Flushing an American
-
it seems growing age making you blind as well. If you are suffering from "thread-blindness" then not my fault. I actually answer that Illion guy[or girl]. I am bored of responding your infant answers to me[or anyone else]
And I'm getting bored of reading your bigoted and baseless attacks on Western society and culture. I'm also getting sick of your endorsement of violence and hatred. How about that, apostate?
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You know, the ones which the actual text of the constituion specifically leaves up to the states and to the people.
So that means all of them? You think we can codify all our rights? Or do you mean that if they are not codified then we don't have them? So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
led mike
led mike wrote:
So that means all of them? You think we can codify all our rights? Or do you mean that if they are not codified then we don't have them? So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
That is precisely the way our system of government was designed to work. The few crucial rights were articulated in the bill of rights, the rest were left for us to work out among ourselves with the understanding that the constitution could be amended as necessary to provide for redifinitions of crucial rights. In any case, I can't understand how allowing the courts to discover what ever rights they see fit to bestow upon us in their infinite wisdom represents a much better solution to the problem you are describing. That seems like a far more problematic, and far less egalitarian, solution to me.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
led mike wrote:
Yes the abortion issue is as simple as murder
When did murder become simple? Was there a memo?
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
led mike wrote:
So that means all of them? You think we can codify all our rights? Or do you mean that if they are not codified then we don't have them? So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
That is precisely the way our system of government was designed to work. The few crucial rights were articulated in the bill of rights, the rest were left for us to work out among ourselves with the understanding that the constitution could be amended as necessary to provide for redifinitions of crucial rights. In any case, I can't understand how allowing the courts to discover what ever rights they see fit to bestow upon us in their infinite wisdom represents a much better solution to the problem you are describing. That seems like a far more problematic, and far less egalitarian, solution to me.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oh two '1' votes, so far. So that must mean I was wrong?
led mike wrote:
"A is not as simple as B" is not equal to "B is simple"
Could someone explain that to me, because I just don't get it.
led mike
-
I might have missed the sarcasm in your previous post... :-O [Edit: ok, i re-read it... are you saying that abortion is more complex an issue than murder, or are you implying that anyone saying that is just trying to start a fight... :confused: ]
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Shog, Keep Shagging!
:laugh: WTF?!!? :laugh:
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
... not everyone fits into your neatly polarized little world of caricatures.
Of course, being a superior being, as you are, it's not necessary for you yourself to do other than stereotype. Or pay too much attention to the failures of the stereotypes you insist upon projecting onto others.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I would most certainly have not, as I am opposed to abortion. You know, Illness, not everyone fits into your neatly polarized little world of caricatures.
But, the fact is, and as we *all* know, abortion is one of those issues clearly recognized and understood by all to be a "liberal" .... hmmm, sacrament. Certainly, one *can* find "conservatives" who pro-abortion. And one *can* find "liberals" who are anti-abortion. One can even find atheists who are strongly anti-abortion. But these are pretty much aberrations. If you had cared to actually read what I wrote ... but why would you, being superior, as you are? ... I expressed the expectation that you are pro-abortion, while very much leaving open the possibility that on this issue you deviate from your regular leftism.
Ilíon wrote:
Of course, being a superior being, as you are, it's not necessary for you yourself to do other than stereotype. Or pay too much attention to the failures of the stereotypes you insist upon projecting onto others.
What stereotype have I projected onto you?
Ilíon wrote:
But, the fact is, and as we *all* know, abortion is one of those issues clearly recognized and understood by all to be a "liberal" .... hmmm, sacrament. Certainly, one *can* find "conservatives" who pro-abortion. And one *can* find "liberals" who are anti-abortion. One can even find atheists who are strongly anti-abortion. But these are pretty much aberrations.
Abortion has been a "liberal" issue only since the Republican party began pandering to the religious right. Funny how abortions are more common in the red states. And I would think that anyone who is actually pro-abortion would be considered an aberration in any camp. I know many people on both sides of the issue, and can honestly say that even the ones who consider it the woman's right to choose are decidedly anti-abortion. Perhaps we travel in different circles.
Ilíon wrote:
If you had cared to actually read what I wrote ... but why would you, being superior, as you are? ... I expressed the expectation that you are pro-abortion, while very much leaving open the possibility that on this issue you deviate from your regular leftism.
I read what you wrote. Are you going to split semantic hairs and tell me that an expectation is not at all the same thing as an assumption? Are you trying to weasel out because you phrased it as a question? Do you not sacrifice infants to a giant stone idol of Reagan in your basement? Keep in mind that I'm simply asking, based on an expectation developed from carefully reading everything you've written in this forum. I'm leaving you plenty of room to relocate the idol. :rolleyes:
-
I don't understand, you didn't seem to answer my question.
led mike wrote:
So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
led mike
led mike wrote:
So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
Of course you have a right to walk around on your hands. Until, that is, you fall over and injure someone and your town decides to create a law against hand walking for public safty purposes. Than you don't have that right any more. Since hand walking is not defined in the constitution you have no legal basis for challanging the law. You can, however, begin a petition to have the constitution amended to allow for hand walking, or you can go to the state legislature to fight it. Of course, you do have the right to voice your opinion on why hand walking should be legal, you have the right to pubish your opinion, you have the right to assemble with likeminded citizens to voice your view, you even have the right to worship the God's of hand walking and do all the hand walking you like in the privacy of your own home. All those rights are in the constitution. Hand walking isn't. Get it?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Beats me, but eh, i know a good suggestion when i hear one. Back in 3-13...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
Beats me, but eh, i know a good suggestion when i hear one. Back in 3-13...
:laugh: The SoapBox, it's like one big grand scheme!
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
I might have missed the sarcasm in your previous post... :-O [Edit: ok, i re-read it... are you saying that abortion is more complex an issue than murder, or are you implying that anyone saying that is just trying to start a fight... :confused: ]
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
are you saying that abortion is more complex an issue than murder
That's one way to put it but it could be twisted, you have to be careful around here don't you? More accurately, it's different, therefore not equal to murder in the sense that you can't just dismiss the issue by calling it murder due to the life/health of the mother being inseparable in the issue.
Shog9 wrote:
trying to start a fight
hmm, not sure. I was thinking more along the lines of it's not worth discussing the issue with someone that refuses to consider the aspect of the mother when discussing the issue. From experience, I guess it seems anyone that starts the discussion with "murder" is not going to consider the mother, in discussion, so that's sort of how I got there. Did that help, or just make it worse? :)
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
Could someone explain that to me, because I just don't get it.
Beats me. I didn't vote.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
If exposing something is ignorance and bigotry then I am afraid we all are suffering from it.
Yes. Exactly. What you routinely expose is your ignorance and bigotry, and we are all suffering from it. Congratulations. Recognizing you have a problem is the first step to a cure.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
If you read I am not targeting you as individual since SB members don't consist of you only.
I do read, and, as your reply was to me, you were obviously including me in the group. I was merely stating that you should not include me as part of the group that makes sweeping generalizations about Islam and its believers. If you truly meant all members of the SoapBox, you were including yourself, and either being unusually honest, or an idiot. Guess which one my money's on.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes. Exactly. What you routinely expose is your ignorance and bigotry, and we are all suffering from it. Congratulations. Recognizing you have a problem is the first step to a cure
Again twisting words or putting words on other mouth is yet another salient feature of this forum. You didn't take long. NOW my 1st statement is applicable on YOU as well that you ain't different than those self-righteous freaks who have been suffering from holier than thou attitude.
-
And I'm getting bored of reading your bigoted and baseless attacks on Western society and culture. I'm also getting sick of your endorsement of violence and hatred. How about that, apostate?
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
quit reading? rather pissing around? how hard is that for you? or it's just reality keeps biting you all the time? *wink* I love the way all tin soldiers come together to "invade" me. lol!
-
quit reading? rather pissing around? how hard is that for you? or it's just reality keeps biting you all the time? *wink* I love the way all tin soldiers come together to "invade" me. lol!
How hard is it for you to stop being an apostate of Islam? That's the real question.
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes. Exactly. What you routinely expose is your ignorance and bigotry, and we are all suffering from it. Congratulations. Recognizing you have a problem is the first step to a cure
Again twisting words or putting words on other mouth is yet another salient feature of this forum. You didn't take long. NOW my 1st statement is applicable on YOU as well that you ain't different than those self-righteous freaks who have been suffering from holier than thou attitude.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
you ain't different than those self-righteous freaks who have been suffering from holier than thou attitude.
Not holier. Just far less hypocritical. And, just out of curiosity, why do you keep using the word "ain't"? It is not a part of formal English, and almost always makes the speaker seem ill-educated. Oh, wait...
-
led mike wrote:
So if it has not been specifically written that I have the right walk around on my hands then I don't have that right?
Of course you have a right to walk around on your hands. Until, that is, you fall over and injure someone and your town decides to create a law against hand walking for public safty purposes. Than you don't have that right any more. Since hand walking is not defined in the constitution you have no legal basis for challanging the law. You can, however, begin a petition to have the constitution amended to allow for hand walking, or you can go to the state legislature to fight it. Of course, you do have the right to voice your opinion on why hand walking should be legal, you have the right to pubish your opinion, you have the right to assemble with likeminded citizens to voice your view, you even have the right to worship the God's of hand walking and do all the hand walking you like in the privacy of your own home. All those rights are in the constitution. Hand walking isn't. Get it?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Get it?
Probably not. You seem to be saying the same thing you always say. If I injure someone during hand walking, and that is very likely were I to walk on my hands, then I can be prosecuted for that under existing laws. It does not follow that the towns new law banning walking on hands FOR EVERYONE is not unconstitutional. We all have certain inalienable unalienable rights and governments are established to secure these rights, not restrict them. The states or towns have no more right to restrict freedom than the federal government does since they are a form of government.
Last modified: 11mins after originally posted -- [groan] did it again
led mike
-
BAYTOWN, Texas - A 14-year-old girl gave birth in a restroom at her junior high, and the baby boy cried once before she tried to flush him down the toilet, killing him, officials said Thursday. An autopsy confirmed the baby was alive when born Wednesday at Cedar Bayou Junior High in Baytown, near Houston. The boy was probably full term and cried before the mother, an eighth-grader, tried to flush him, said police Lt. Eric Freed. Yahoo![^]
In a civil society, such people are tried in a court of law.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
you ain't different than those self-righteous freaks who have been suffering from holier than thou attitude.
Not holier. Just far less hypocritical. And, just out of curiosity, why do you keep using the word "ain't"? It is not a part of formal English, and almost always makes the speaker seem ill-educated. Oh, wait...
He ain't so holy! Ya dig?
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Shog, Keep Shagging!
:laugh: WTF?!!? :laugh:
Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.
That's what I thought too. :~ What the fuck???
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit