Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's
rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion
with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware
until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

---------------------------------------

Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the
ammo.
The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an
unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw
it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/28/2013 7:27 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.


Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with
a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until
now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear?

O'Bama instructs Holder which laws to enforce or ignore. The
Constitution is just a piece of paper, for now anyway.

I wonder If The Pres. is rethinking shutting down the left coast missle
silos?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:48 PM, wrote:

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.
Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?
Why can't 3 people be married?
At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.




Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/28/2013 7:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/28/13 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:48 PM, wrote:

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.
Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?
Why can't 3 people be married?
At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.




Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

Oh, so you think DOMA should supersede state law in Connecticut, DC,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Vermont, and Washington?

That passed our congress by a wide margin .
85 to 14 in the Senate, 342 to 67 in the house.
It was signed by your hero

Do you really want that to be our national code?

Fortunately the SCOTUS may strike down DOMA precisely because it does
violate the concept of states rights.

I don't think the government, any government, should be granting or
taking away so called human rights. We all should have the same,
complete rights, including the right to marry whomever we please.

So go marry another sheep, you fool.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:35:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights,"
and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.

----------------------------------------------

"finally getting rid of state's rights"? .... Holy Moley! ... give
a liberal an inch and they'll take a mile.

======

Certainly Harry and his big government brethren would. In fact they'd
take well over a mile.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article , says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

Did you READ the article?

Yes, it said nothing about the scope of the robocall campaign only
that people in Newtown got called. It didn't even say if they were
only people on the NRA donors list.



But they cannot do any wrong. The ****ing NRA are blood sucking scum
that only give a **** about where their next gun mouthful comes from.

What do you think of the local NAACP in Ohio who said that the girl was drunk and consented
to being raped?

http://www.ibtimes.com/steubenvilles...tim-was-drunk-
willing-exclusive-1149517

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:49:38 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:19:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:40:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:11:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message


Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?


Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman?


This "guy" does sound like Plume. He showed up here opening up on me
with his first post, pretty much where Plume left off.

I said that not long after it showed up here. Same key phrases, same old BS. It's just another sock back with a different name, and attempting (poorly) to re-invent itself. A third-rate troll at best.

Maybe Plume's love child

Sound like you're in line with the stalker of teen girls. Sorry buddy.
You aint my type. ****ing sick bull****.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:09:50 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/28/2013 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:11:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to
bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga.
Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too?

Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?

-------------------------------------

Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman?


This "guy" does sound like Plume. He showed up here opening up on me
with his first post, pretty much where Plume left off.


And plume showed up less than 24 hours after loogie left... And loogie
is kevin, there you go.

I'm getting confused. There's kevin, plume, and now a loogie? Are you
a mental case or what.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:48:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:37:49 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

It was the will of the people AKA the democracy you referenced above.
Are you saying the application of democracy can be selective?

I'm saying that the minority needs to be protected from the majority,
which is what the constitution is all about dickwad.

The open question is whether "gay" is a protected class then isn't it?
That is the question Scalia asked the other day.

That's the question Scalia asked but that's not the important
question. It's an equal protection and state's rights issue.

Are bigamists going to be the next protected class?

No idea. Are there any pending lawsuits?

Why can't 3 people be married?

No idea. Are there any pending lawsuits?

At a certain point people may even start questioning the "age of
majority/consent" that is an arbitrary number that is not even uniform
among the states.


Maybe they will. None of this has anything to do with the two current
cases. Feel free to continue your bull**** at deflections.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and
having a uniform, national code, eh?

=====

So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights??

It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things
are.

These two cases have nothing to do with any such action. A lot of
"reasons the way things are" have to do with antiquated views and
fear. That argument doesn't stand for very long.