Somewhere, Barry Goldwater is smiling

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Van,

This is not going to good for you. I'd bail.

Especially after this sig material - "I care about the woman. You care about her luggage."

Luggage?

Humans being formed inside a woman are....to you....."luggage"???????????????

I once thought you were just an iconoclast.

Now, you are a fucking retard.

What are you our thoughts about partial birth abortions, Van? The "fetus" is viable, and once it is outside the woman, the 'doctor', kills it. Want to see a picture?

Luggage????????

I agree with a woman's right to choose, but after 4 months, it is no longer "luggage", it is a human being that can survive outside the woman's body.

And I have said this before. If the father does not care, then it is up to mother up until 4 months. Before that, men should shut the hell up. BUT!!!!!!, If the father does care, women MUST consider the man's view.

[mvscal]

Before that, men should shut the hell up.

Why is that? They're going to be stuck paying child support for the next 18 years. That ought to give a man some say in the matter, right?

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

That is a monetary issue, not human/moral one.

But I believe that if a guy wants his "juices" to be his own, don't shoot them into a woman. Pay the consequences.

Trojans are not that expensive.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Trojans are not that expensive.

The hell they aren't. Why do you think I bailed?

[Screw_Michigan]

That is a monetary issue, not human/moral one.

But I believe that if a guy wants his "juices" to be his own, don't shoot them into a woman. Pay the consequences.

Trojans are not that expensive.

Emasculate yourself, you fucking tard.

[Goober McTuber]

Trojans are not that expensive.

Say what?

Sincerely,

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

That is a monetary issue, not human/moral one.

But I believe that if a guy wants his "juices" to be his own, don't shoot them into a woman. Pay the consequences.

Trojans are not that expensive.

Emasculate yourself, you fucking tard.

So you are saying it's OK for men to impregnate women with no repercussions?

Or are you just typing this because you are the moron you have shown yourself to be, and have nothing to bring to this thread other than the idiocy you always type?

I think it's the latter.

btw, 'latter' means the last thing, not the first. Just a heads up.

[Van]

mvscal, the 5th Amendment never included a fetus as a "person"

What else is a fetus if not a person? It is a living human being by any biological standard of the term life.

It's a fetus. In the same way that an egg isn't a chicken an early trimester fetus isn't a person.

Regardless, the 5th Amendment makes no mention of fetuses, and the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the concept of aborted fetuses.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

and the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the concept of aborted fetuses.

You are joking, right?

Right?


You are not saying that the founding fathers of our country even THOUGHT about abortion, when writing The Consitution. And thought that it was a protected 'right'? Are ya?

[Van]

Rog, you're not exactly the strongest authority when it comes to knowing what will and won't go well here, and a very safe rule of thumb has always been that if one needs to know they're correct they simply need for Roger_the_Wrong to weigh in against them.

You're really that much of a fucking imbecile all across the board. You're never right about anything.

As for you throwing out your back over my "luggage" comment, well...good. You obviously took it literally, because you have the sense of humor of an eggplant.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

You typed it, not me, eggplant.

And yes, we all know that is exactly what you meant. Claiming it was a 'joke' now, nice try.

We all know what your intellectual prowess is also.

Go sell a motor cycle.

[Van]

and the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the concept of aborted fetuses.

You are joking, right?

Right?

You are not saying that the founding fathers of our country even THOUGHT about abortion, when writing The Consitution. And thought that it was a protected 'right'? Are ya?

No, you fucking dunce, that isn't what I said, nor is it what I think. I said that the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the concept of women having abortions, and still they included no language in the Constitution providing any rights whatsoever to a fetus.

Jesus, dude, do everyone a favor and log off for good. You've become just obnoxiously stupid, to the point that you're a complete waste of time.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Yes, it is exactly what you said.

And inferred.

And, well, you know the drill..........

Don't post it if you don't mean it.

And you KNOW you meant it.

I love the "go away" smack too. It's almost as good as " You're a meany and nobody likes you and your mother never loved you and I am right and you are wrong and I am smarter than you cause I said so there!"

BTW, I like you Van.

Like a bullet loves a target.

Edit: I can't wait for the cripple and drug smack forthcoming.

hehehe

[trev]

Van's step kid is just luggage. That is how he thinks of children.

[Van]

We all know what your intellectual prowess is also.

And Van. Well, to say we have had our 'run ins', an understatement, but he is one very smart person, and I respect his opinion on all subjects.

Then again, dammit, you're wrong about everything else, so I must be Jon.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

You saved a positive post about me to you???????

And then posted it as a response?

Van, call your Mommy. She will tell you that those mean nasty people on the message board are just jealous. Jealous of you and your intellectual prowess, and that everything you type is right, and if someone disagrees is just because they know they are not as smart as you. You know everything about everything and all your opinions are correct and all others are wrong, because I am your Mom and I love you and those mean people are just hateful stupid people.



PS - When you were 2 months in my tummy,.....you were just just luggage I could have lost at any time.

[Van]

You saved a positive post about me to you???????

And then posted it as a response?

Nope. I merely did a twenty-second search for "Roger-the-Shrubber-Van."

Fortunately for you, most of your other comments about my intelligence were wiped out when Otis went Pearl Harbor on this place.

As always, you never win. Considering our histories, what in the fuck would ever possess you of all people to question my intelligence? I know you're borderline insane, but are you...insane?

Unless your opponent subsists on a stready diet of flies, you'd do well to avoid ever trying to call someone out over their smarts.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Ain't it grand, when someone asks you a question, you ignore it, and go on to your post.

Van, the next time you answer questions will be the first.

You love posting about yourself and ignoring everything else.

I made you look stupid.

And that's ....OK.

[Diego in Seattle]

So do you think that the rights of blacks should be put to a vote?

No, we already did that. We amended the Constitution after the Civil War to prohibit disparate treatment of individuals on the basis of race. But your question raises an interesting proposition. If the Constitution was amended to prohibit disparate treatment of individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or preference, we'd have an entirely different ball game now, wouldn't we? So, shouldn't we have to vote to amend the Constitution or have votes in the individual states on the question of whether the definition of "marriage" should be expanded? What is wrong with putting that to a vote?

Because this is already covered by the Constitution, Counselor. Try reading the 14th Amendment.

[jiminphilly]

So this is a person?

Looks like a rolled-up tube sock under a microscope.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

So this is a person?

I think that was JTR, first trimester.

[R-Jack]

Soooooooooooooooooooooo

We got this abortion thing figured out yet?

[Van]

Soooooooooooooooooooooo

We got this abortion thing figured out yet?

Yep. Rog's parents fucked up.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

There is no such thing as a "fundamental right" without government.

Inalienable rights.

Meaning, just because a law hasn't been defined yet, doesn't mean there's any prohibition of said activity.

I already spelled it out two years ago in this thread.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...without government protection and recognition of those rights.

Wrong.


You were born with those rights.

Whether or not some tin pot dictatorship wants to strip you of these rights doesn't make them any less universal. At least that's what your founders thought.

I get your message. You clearly are happy to give up some freedom for some security. Why don't you just say so?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The founders of our government agreed that certain rights were inalienable.

Not "certain" rights...ALL rights, unless otherwise enumerated.


Again, a Canadian needs to be telling you this...


jeeeez

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The question is whether the definition of the word "marriage" should be broadened to encompass relationships between members of the same sex.

You've already had conservatives in this very thread, express that government has no business in the marriage racket.
Because interference in such matters is not "conservative".

...do I have a fundamental right to marry my sister or mother or daughter or brother or father? Why not?

Unless you're Shoalzie, no, you do not have that right...because it is the LAW.

[Goober McTuber]

If your argument was correct, do I have a fundamental right to marry my sister or mother or daughter or brother or father? Why not?

Which would be your first choice, and why?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

If your argument was correct, do I have a fundamental right to marry my sister or mother or daughter or brother or father? Why not?

Which would be your first choice, and why?

If this turns into a Rank 'Em, I will hold you entirely responsible.

:x

[Van]

not sure what the issue was but I ended up donating $100 to the Alzheimer's Association.

Money well spent!

[Diego in Seattle]

Really? Perhaps you can enlighten me exactly where in the 14th Amendment there is a provision requiring the States to expand their definition of "marriage" to include relationships between members of the same sex

With marriage comes privileges. Perhaps you could enlighten me to where in the 14th Amendment that it says that you can bar certain people rights & privileges from people w/o due process.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our Founders didn't give us these rights. They recognized them, and our Constitution protects them.

The right to marry has been recognized by our SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Our government cannot and should not interfere with the free exercise of that right unless there is a compelling and legitimate state interest to do so.

No such interest was identified in the Prop 8 trial, and accordingly, I expect that when the case reaches the SCOTUS, same sex marriage will be recognized, and same sex couples will be able to marry in all 50 states.

Further, I'll back up my legal opinion and prediction with a $100 bet. If same sex couples are not allowed to marry in all 50 states after the conclusion of the Prop 8 litigation, then I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice; if they are allowed to marry, then you'll make a $100 donation to the charity of my choice. Deal? Fwiiw, the last time I made a bet on the boards, I lost, I think it was to mvscal, not sure what the issue was but I ended up donating $100 to the Alzheimer's Association.

The Declaration of Independence, while brilliant prose, is of no legal significance in this discussion.

I agree with you that the right to marry has been determined to be a fundamental right.

Again, how does denying some people the right to marry who they choose jibe with what the 14th says?

[Diego in Seattle]

I imagine it doesn't cover polygamy either.

Actually, it just covers consenting adults.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Just adults?

You asking Diego that question is bound to tear a hole in the Time/Space Continuum...




:!:

[mvscal]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our Founders didn't give us these rights. They recognized them, and our Constitution protects them.

The right to marry has been recognized by our SCOTUS as a fundamental right.

How about that right to life, huh? Evidently it is entirely subject to the whims of ones mother. Not so "inalienable" after all is it, hypocrite?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our Founders didn't give us these rights. They recognized them, and our Constitution protects them.

The right to marry has been recognized by our SCOTUS as a fundamental right.

How about that right to life, huh? Evidently it is entirely subject to the whims of ones mother. Not so "inalienable" after all is it, hypocrite?

If 95% of the women obtaining abortions were black and Mexican, you'd be wearing a Bela Abzug t-shirt right now.

[War Wagon]

Further, I'll back up my legal opinion and prediction with a $100 bet. If same sex couples are not allowed to marry in all 50 states after the conclusion of the Prop 8 litigation, then I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice; if they are allowed to marry, then you'll make a $100 donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?

Is this bet open to moi?

If so, you've got a bet... but there will have to be a time frame placed, none of this 'after the conclusion of litigation' crap. That might never end. 6 months? A year? Name the date, just make sure you live that long, as will I.

[mvscal]

If 95% of the women obtaining abortions were black and Mexican, you'd be wearing a Bela Abzug t-shirt right now.

It's a nice thought but, unfortunately, that isn't the case.

[War Wagon]

Yes, the bet is open to you, as stated to 88 above.

I'm betting on a landmark decision, and those don't happen that often, so you'll probably win. It is tough to have the right case and the right circumstances for the SCOTUS to hear a case, but Ted Olson thinks this is such a case.

Specifics, man. I desire no open ended bet. The clock starts ticking now... when do the last grains of sand run out of this hourglass?

Name the date, now.

[Van]

Jsc, whether or not gays are given the okay by the SCOTUS to marry will never be one of the landmark decisions of our times...unless you're gay.

For the rest of us, it'll be WGARA, the same as it is now. There aren't a whole lotta heteros out there whose lives are demonstrably affected by gays marrying, gays staying single or gays enjoying Festivus and calling it a life-partnership.

It's just another fringe issue being made into a giant mauve and chartreuse media foosball.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The Fifth Amendment only acts as a limitation upon action by the State. There is no corresponding prohibition against such action by the individual.

So...I can just jam a .12 gauge into your face and blow your fucking head off, right? It's an individual action.

Uhhh, no. Your ignorance of the law is simply breathtaking.

The action you described would be a violation of the Penal Law (in this case, murder). What it would not be is a violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution is, by definition, the supreme law of the land. It is not, however, the only law of the land, nor was it ever intended as such.