the Federalist Papers and find the "commerce clause" has been perverted from its original intent. This is why Constitutional Conservatives are upset with the power grab Obama has made, regarding nationalized health care.

In essence, your entire argument here is based on your totally false understandings and misconceptions of the Constitution. You want to stomp in the room and lay the law down, and insist you are the final arbiter on what is and isn't intended in the Constitution, and you just aren't. In fact, you are about the most clueless person on the planet, because you haven't bothered to read the Federalist Papers or try and understand what was envisioned. The Constitution lays the groundwork for a very LIMITED central government, with very LIMITED power, and most everything left to the people and the states. You see, while they were debating and arguing about a Constitution, the #1 biggest main concern the people of America had, was a fear of a tyrant government stealing their freedoms. So when these open-ended phrases came up in discussion, like "general welfare" or "common good" etc., people naturally wanted some clarification on just what the hell that meant, and the founders painstakingly explained it. As Madison so aptly put it, it would be silly and foolish to think that the general welfare clause granted Congress the authority to do anything it damn well pleased in the name of "general welfare." IF that had been the original intent, there would have been no need for a Constitution. We could have simply said, Congress has the power to do whatever they want, as long as it's for what they determine is our general welfare... does that make any logical sense at all to you?
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
Let's talk about logical sense. General welfare. General welfare of what? What is the "common good"? The "common good" of what? I'd say it's logical to conclude they were talking about....
Click to expand...

Let me interrupt you, we don't have to "logically conclude" anything, we have a written documentation of what they meant, it is called the Federalist Papers. In those, Madison states it very clearly what he was talking about when he wrote "general welfare" and every other general statement found in the Constitution. He says it's stupid and foolish to conclude they meant an open-ended clause which would enable Congress to deem anything they pleased as "general welfare" or for the "common good" and that such a mindset was ignorant. He further stated that following the general clause, is an articulation or enumeration of specificity, detailing exactly what was covered. In other words, we don't have to speculate or conjure up meanings, it's stated very clearly and concisely in the document itself. This means, since there is absolutely no mention of insurance, it is not included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top