Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 312

Penske_Account · 09-13-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
"n.o."?

No offence. I didn't want to hurt his feelings.

dtb · 09-13-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No. juan es muy muy macho!

But is he the correct answer to the age-old question:

Quien es mas macho?

nononono · 09-13-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No offence. I didn't want to hurt his feelings.

Okay, I can see why you'd want to tread lightly there.

spookyfish · 09-13-2005, 12:27 PM

Who had the over?

On second day of hearings, Roberts questioned on Roe, abortion.

“It’s entitled to respect under those principles,” Roberts said. “I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent. It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided.”

In his writings, Roberts has argued that the Roe v. Wade decision by the high court had been wrongly decided.

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren’t surprised by Roberts’ comments Tuesday but would watch him closely.

“We’re concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it’s time for him to rule on these cases as a justice,” Newman said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/

Southern Patriot · 09-13-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The papists need to be constrained, but notwithstanding that, the expansiveness of all of our rights is, quite simply, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the only Amendment that really counts.

With the majority of the Supreme Court members being either Jewish or Catholic, do you really think the papists can be constrained?

Sexual Harassment Panda · 09-13-2005, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I've also said a million times that I also believe that, so long as there is this "right to abortion", then equal protection must allow a putative father the right to require an abortion - or alternately have the option of waiving all future obligations of child support.

This argument doesn't have as much popular support. Yet.

Proving once again that the Right loses interest in the unborn child once it is born. Child support is not an obligation of the parent, it's a duty owed to the child. So much for those family values.

nononono · 09-13-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Proving once again that the Right loses interest in the unborn child once it is born. Child support is not an obligation of the parent, it's a duty owed to the child. So much for those family values.

I think Slave even acknowledged this notion hasn't gained popular support. But I'm sure you didn't intend to broad-brush the entire right side of the aisle based on one person's idea?

Sidd Finch · 09-13-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - that is exactly what I was saying. But do you remember anything about common law concerning rights?

That would be an oxymoron. Statutes always trump the common law. The common law cannot secure rights against the legislature; that has to be done by higher authority -- state constitution, federal constitution, or (in some circumstances) federal law.

At least, that's what I dimly remember from law school.

Did I miss the collective bout of insomnia last night?

Sexual Harassment Panda · 09-13-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
I think Slave even acknowledged this notion hasn't gained popular support. But I'm sure you didn't intend to broad-brush the entire right side of the aisle based on one person's idea?

Oh, I'll stop when Penske, Slave, bilmore, Hank, and Spanky do. What goes around, Dish it out, can't take it, etc. etc.

Captain · 09-13-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That would be an oxymoron. Statutes always trump the common law. The common law cannot secure rights against the legislature; that has to be done by higher authority -- state constitution, federal constitution, or (in some circumstances) federal law.

At least, that's what I dimly remember from law school.

Did I miss the collective bout of insomnia last night?

I think you are missing the unwritten English constitution, but that is of questionable merit across the ocean and irrelevant here.

nononono · 09-13-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Oh, I'll stop when Penske, Slave, bilmore, Hank, and Spanky do. What goes around, Dish it out, can't take it, etc. etc.

"He started it!"

sgtclub · 09-13-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No offence. I didn't want to hurt his feelings.

You know I love you like a brother.

Sidd Finch · 09-13-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Proving once again that the Right loses interest in the unborn child once it is born. Child support is not an obligation of the parent, it's a duty owed to the child. So much for those family values.

I'm not taking Slave's side in this debate -- it's one of those issues where I think he gets a little loopy -- but I'm pretty sure you cannot have a duty to someone without an obligation from someone. It's like ebony and ivory.

Obligee gets the du-ty!
They're together in perfect har-mo-ny!
Get her pregant and you will have to pay lots of mo-ney!

Nut Penske · 09-13-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Oh, I'll stop when Penske, Slave, bilmore, Hank, and Spanky do. What goes around, Dish it out, can't take it, etc. etc.

Didn't we establish last week that the whining pathetic little fools can't take it all? I'm not sure we need to establish that every week. But you'd think they'd take a hint. Let's ignore them and raise the level of discourse this week instead.

spookyfish · 09-13-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Obligee gets the du-ty!
They're together in perfect har-mo-ny!
Get her pregant and you will have to pay lots of mo-ney!

[channeling penske]"Then why do weeeeeeeeeee?[/channeling penske]