On 03-16-13, BOB KLAHN said to BILL MCGARRITY:   
      
      
   TR> It was a `liberal' court that *found* abortion in the   
   TR> Constitution. It ain't there (yes...I said *ain't*), never   
   TR> was, and only that liberal court (and modern-day liberal   
   TR> democrats) saw it in there.   
      
      
      
      
   BK>Yet the republicans have controlled the supreme court for most   
   BK>of the last 50 years.   
      
      
   Earl Warren was the chief justice of a court that was mainly liberal-leaning.   
   One of the positive things the Warren court did was put an end to racial   
   segregation...a stain on our nations' history for almost two hundred years.   
      
      
   The Warren court, however, did far more harm than good in that they expanded   
   judicial power and the federal power in ways that, today, we are feeling the   
   effect of. Note how a federal court has ruled that not only the appointments   
   this administration made under the blanket of `adjournment' appointments are   
   invalid...but any actions those `illegally'-appointed persons took in their   
   improper official capacity, are null and void!   
      
      
   Hussein simply ignored the court's ruling and goes on as though there IS no   
   ruling.   
      
      
   Note too how Hussein has stated more than once that he will `act without   
   congress! They get that arrogance from much of the stuff that came out of the   
   Warren court.   
      
      
   And lets not forget the Burger court. Burger voted with the majority on the   
   Roe v Wade issue, which has resulted in the deaths of over 43 million!   
      
      
   But it is said that, the only reason he did was to be able to assign the   
   writing of the courts' opinion to Blackmun and not Brennan! Although Brennan   
   heavily influenced the opinion that was written anyway...and as a result we   
   have a far more liberal law than what it would have been.   
      
      
   So much for `judicial integrity' in our fdederal court system!   
      
      
   TR> The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: *The Right   
   TR> of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed*.   
      
      
   BK>It also adds A well regulated militia etc...   
      
      
   *The people* ARE the "...militia.." of which the Constitution speaks.   
      
      
   TR> What part of *.....Shall Not Be Infringed* is confusing to   
   TR> all these liberal democrats who're trying to outlaw   
   TR> firearms in the hands of *The People*?   
      
      
   BK>What part of a well regulated militia is confusing to all these   
   BK>Tea Baggers?   
      
      
   Nothing. And there shouldn't BE any `confusion' over it, as it is clearly   
   spelled out in much ofthe Founding Father's writings. The Second amendment was   
   seen as keeping in the hands of `the people' the means by which the action   
   against a tyrant in future generations would always be in the hands of `the   
   people'.   
      
      
   Liberals like to put out that `the well-regulated militia' of which the   
   Constitution's 2nd Amendment speaks is the police forces, federal leo's and   
   such.....and the 2nd was NEVER intended for private citizens to own, possess   
   and carry arms! Thats bullshit!   
      
      
   TR> Pretty much every firearms law since 1968 is   
   TR> unConstitutional.   
      
      
   BK>Literally interpreted as the right wing prefers the ordinary   
   BK>citizen is allowed to own a surface to air missile system,   
   BK>nuclear weapons, and anything else that passes for arms.   
      
      
   As always....when a liberal has little or nothing of sense to contribute to a   
   discussion...they resort to the ridiculous. Their favorite harbor!   
      
      
   TR> Obamacare is a complete violation of the Constitution. Does   
   TR> it not cause you any discomfort that (by their own words)   
   TR> the majority of congress passed it and this idiot in the   
   TR> White House signed it into law, and most (if not all)   
   TR> didn't even read what they were passing?   
      
      
   BK>They debated it for a year.   
      
      
   BK>Does it not cause you any discomfort that legalists seem not to   
   BK>be bothered by the fact that their preferred choice is for   
   BK>people to die rather than get medical care.   
      
      
   And here we have another favorite harbor of the liberal ....a ridiculous,   
   unproven accusation. A favorite buzz-phrase of ;liberals: `Well... they're   
   against it because they just want people to DIE!' And the low-information   
   types (make that read those who are taken in by the leftist-liberals' buzz-   
   phrase-of -the-moment) eat it up.   
      
      
   Like Hussein thought he'd garner up a lot of support by signing something   
   (ANYthing!) in front of a bunch of kids from the Sandy Hook school shooting!   
      
      
   What a cowardly, dispicable thing to do! But nothing...no `low' is beneath   
   this president. And the liberal leftists eat it up.   
      
      
   BM>>Did they not also try and ban voting by both limiting the timeframe   
   BM>>and also requireing certain credentials allowing them the opportunity?   
      
      
   See what *voter ID* turns into in the hands of a liberal leftist? Suddenly   
   wanting to require people to prove they have the right to vote in our   
   elections brings out all sorts of leftist liberal buzz-phrases.   
      
      
   TR> They tried to bring a simple sense of sanity to the   
   TR> election process by requiring photo ID for voters to cast a   
   TR> legal vote. Whats wrong with that?   
      
      
   BK>First because they tried to do it in a short period before the   
   BK>election.   
      
      
   BK>Second because they did not provide a means for those without   
   BK>photo ID to get such an ID efficiently and conveniently.   
      
      
   TR> You cannot cash a check without photo ID. If you think you   
   TR> can....the next time you cash your paycheck, try going into   
   TR> a bank you've never been in before and where nobody knows   
   TR> you and cash it.   
      
      
   BK>The people at the poling place knew me for years.   
      
      
   TR> Using a credit card in most places requires photo ID.   
      
      
   BK>Not at a gas pump.   
      
      
   Ignoring that in most cases a PIN number is required.   
      
      
   TR> There are so many things in our society today that calls   
   TR> for you to have photo ID, why not voting?   
      
      
   BK>No problem, other than the right wing excrement fits over big   
   BK>brother. However, if the state requires a voter to have a photo   
   BK>ID the state should have to provide that ID free and   
   BK>conveniently.   
      
      
   *Right wing excrement*! Is he for real? And he's the one who's always bitching   
   about the `high level' of his participations in discussions!   
      
      
   Whelp! So much for that! The rest of his nonse.....er....high-minded   
   `discourse' is hereby deleted.   
      
      
   (N)ext! Click!   
      
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)