I started this blog after the 2004 election to combat the rise of religous, "Neocon" conservatism of the the Bush administration. During the time of the adults running the show, I didn't have much to write about but now that Trump and Pence have been elected, I am sure this will be as successful as the last time we elected a know nothing figure head who let his VP run this country into the ground.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
This is Gold
Wow, if she looked like Chris Coons, no one would have ever heard of Christine O'donnell. But, since she gives red state men boners and reminds them of the good ol days of bimbo house wives, we have people like her and Palin providing such great political comedy.
But I have to admit, I get where she is trying to go with this; it doesn't specifically say "The church and state are always separate" in the First Amendment. And in asking where this clause is found, I would tell her it was right next to the word "hand gun and machine gun" clause in the Second Amendment and the words "God" and "Christian" in any other part of the Constitution.
Not every issue in the modern world is addressed in the Constitution. Internet porn for instance is never mentioned in the Constitution and it is legal nor is the idea that Corporations are people and that they have the same rights, just not the same responsibilities as people even though all the people within that corporation already have their individual rights to contribute to and support any candidate of their choosing. So, I never read any where in the Constitution that says owners of corporations get to have their say twice as much as people who do not have a corporation but the activist judges in the Supreme Court have looked at the Constitution and interpreted it as such to where they believe these rights should apply to corporations just as many wiser Justices in the past have looked at the Constitution, studied it, studied the writings of the authors of the Constitution, studied what they were trying to get away from in Europe, and determined that their intentions, as stated in Thomas Jefferson's writings, were to create a country where the church and state remain separate. Not only that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", is pretty clear that the United States cannot endorse a religion or religious beliefs and principals and further more, that no one can be judged on or by religious principles and in Article 6 of the Constitution they even drive this point home further by adding this clause: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" which essentially states that no religion has any authority over the federal government.
Ironically, her being a tea bagger and all, what is also in the Constitution is the 16th Amendment which gives Congress the power to levy an income tax. So not only do many Tea Baggers and conservatives want to get rid of taxes, they apparently want to scrap the entire Constitution as well. They want to rewrite, the 1st Amendment, the 16th Amendment, Article 6 and now even the 14th Amendment. So, why is it ok for them to actually want to change all these components of the Constitution but when someone says that perhaps the founding fathers didn't intend on 16 year olds being able to walk into a K-Mart and walk out with military style hand guns which can fire 1200 armor piercing bullets per minute and take it to school, they flip their shit and pretend they are staunch Constitutionalists and go on about the founding fathers, blah, blah, blah??
The next time some conservative Tea Bagger talks about being a Constitutionalist, give them a good ole fashioned cock punching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
And on the other side, anyone who can find anything to do with Roe v Wade in the Constitution is also very ignorant of it, or is intentionally lying.
Well, again, abortion isn't specifically discussed in the 14th Amendment but liberty is.
Here are some definitions of liberty:
the power to do as one pleases
freedom from physical restraint
freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
the power of choice
I think we would agree that at least one of these means that men can't force women to just be a vessel for their babies and that since being pregnant and having a child is a huge restraint and a man telling a woman she has to have it would equal despotic control, a woman is free to choose whether or not she want's to endure that.
Again, I never saw "handgun" in the 2nd Amendment yet you're willing to cut a few corners there for something that isn't written out in plain English so....
Thanks for playing!
Also, your "But, since she gives red state men boners " line of reasoning is blatantly sexist. You are bashing these two women for their gender, Nothing less.
But it's par for the course, like when the left frequently uses racist insults against Clarence Thomas.
No, I am bashing them because they are morons who are merely eye candy for rednecks.
Name one person on the left who have said racist things about Clarence Thomas...It's your side who makes all the racist jokes.
"Well, again, abortion isn't specifically discussed in the 14th Amendment but liberty is."
Exactly. And being killed on a whim sure is a big violation of any idea of liberty.
"Name one person on the left who have said racist things about Clarence Thomas...It's your side who makes all the racist jokes."
Just google uncle clarence thomas. The "uncle tom" racist epithet is used at him very commonly, most commonly on the Left.
Oh and about
"says that perhaps the founding fathers didn't intend on 16 year olds being able to walk into a K-Mart and walk out with military style hand guns which can fire 1200 armor piercing bullets per minute and take it to school"
Actually, in that era, kids routinely took guns to school. Good guns, too. So why not butt the hell out on this one? If you don't like guns, down own them. Problem solved.
I don't advocate that anyone be killed and especially not that I be killed...I don't know where you got that.
Eliminating a clump of cells is not "Killing", even the Hebrew Bible agrees with me on that.
20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages anyway. So saying that having an abortion definitely ends a human life is retarded since 20% of those would have never became life anyway. Not only that 1 in every 115 births in the US are stillborn so yet again, you can't say that an embryo is a "person" or even a "baby" until it is one. Once it is one, then you can start using the term "killing".
Uncle Tom isn't a racist joke.
Really?
Kids "routinely" took guns to school??And you were there and have what photo evidence to support this? And were these guns concealed military weapons that could fire 1000 rounds per minute or were they long, single shot, inaccurate muskets that fired one round per minute and were those the type of "arms" the founding fathers decided was safe for the population to have?
"I don't advocate that anyone be killed and especially not that I be killed...I don't know where you got that."
From your advocacy of abortion, for one.
"Eliminating a clump of cells is not "Killing", even the Hebrew Bible agrees with me on that."
We all are clumps of cells. So it's OK if anyone kills you.
"20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages anyway."
Crazy logic. Any excuse to justify killing someone, eh? A lot of people die in traffic accidents in New York City streets anyway. So you'd justify sending snipers to kill a bunch more intentionally.
"So saying that having an abortion definitely ends a human life is retarded..."
It's factual. And why do you keep insisting on hate speech involving the mentally disabled. Educate yourself for once.
"since 20% of those would have never became life anyway."
Those 20% you mention already were living human beings. They just didn't get to be older human beings.
"you can't say that an embryo is a "person" or even a "baby" until it is one."
Well, these young human beings already are persons. Despite your bloodthirsty and inconsistent logic.
"Once it is one, then you can start using the term "killing"."
In the 19th century, people lied and claimed Africans weren't really persons. Using twisted logic a lot like yours: anything to justify killing someone.
"Uncle Tom isn't a racist joke."
It's a racist insult that is used in racist jokes. The insult has been used to bash Clarence Thomas for not fitting certain stereotypes accepted of African-Americans. It's purely racist.
By the way, check Obams's own treasury department. You claim Clinton reduced the debt. However, not only did he leave all previous debt in place, he added $1.6 trillion to it.
"Kids "routinely" took guns to school??And you were there and have what photo evidence to support this? "
I have done historic research. I am a published historian. I think this is like the Bill Maher "dogs" issue": another example of where you say "no way!" without researching it at all.
"And were these guns concealed military weapons that could fire 1000 rounds per minute "
And what does THAT have to do with anything?
"ere those the type of "arms" the founding fathers decided was safe for the population to have?"
Of course. If you don't like such guns, don't buy them. Problem solved.
No the anti-choice, anti-woman movement claims that all pregnancies = babies and human beings and in pointing out that 20% of all pregnancies miscarry, it takes the God complex they developed in stating for sure they know what the future holds for every embryo out of the equation....That being said, eliminating a clump of cells without a heart beat or any brain activity and no nervous system doesn't count as murder and as I pointed out, God even agrees with that as pointed out by the laws in Leviticus.
If you want to argue that a pregnancy in its third trimester is a human that is a completely different argument than the morning after pill or a first trimester abortion. A person in a casket has no heart beat, brain activity or functioning nervous system either but you don't have any objections to burying them do you?
However, even in the third trimester, for most situations, I am still going to side on letting the woman choose whether or not she is going to become a Mom...Even though I may not be a fan of abortion in the third trimester when no risks to the mother are present and the pregnancy wasn't a result of rape. Of course you big government conservatives would rather the government make those decision for you...Typical.
Clinton created a budget surplus, end of story.
Post a Comment