Author Topic: Texas, more specifically Greg Abbott, hates your freedom, and the Constitution  (Read 5442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
So what he's proposing is basically the exact opposite of the thread title...

Yeah

No, not really since most of the amendments and changes the right wants to make revolve around a government that is more intrusive and antithetical to freedom, see being able to marry who you want or have equal rights.  The part about them hating the constitution is that right now it limits their ability to inflict their religion and personal agendas on people so they want to change it in order to allow punitive laws against citizens (restrictive voting, no free contract of marriage, no equal protection for gender/race/religion).

None of what you just said is relevant.

Excellent analysis refuting how I explained exactly why they hate freedom and want to introduce ways to limit the freedom many Americans now enjoy.  Thanks.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
And yeah, I guess I'm a living Constitution person.....because I like things like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and the 19th isn't so bad.

Speaking of you looking foolish... Amending the Constitution and a "living Constitution" are two entirely different things. You're like a walking breathing facepalm.

Oh we're talking the academic definition.  I mean if you want to talk about cases involving the penumbra of the constitution we can do that.  I won't end up well for you and you'll just tap out.  Why don't we just skip to that now?
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 13651
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Ed, you sound like an idiot.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 41316
    • View Profile
Whack-a-Doodle combines the perfect combination of idiocy and butthurt that creates pure comedy.   

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
See here is the things, I find very little value interacting with people online.  It's not to say that you can't find good points or interesting discussions.  But by and large, people like Dax never contribute to conversations and only drag things down to derivative talking points or extremist theories which can only function when someone doesn't have any critical evaluation.  It's fun to joke about Mean Granny every now and then.  But when your entire philosophy is typified by 140 characters, it gets really boring. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
And yeah, I guess I'm a living Constitution person.....because I like things like the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and the 19th isn't so bad.

Speaking of you looking foolish... Amending the Constitution and a "living Constitution" are two entirely different things. You're like a walking breathing facepalm.

Oh we're talking the academic definition.  I mean if you want to talk about cases involving the penumbra of the constitution we can do that.  I won't end up well for you and you'll just tap out.  Why don't we just skip to that now?

:lol: Ok, that cinched it. To the Libtard HOF!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 33494
    • View Profile
If 3/4 of the states want to amend the constitution, then it's pretty reasonable that they should be able to. It's even constitutional.

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 13651
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Justice Douglas's talk of penumbras was and remains a novelty. It was a useful fiction employed to justify the (correct) outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. Since then, it has been largely abandoned. You  don't  even see liberal justices today using that reasoning. Instead, substantive due process analysis (14th/5th amendments) is the favored method for accomplishing the same thing. Even that is fraught with controversy because the implication is along the lines of, "You can't see it. That's how you know it's there!"

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 41316
    • View Profile
See here is the things, I find very little value interacting with people online.  It's not to say that you can't find good points or interesting discussions.  But by and large, people like Dax never contribute to conversations and only drag things down to derivative talking points or extremist theories which can only function when someone doesn't have any critical evaluation.  It's fun to joke about Mean Granny every now and then.  But when your entire philosophy is typified by 140 characters, it gets really boring.

Extremist theories?   LOL, you're a complete whack-a-doodle and cannot stand it when your idiocy is called out, which is repeatedly. 

In your whack-a-doodle little world, anything that cuts against your highly slanted view point is considered an "extremist theory" and then you try to counter that by spewing forth rudimentary talking points that are already understood by everyone.


Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Justice Douglas's talk of penumbras was and remains a novelty. It was a useful fiction employed to justify the (correct) outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. Since then, it has been largely abandoned. You  don't  even see liberal justices today using that reasoning. Instead, substantive due process analysis (14th/5th amendments) is the favored method for accomplishing the same thing. Even that is fraught with controversy because the implication is along the lines of, "You can't see it. That's how you know it's there!"

Griswold v CT concerned a stupid law, but it was not an unconstitutional law - not without that "penumbra." So I wouldn't say the case reached the right outcome. And the "right to privacy" was not limited to Griswold. It apparently includes many things from abortion to gay sex. All enshrined in the Constitition.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline lopakman

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2449
  • #1Wiggins
    • View Profile
edn, just getting owned in this thread  :D
@lopakman

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 41316
    • View Profile
LOL, so desperate now

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.

Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
 :combofan:
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.

Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.

Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick


Why is Hillary Clinton dressed up like Dr Evil?  Oh, yeah...
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 57506
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile


Why is Hillary Clinton dressed up like Dr Evil?  Oh, yeah...

That gif is so good I almost made a thread about it.  It's just fantastic on every level. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
:combofan:
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.

Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.

Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.

You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
"Corporate Personhood"  :shakesfist:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
:combofan:
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.

Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.

Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.

You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this.  :ROFL: such flailing.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
:combofan:
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.

Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.

Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.

You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this.  :ROFL: such flailing.

Edna, you're the same dumbshit who listed amendments as examples of a living constitution. You're a moron. Nobody, not even the other libtards, thinks you know what you're talking about.

I'm well aware of the argument you're making (poorly). You're not the first to make it. You're not smart enough to concoct even poor arguments like this. As I have explained, there is no evidence that the framers intended for two or more people to lose their rights to free speech by going into business together. To the contrary, the founders valued business and freedom of association and assembly. Many of them were businessmen.

But I am enjoying your argument that "that's not what the founders intended," even if it is only your lackwit attemp at demonstrating hypocrisy.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 07:33:10 AM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9853
    • View Profile
:combofan:
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

Are you suggesting that the framers did not intend freedom of speech to apply to groups of people? That's an odd position, given that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are both in the very same First Anendment.

Or maybe not so odd when considering that you're a complete dumbass.

Expressly that since many were extremely hostile towards corporations (remember a dust up about a trading company?) and corp personhood was only created through an activist court bastardizing a reconstruction amendment. Or would you just like to tap out now.

You should really stop pretending to be knowledgable, you dunce. You just look silly. "Corporations" at the time of the founding were very different from today. They were mainly extensions of government as opposed to businesses. So yes, many founders held a dim view of such "corporations." But to suggest that the founders believed two people going into business together should abandon their right to free speech is just incredibly stupid. Again: First Anendment, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
lol you don't know the genesis of this.  :ROFL: such flailing.

Edna, you're the same dumbshit who listed amendments as examples of a living constitution. You're a moron. Nobody, not even the other libtards, thinks you know what you're talking about.

I'm well aware of the argument you're making (poorly). You're not the first to make it. You're not smart enough to concoct even poor arguments like this. As I have explained, there is no evidence that the framers intended for two or more people to lose their rights to free speech by going into business together. To the contrary, the founders valued business and freedom of association and assembly. Many of them were businessmen.

But I am enjoying your argument that "that's not what the founders intended," even if it is only your lackwit attemp at demonstrating hypocrisy.
Woah...rage posting
You should really look into the history of corporate personhood because you're really making yourself look like an ass.  Read up about some railroads and we can move forward with your next rage post.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Ptolemy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
So since half or more of posters here hate living constitution, you all agree that corporate personhood is unconstitutional and built on faulty rulings right?

If corporations must pay taxes, then they deserve a say in their governance. You cannot have it both ways. You pay taxes, you must have a say.