Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree138Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:26 PM   #71
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Goober and foundit66 expend at least 25,000 calories per day running from substance and another 25,000 trolling. That is a lot of cheeseburgers.

This is where the two of them spend 99% of their time:

Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:02 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,705
And once again Jimmy believes he has fooled people into thinking he actually knows something

Not really Jimmy boy
Thanks from LongWinded
goober is online now  
Old January 7th, 2016, 08:16 PM   #73
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
It is no secret that goober has the option to write out a rebutal or provide any evidence that my posts are incorrect. Goober will not for obvious reasons, but what goober will do is avoid either scenario at all costs.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 09:20 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It is no secret that goober has the option to write out a rebutal or provide any evidence that my posts are incorrect. Goober will not for obvious reasons, but what goober will do is avoid either scenario at all costs.
Evidence that jimmyb's posts about same sex marriage are incorrect.

Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 09:33 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Evidence that jimmyb's posts about same sex marriage are incorrect.

Thanks giving SOCTUS legal opinion but if you cut to the chase is it not the equal protection clause in the US Constitution?
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 05:17 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Evidence that jimmyb's posts about same sex marriage are incorrect.

This didn't work out so well for you last time. If you are going to copy and paste something as an argument, you have three choices: defend it on the constitutional merits, demonstrate why I am wrong on constitutional merits, it use another one of you patented excuses to run. We all know it will be to run. So here you go again:

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
Thanks from caconservative
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 08:20 AM   #77
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
This didn't work out so well for you last time. If you are going to copy and paste something as an argument, you have three choices: defend it on the constitutional merits, demonstrate why I am wrong on constitutional merits, it use another one of you patented excuses to run. We all know it will be to run. So here you go again:

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
It works perfectly fine every time it's used.

It's called reality. Your refusal to accept reality is a sign of mental illness on your part.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 08:37 AM   #78
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
It works perfectly fine every time it's used.

It's called reality. Your refusal to accept reality is a sign of mental illness on your part.
If you are going to copy and paste something as an argument, you have three choices: defend it on the constitutional merits, demonstrate why I am wrong on constitutional merits, it use another one of you patented excuses to run. We all know it will be to run. So here you go again:

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model
Thanks from caconservative
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 08:46 AM   #79
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 18,037
So the argument moves from what the Constitution actually says, and applies to, to what the SC wants it to mean. If you cannot see the inherent evil in that thinking your a moron.
caconservative is offline  
Old January 8th, 2016, 08:46 AM   #80
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
If you are going to copy and paste something as an argument, you have three choices: defend it on the constitutional merits, demonstrate why I am wrong on constitutional merits, it use another one of you patented excuses to run. We all know it will be to run. So here you go again:

Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to udicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model
I didn't post it as an argument. I posted it to show that you have a disconnect with reality. If you think the court erred in their decision then carry your anonymous internet hack ass into court and convince them. Until then you're just a chess playing pigeon crapping all over the board and strutting around like you've won. (Spoiler Alert: your side lost)
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
alabama, blocking, chief, issues, justice, licenses, marriage, order, samesex



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama intangible child Current Events 11 February 16th, 2015 05:23 PM
Mississippi KKK Chapter Backs Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore In Anti-Gay Marriage Fi LongWinded Current Events 38 February 14th, 2015 06:22 PM
Alabama's Anti Sharia Law Bill Shoots Down Judges Anti Marriage Equality Order skews13 Current Events 0 February 12th, 2015 12:14 PM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict The White House The White House 0 May 14th, 2014 07:20 AM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation The White House The White House 0 March 6th, 2014 05:22 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.