Topic: Ron Paul is a creationist
sluggy started this discussion 15 years ago #13,435
He is not fit to lead our country. Any argument MM can make is invalidated.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #240,937
Not what 4chan's /pol/ says.
They say economics > religious beliefs.
Not sure if I should vote for him or Obama. I'm not voting in one of the current Republican monkeys.
They say economics > religious beliefs.
Not sure if I should vote for him or Obama. I'm not voting in one of the current Republican monkeys.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,942
He isnt capable of intelligent, critical thought. Any conclusion he comes to is circumspect, as he has demonstrated his personal bias is far more influential than evidence and real world observations.
The man is dangerous, frankly.
The man is dangerous, frankly.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,943
If you would have voted for Bush, vote for Obama.If you oppose Bush's policies, vote for Ron Paul.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,944
@previous (C)
Don't vote for Obama. My god. The man has done enough harm already.
The greatest nation in Africa is now regressing to a Islamic fundamentalist stronghold.
We should offer free travel and welfare/housing support to any homosexual or female living in Libya.
Don't vote for Obama. My god. The man has done enough harm already.
The greatest nation in Africa is now regressing to a Islamic fundamentalist stronghold.
We should offer free travel and welfare/housing support to any homosexual or female living in Libya.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,945
@240,942 (sluggy)
Although I believe in evolution, it is definitely not based upon real world observations - it occurs over far too great a time period to be observed. It is logical to assume it happens, based upon the circumstantial evidence.
People who focus on the "person" instead of the "policy" are dangerous, frankly.
Although I believe in evolution, it is definitely not based upon real world observations - it occurs over far too great a time period to be observed. It is logical to assume it happens, based upon the circumstantial evidence.
People who focus on the "person" instead of the "policy" are dangerous, frankly.
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,946
@240,944 (sluggy)
> We should offer free travel and welfare/housing support to any homosexual or female living in Libya.
We should impeach Obama. He is a war criminal. Definitely impeach Sarkozy.
> We should offer free travel and welfare/housing support to any homosexual or female living in Libya.
We should impeach Obama. He is a war criminal. Definitely impeach Sarkozy.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,948
@240,945 (C)
This. His religious beliefs have nothing to do with policies. For some republicans their religious beliefs affect their policies, but Ron Paul not so much.
This. His religious beliefs have nothing to do with policies. For some republicans their religious beliefs affect their policies, but Ron Paul not so much.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,949
@previous (D)
Does this mean prayer is going to be instructed in schools and gays stoned?
Also from 4chan's /pol/.
Does this mean prayer is going to be instructed in schools and gays stoned?
Also from 4chan's /pol/.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,950
@240,945 (C)
Evolution has been observed. We also have evidence of evolution that has happened in the past.
You speak as informed when you are ignorant.
The person is VERY important. When a person allows their personal bias to shape their policy and beliefs, it is a huge issue.
@240,946 (C)
The US government tortured people. I believe renditions are still going on today, or we're during obama's presidency (I could be wrong).
@240,948 (D)
They do. To claim his beliefs, which as a creationist are not founded in reality, do not factor into his policies is ridiculous. Look at his stance on abortion.
Evolution has been observed. We also have evidence of evolution that has happened in the past.
You speak as informed when you are ignorant.
The person is VERY important. When a person allows their personal bias to shape their policy and beliefs, it is a huge issue.
@240,946 (C)
The US government tortured people. I believe renditions are still going on today, or we're during obama's presidency (I could be wrong).
@240,948 (D)
They do. To claim his beliefs, which as a creationist are not founded in reality, do not factor into his policies is ridiculous. Look at his stance on abortion.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,951
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,952
Does it matter?
The job of the President is to follow the constitution and administer the government. Ron Paul has a near-flawless history of abiding by the constitution, and has a proven track record of respecting individual liberty. Would you rather have a fascist who accepts evolution or someone who supports freedom but believes a myth?
I really don't care what Ron Paul (or anyone else) believes or doesn't believe, as long as they respect individual rights.
The job of the President is to follow the constitution and administer the government. Ron Paul has a near-flawless history of abiding by the constitution, and has a proven track record of respecting individual liberty. Would you rather have a fascist who accepts evolution or someone who supports freedom but believes a myth?
I really don't care what Ron Paul (or anyone else) believes or doesn't believe, as long as they respect individual rights.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,953
@240,950 (sluggy)
His stance on abortion is more moderate than most republicans.
@240,949 (B)
No, he would never implement such policies. If you actually believe anything like that, then you're completely ignorant about who he is and his political beliefs and therefore have no room to criticize him.
His stance on abortion is more moderate than most republicans.
@240,949 (B)
No, he would never implement such policies. If you actually believe anything like that, then you're completely ignorant about who he is and his political beliefs and therefore have no room to criticize him.
Anonymous D double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,956
@240,952 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
This. Ron Paul is more libertarian and has a better track record for respecting individual and civil rights than any other republican and most other democrats. Democrats talk a lot about civil right, but are mostly collectivists with little respect for individual liberty.
This. Ron Paul is more libertarian and has a better track record for respecting individual and civil rights than any other republican and most other democrats. Democrats talk a lot about civil right, but are mostly collectivists with little respect for individual liberty.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,964
Just a little quote (note, I'm too lazy to google, but I think paul voted to repeal
Don't ask don't tell, anyway)
His beliefs are a problem. He is also wrong about separation of church and state.
Don't ask don't tell, anyway)
I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
His beliefs are a problem. He is also wrong about separation of church and state.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #240,969
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,977
@previous (G)
He claims that it was not the intention of the founding fathers.
The term "seperation of church and state" comes directly from Thomas jefferson.
Ron Paul believes prayer should in public school, but not mandatory. That fight has been decided. His views scare me.
He is still likely the second best candidate (maybe the best). Gary Johbson seems better, but I haven't researched him as thoroughly as paul.
He claims that it was not the intention of the founding fathers.
The term "seperation of church and state" comes directly from Thomas jefferson.
Ron Paul believes prayer should in public school, but not mandatory. That fight has been decided. His views scare me.
He is still likely the second best candidate (maybe the best). Gary Johbson seems better, but I haven't researched him as thoroughly as paul.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,978
@previous (sluggy)
> He claims that it was not the intention of the founding fathers.
Well, he claims the kind of separation of church and state we see today was not the intention of the founding fathers.
> He claims that it was not the intention of the founding fathers.
Well, he claims the kind of separation of church and state we see today was not the intention of the founding fathers.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,980
@previous (G)
Thomas Jefferson would disagree. So would almost every other founding father.
Post cold-war Christianity in the US is vastly different from pre-cold war.
There were kooky societies, but what we see today is the unintended consequences of a propoganda campaign.
Thomas Jefferson would disagree. So would almost every other founding father.
Post cold-war Christianity in the US is vastly different from pre-cold war.
There were kooky societies, but what we see today is the unintended consequences of a propoganda campaign.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
sluggy (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,981
Also, the constitution is pretty clear. You can't endorse religion. It's very clear.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #240,989
@240,980 (sluggy)
> Thomas Jefferson would disagree. So would almost every other founding father.
Would they?
> Thomas Jefferson would disagree. So would almost every other founding father.
Would they?
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,995
@previous (G)
George Washington was a known douche bag. He threatened to enslave the children of one of his escaped slaves if she didn't return.
Anyways, I said almost. I have no idea on the accuracy of that statement, but I know George Washington was a docuhe bag.
George Washington was a known douche bag. He threatened to enslave the children of one of his escaped slaves if she didn't return.
Anyways, I said almost. I have no idea on the accuracy of that statement, but I know George Washington was a docuhe bag.
sluggy (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #240,996
@240,989 (G)
Oh, and the constitution backs me up. It states in clear language that it may not be endorsed. It's very clear.
Oh, and the constitution backs me up. It states in clear language that it may not be endorsed. It's very clear.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,002
Jump I cringe when I read your posts. How can you be so wrong on everything lol
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,010
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,014
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,358
@240,950 (sluggy)
> Evolution has been observed. We also have evidence of evolution that has happened in the past.
I have never observed evolution. You have never observed evolution. Please provide a link to someone who has claimed to have observed evolution. We do have much circumstantial evidence of evidence, and it is logical to believe in its veracity.
> The person is VERY important. When a person allows their personal bias to shape their policy and beliefs, it is a huge issue.
herp derp only because it affects their policies? Ron Paul's policies are good. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
> The US government tortured people. I believe renditions are still going on today, or we're during obama's presidency (I could be wrong).
Truly awful stuff.
> They do. To claim his beliefs, which as a creationist are not founded in reality, do not factor into his policies is ridiculous. Look at his stance on abortion.
Ron Paul's stance on abortion is to let the state's decide. OMG INSANE lol
> Evolution has been observed. We also have evidence of evolution that has happened in the past.
I have never observed evolution. You have never observed evolution. Please provide a link to someone who has claimed to have observed evolution. We do have much circumstantial evidence of evidence, and it is logical to believe in its veracity.
> The person is VERY important. When a person allows their personal bias to shape their policy and beliefs, it is a huge issue.
herp derp only because it affects their policies? Ron Paul's policies are good. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
> The US government tortured people. I believe renditions are still going on today, or we're during obama's presidency (I could be wrong).
Truly awful stuff.
> They do. To claim his beliefs, which as a creationist are not founded in reality, do not factor into his policies is ridiculous. Look at his stance on abortion.
Ron Paul's stance on abortion is to let the state's decide. OMG INSANE lol
!jEsTERxAng joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,362
Every presidential candidate is a creationist...
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,363
@240,981 (sluggy)
Ah the old endorsement clause. My favorite. Hold on, I can't find that in my constitution! It must be missing parts!
Ah the old endorsement clause. My favorite. Hold on, I can't find that in my constitution! It must be missing parts!
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,373
@241,358 (C)
You are ignorant. I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's a good read. The study cited in there is available online, I had read about it before, but I'm not your google monkey.
@241,358 (C)
Which is against the constitution. Which has already been decided. Why is he anti-constitution now? He wants to repeal row v wade.
You are ignorant. I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's a good read. The study cited in there is available online, I had read about it before, but I'm not your google monkey.
@241,358 (C)
Which is against the constitution. Which has already been decided. Why is he anti-constitution now? He wants to repeal row v wade.
sluggy (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,374
sluggy (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,377
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #241,404
@241,373 (sluggy)
> mfw I have read all of this stuff and know what you should have posted
but you didn't. You know nothing, you should listen instead of argue.
Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. It is only a matter of time before this is repealed.
> Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Pretty clear to me.
> mfw I have read all of this stuff and know what you should have posted
but you didn't. You know nothing, you should listen instead of argue.
Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. It is only a matter of time before this is repealed.
> Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Pretty clear to me.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,428
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,430
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,436
@previous (C)
I don't agree this != This is unconstitutional
Your own personal interpretation of constitutionality is probably hilariously interesting, but it doesn't make your statement true.
I don't agree this != This is unconstitutional
Your own personal interpretation of constitutionality is probably hilariously interesting, but it doesn't make your statement true.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,437
@previous (K)
Do you deny that SCOTUS could make a decision that is unconstitutional? Or do you suggest that any decision the court makes is constitutional?
Do you deny that SCOTUS could make a decision that is unconstitutional? Or do you suggest that any decision the court makes is constitutional?
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,440
@previous (C)
It's certainly conceivable that they would make a decision that appears to run contrary to some part of the constitution, but the fact that they are given the authority to make such decisions by the constitution itself muddles the issue a bit. Decisions can be overturned and the constitution itself can be amended at a later date to overturn past decisions. However, simply stating that a standing decision is unconstitutional as if it were fact shows an amazing ignorance of the issue.
It's certainly conceivable that they would make a decision that appears to run contrary to some part of the constitution, but the fact that they are given the authority to make such decisions by the constitution itself muddles the issue a bit. Decisions can be overturned and the constitution itself can be amended at a later date to overturn past decisions. However, simply stating that a standing decision is unconstitutional as if it were fact shows an amazing ignorance of the issue.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,443
sluggy (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,444
@241,437 (C)
They make mistakes all the time.
Roe v wade is not a mistake. A woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body. No one has a right to force a woman to carry a fertilized egg until it miscarried or is birthed.
They make mistakes all the time.
Roe v wade is not a mistake. A woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body. No one has a right to force a woman to carry a fertilized egg until it miscarried or is birthed.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,452
@241,440 (K)
> amazing ignorance
No, I am attempting to limit the otherwise absolute power scotus would enjoy.
> amazing ignorance
No, I am attempting to limit the otherwise absolute power scotus would enjoy.
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,453
@241,444 (sluggy)
Amend the constitution if you feel that. The current text does not agree with you.
Amend the constitution if you feel that. The current text does not agree with you.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,454
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,457
Quality post. @previous (sluggy)
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,460
@241,452 (H)
> absolute power
We're not talking about the Decemviri (or nonemviri, I suppose it would be?) here. Checks and balances are written into the system. Please take a US government class at some point.
> absolute power
We're not talking about the Decemviri (or nonemviri, I suppose it would be?) here. Checks and balances are written into the system. Please take a US government class at some point.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,472
@previous (K)
No, when the judiciary can legislate there are no checks or balances. If every scotus decision is necessarily constitutional it has unlimited power.
No, when the judiciary can legislate there are no checks or balances. If every scotus decision is necessarily constitutional it has unlimited power.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,476
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,493
@previous (K)
Delineate the checks and balances that exist to prevent judicial legislation.
Delineate the checks and balances that exist to prevent judicial legislation.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
derp replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,506
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,510
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,513
@previous (H)
Your argument:
> I'm right, and everything I disagree with is unconstitutional.
Yes, I do have a compelling argument. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Your argument:
> I'm right, and everything I disagree with is unconstitutional.
Yes, I do have a compelling argument. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,531
Everyone in this thread is living the delusion. Politics is designed to fail so stupid trolls will emerge demanding more politics.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,538
People who will never need an abortion, are always the people who are stridently against it.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,541
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,543
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,552
@241,538 (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
> People who will never need an abortion, are always the people who are stridently against it.
> People who will never need an abortion, are always the people who are stridently against it.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,553
Go fuck yourself. Men have as much right to opinions and use of the political process to impose their beliefs on others as women do.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,578
@241,513 (K)
> Your argument:
> > I'm right, and everything I disagree with is unconstitutional.
>
> Yes, I do have a compelling argument. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Can you even read? I contest Roe v. Wade not because I disagree with abortion, but because it is unconstitutional. Similarly, federal drug prohibition is unconstitutional. Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, so do other drugs. Abortion needs a constitutional amendment.
> Your argument:
> > I'm right, and everything I disagree with is unconstitutional.
>
> Yes, I do have a compelling argument. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Can you even read? I contest Roe v. Wade not because I disagree with abortion, but because it is unconstitutional. Similarly, federal drug prohibition is unconstitutional. Alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, so do other drugs. Abortion needs a constitutional amendment.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,592
@previous (C)
> Can you even read?
yes
> I contest Roe v. Wade not because I disagree with abortion, but because it is unconstitutional.
Again, to merely state that the standing ruling is unconstitutional rests on nothing. People (supporters and dissenters alike) have roundly criticized the decision. You could at least parrot one of their arguments. As is, we have nothing more than your claim - which is not much to go on. You have read the Roe vs. Wade decision, right? You know that they are arguing from constitutionally granted rights?
Please enlighten me. I'm sure glad we have you here to settle this, otherwise I'd have to base my opinion of constitutional law on things like Supreme Court decisions.
> Can you even read?
yes
> I contest Roe v. Wade not because I disagree with abortion, but because it is unconstitutional.
Again, to merely state that the standing ruling is unconstitutional rests on nothing. People (supporters and dissenters alike) have roundly criticized the decision. You could at least parrot one of their arguments. As is, we have nothing more than your claim - which is not much to go on. You have read the Roe vs. Wade decision, right? You know that they are arguing from constitutionally granted rights?
Please enlighten me. I'm sure glad we have you here to settle this, otherwise I'd have to base my opinion of constitutional law on things like Supreme Court decisions.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,604
@previous (K)
> base knowledge of constitutional law on supreme court
> supreme court interprets constitution however it wants
> constitutional amendments have no affect because supreme court interpets constitution
> supreme court assumes legislative powers
> supreme court assumes executive powers
> base knowledge of constitutional law on supreme court
> supreme court interprets constitution however it wants
> constitutional amendments have no affect because supreme court interpets constitution
> supreme court assumes legislative powers
> supreme court assumes executive powers
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,626
@previous (C)
> supreme court assumes legislative powers
> supreme court assumes executive powers
You have ignored any pretense of government. You obviously are not familiar with constitutional law. Justices can be removed, and they have been in the past. It is, in fact, provided for in the same US Constitution that you speak so highly of. Did you learn what you know of US politics from ronpaul.com??
Please see: @241,460 (K)
> supreme court assumes legislative powers
> supreme court assumes executive powers
You have ignored any pretense of government. You obviously are not familiar with constitutional law. Justices can be removed, and they have been in the past. It is, in fact, provided for in the same US Constitution that you speak so highly of. Did you learn what you know of US politics from ronpaul.com??
Please see: @241,460 (K)
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,635
@241,604 (C)
you aren't answering Anonymous K. You are being very evasive. Anonymous K is being very specific in what they are asking you to do. All you need to do is simply support your statement. You don't seem able to, maybe you should admit ignorance and research further.
you aren't answering Anonymous K. You are being very evasive. Anonymous K is being very specific in what they are asking you to do. All you need to do is simply support your statement. You don't seem able to, maybe you should admit ignorance and research further.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,643
@241,626 (K)
Are you referring to the same US Constitution that is interpreted however the Supreme Court sees fit?
cool ad hominems its funny because you use them when you cant see where the discussion is heading. youd look smarter without them.
Are you referring to the same US Constitution that is interpreted however the Supreme Court sees fit?
cool ad hominems its funny because you use them when you cant see where the discussion is heading. youd look smarter without them.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,664
@previous (C)
> Are you referring to the same US Constitution that is interpreted however the Supreme Court sees fit?
LOL
> Are you referring to the same US Constitution that is interpreted however the Supreme Court sees fit?
LOL
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,668
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,672
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,679
@previous (K)
We don't need to explain - we just need to accept that every ruling of scotus is constitutional - it is impossible for the court to violate the constitution, for it defines and interprets the constitution.
We don't need to explain - we just need to accept that every ruling of scotus is constitutional - it is impossible for the court to violate the constitution, for it defines and interprets the constitution.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,682
@previous (C)
I brought that up here: @241,440 (K)
Do you have an actual argument that this decision is unconstitutional or not?
I brought that up here: @241,440 (K)
Do you have an actual argument that this decision is unconstitutional or not?
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #241,979
@previous (K)
> Decisions can be overturned
By the Supreme Court
> and the constitution itself can be amended at a later date to overturn past decisions.
This constitutional amendment will be interpreted by the supreme court, and whatever interpretation they choose is deemed constitutional.
> Decisions can be overturned
By the Supreme Court
> and the constitution itself can be amended at a later date to overturn past decisions.
This constitutional amendment will be interpreted by the supreme court, and whatever interpretation they choose is deemed constitutional.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #242,123
This is why I'm against democracy now. Obama = Bush, yet we must continue listening to ignorant Democrats and ignorant Republicans insisting that is not that case. Well, I don't care much for the opinions of people who can't even READ!
If you knew how to fucking read and you actually bothered to research the records, you would know Obama = Bush. Believing otherwise makes you irrational and ignorant in my book. The facts speak for themselves.
If you knew how to fucking read and you actually bothered to research the records, you would know Obama = Bush. Believing otherwise makes you irrational and ignorant in my book. The facts speak for themselves.
sluggy (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #242,124
@previous (M)
I agree. Obama is essentially black bush in terms of foreign policy and civil liberties.
I agree. Obama is essentially black bush in terms of foreign policy and civil liberties.