Bumper stickers of the confused

B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
The Constitution

This_person said:
Remember that Article One, Section Eight thing we talked about eariler? You haven't read it yet, have you?
Click to expand...

Did This_person just cite The Constitution?

Interesting... seeing as you oppose same-sex marriage.

And support the Federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in states where it's legal.

(among so many other things)
 
B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
This_person said:
Remember that Article One, Section Eight thing we talked about eariler? You haven't read it yet, have you?
Click to expand...

So explain this:

Her view is in line with a Bush administration program that will hand out over $200 million this year to promote the abstinence-only philosophy in schools across America. Palin's home state of Alaska accepts more than $700,000 of that money each year. But California has rejected that funding.
Click to expand...

Palin Renews Debate Over Abstinence-Only Sex Ed. - cbs5.com

So, funding sex-ed programs aimed to curb and reduce pregnancies (even though abstinence is unrealistic) is ok if it's in lockstep with your beliefs and The Republican Party's beliefs? :confused:
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Beaver-Cleaver said:
Did This_person just cite The Constitution?

Interesting... seeing as you oppose same-sex marriage.

And support the Federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in states where it's legal.

(among so many other things)
Click to expand...
Once again, you have no clue.

Can you find the "same gendered marriage" right in the Constitution?

Look under the tenth amendment, or read my previous posts on the subject.

Now, as to federal prosecution of marijuana "in states where it's legal". Look up some Supreme Court decisions on which holds higher priority - state laws, or federal laws. As long as it's illegal federally, the state laws are in themselves illegal, and therefore do not matter.

did you read the enumeration of powers yet?
 
B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
While we're at it, talking about conservatives and small government.

This was your government:

[-----------]

This was your government on Bush:

[------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
This_person said:
Now, as to federal prosecution of marijuana "in states where it's legal". Look up some Supreme Court decisions on which holds higher priority - state laws, or federal laws. As long as it's illegal federally, the state laws are in themselves illegal, and therefore do not matter.
Click to expand...

And in that case, I think the government should ban pit bulls. :yay:
 
B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
This_person said:
As with most questions you get asked, I'm anxious to read how stupid your answer will be.....

What do pit bulls have to do with a discussion on abortion?
Click to expand...

Pit bulls are animals.

Let's go back to the first post of this thread:

Highlander said:
I was following a small car home today. It had an array of bumper stickers on the back. The two that really made me shake my head....

'LOVE ANIMALS, DON'T EAT THEM!"
"PRO-CHOICE"

This tells me the owner of the car is a very confused liberal. She doesn't think it's OK to kill animals but thinks it's OK to kill babies. What the he!! makes people think like this?

Would any of our whackjob nutty liberal forumites explain why this makes sense?
Click to expand...

:biggrin:
 
Lenny

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
Give it up, guys. He's stuck and will squirm the rest of the day to try to avoid answering the questions. He's stupid and too stupid to recognize he's stupid.
 
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
This_person said:
Once again, you have no clue.

Can you find the "same gendered marriage" right in the Constitution?

Look under the tenth amendment, or read my previous posts on the subject.

Now, as to federal prosecution of marijuana "in states where it's legal". Look up some Supreme Court decisions on which holds higher priority - state laws, or federal laws. As long as it's illegal federally, the state laws are in themselves illegal, and therefore do not matter.

did you read the enumeration of powers yet?
Click to expand...
But if it's an illegal (unconstitutional) law, should it be followed or ignored?
 
B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
Merlin99 said:
But if it's an illegal (unconstitutional) law, should it be followed or ignored?
Click to expand...

Of course it should be followed :sarcasm:

Social conservatives support the Constitution and what it stands for unless it protects the right for someone to do something they find religiously and morally unacceptable.

This_person is exactly the type of person we're fighting against over in Afghanistan.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Beaver-Cleaver said:
Of course it should be followed :sarcasm:

Social conservatives support the Constitution and what it stands for unless it protects the right for someone to do something they find religiously and morally unacceptable.

This_person is exactly the type of person we're fighting against over in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Given the last two sentences, can you show one time where I suggested that I have a religious or moral unacceptability with pot?
 
Go G-Men

Go G-Men

New Member
Beaver-Cleaver said:
What about cases of rape and incest? :eyebrow:
Click to expand...

Actually Beaver: That makes it too simple. What about cases where all these hippocrites who believe that abortion is a terrible thing and all those who CHOOSE abortion are the Anti-Christ and yet do nothing to help the young lady who decides to have the baby and live in poverty all their life.. It is easy to say that abortion is wrong and those who have an abortion are going to hell but yet make no effort to help those young women when they decide to have the baby! At this point they claim victory and walk away and leave a child to raise a child!

Yes I know the Pro-Life crowd is gonna claim that the Catholic Charities is going to help and they support orphanges and such but the truth is they RARELY ADOPT!!!

Hypocrites!!!!
 
Go G-Men

Go G-Men

New Member
This_person said:
I am against universal health care because it is not in the Constitution that I am responsible to provide your health care. While I see the government getting involved (via what it will pay for and not pay for) in determining a great amount of medical options, that has little to do with why I'm against it.

It's not my job to pay for your stuff. That's your job.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say that you should have a say over another womens body???
 
Go G-Men

Go G-Men

New Member
This_person said:
Babies are in great demand. If these people are willing to give up their child for adoption, there are a hell of a lot of people out there willing to take them whether I exist and take them or not.

Again, your accusation has nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...


Really? Because there are hundreds of thousands of children in the United States who are available for adoption yet never get adopted... They go from Foster home to Foster home...

Get in line an adopt ot shut up and raise your current family!!!


If you are PERSONALLY not willing to help then you should not willingly give your opinion!!!
 
Go G-Men

Go G-Men

New Member
This_person said:
I don't know why they are foster kids.

That's the whole point of my question to you - we're not talking about the ability to place foster kids, or any kid other than infants.

So, how many were infants?
Click to expand...

So your point is that if thay make it to 8 or 9 years old than they were kids who should have been aborted???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top