Serial philanderer Mark Sanford only rebuked, not impeached (Americans, Bush, abortions)

[Hombre57]

Isn't anyone going to rePuke me???!!!

[pghquest]

Lets see how Just changes the topic again, shall we...

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Suggesting that one supports family values is one thing. Suggesting that your party has some sort of exclusivity as the "Party of Family Values" quite another. Liken it to the "Real American" argument, or the "patriotism" arguments.

Wow, entered two new arguments without even backing up the old.. Now we have the party of "real americans" or "patriots".. Woo hoo, your on a roll, if only you could make a point, which you havent..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

No party has an exclusive to those things yet it's the republicans that hide behind them as if they're some sort of badge of honor.

Is this your final word on the subject and whats this have to do with the subject and your non stop bringing in of new topics and new spinnings on just flat out wrong previous postings..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

"You're either with us, or you're against us" is yet another example of that arrogance.

Funny how those Democrats who voted to be "with us", disagreed with you, while you still continue to sit here and cry about it..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

And when the party that proclaims itself to hold the higher moral ground gets exposed, you righties claim it's the lefties' hypocrisy at work. Funny stuff indeed.

Not nearly as funny as liberals who think that Clinton only lied due to a Republican witch hunt, even though his lying was due to a CIVIL lawsuit, and not due to any investigation from Republicans..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

You're serious? Let's start with abortion. Yes it is legal. And yes it appears safe for the time being. Had McCain been elected, that might not be the case. The balance in the SCOTUS could easily tip in a conservative direction, putting abortion in peril. Surely you must get that? Especially with zealots like Palin influencing the republican party.

And you think I'm the delusional one
I think I heard that argument before, let me remember.. Oooh yeah, the same thing was said when Bush won, and Bush Sr won, and Reagan won, why its the same babble after babble from you guys on the left..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Yeah Palin, the same woman who when speaking about her daughter's pregnancy, she thanked God that her daughter "CHOSE" to keep the child. A right she herself would take away from her daughter if she had the chance. You gotta love that.

Ooooh lookie.. Its JustCallMeTC changing the subject again, this time to Palin. (Unable to stay focused on the topic? I think they have medication which will be able to help you)

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

So in your up is down and black is white world that means that republicans support embryonic Stem Cell Research by not supporting federal funding for it?

Is this like you pretending that Republicans want to ban abortions even though they've made no steps to do so, even when they had complete control of all 3 branches of government?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Sorta like Joan McCain claiming he supports the troops by opposing the New GI Bill and votes against funding veteran's issues 80% of the time? Like that?

Oooh, now I get it, you are one of those individuals who dont understand how bills get passed, and about what gets attached to those bills. Shall we discuss these bills, and the attached provisions to those bills? Yes, great, start a new thread...

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're asking do I think that being against gay marriage means that person is at the same time being supportive of family values?

Ahh, by your own admission you dont understand.. I guess if I waited long enough I would have gotten to your admissions..

Lets refrase the question so that even you can understand it, shall we? I'll try to key slower for you.

While Republicans oppose "gay marriages" and Democrats support them, each would be a virtue of family values, unless you are stating that gays cant take part in a family and have their own set of values.

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

If that's the gist, I would suggest to you that the gay family would certainly take issue with that statement. And in my view, rightfully so.

Great, you now agree that gays can have their own set of family values, but yet you argue that Democrats dont have any.. What an odd flip all in the same thread..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Why should the government give a flippin rip who marries whom as long as they are both legal consenting adults?

For the same reason they care about individuals marrying their cousins, or polygamists. Whats the matter with either of these? Other than the fact that "marriage" = 1 male, 1 female.. And if you ignore this fact, then you are ignoring the law.. (we already know you dont mind ignoring the law, judging from your previous postings). Why didnt liberals get all upset when the law was originally established, and why didnt Republicans add an amendment to the Constitution when it was proposed in 2001, (and they had complete control of all branches of government) to ban gay marriages? Another pretend argument that Republicans would ban gays, would ban abortions, would ban whatever else comes to your mind without one shred of evidence.

Marriage is a state issue, and individuals rights to marry those who are of the same sex is being decided right where it belongs, on a state by state basis..

[silas777]

Originally Posted by odanny

It's okay to do these things if you're a Republican, not so much if you're a Democrat named William Jefferson Clinton.

Republicans, thy name is hypocrisy.

SC lawmakers nix Sanford impeachment, back rebuke - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_20 - broken link)

Ohmisguided danny, Max Baucus, please be serious if you go back and look at who has escaped the most scrutiny in congress you will surely find that it has been libs.

[JustCallMeTC]

Wow, entered two new arguments without even backing up the old.. Now we have the party of "real americans" or "patriots".. Woo hoo, your on a roll, if only you could make a point, which you havent..

We can add analogy to the list of words you don't understand. So far we have your, you're, analogy, family, and values. I'm sure I may have missed a few along the way.

And you think I'm the delusional one

You've already proven it.

Ooooh lookie.. Its JustCallMeTC changing the subject again, this time to Palin. (Unable to stay focused on the topic? I think they have medication which will be able to help you)

Once again, the word analogy escapes you.

Is this like you pretending that Republicans want to ban abortions even though they've made no steps to do so, even when they had complete control of all 3 branches of government?

Changing the subject are you? See how easy that is?

Remind me when the SCOTUS had the votes? Oh wait, it didn't happen. Thus it was never brought. Please try to actually read...

Oooh, now I get it, you are one of those individuals who dont understand how bills get passed, and about what gets attached to those bills. Shall we discuss these bills, and the attached provisions to those bills? Yes, great, start a new thread...

Now look who's changing the subject again?

Ahh, by your own admission you dont understand.. I guess if I waited long enough I would have gotten to your admissions..

Lets refrase the question so that even you can understand it, shall we? I'll try to key slower for you.

Had you articulated the question with a modicum of clarity, it would have discernible. But hey, I guess I need to lower my expectations for a guy who STILL doesn't understand the meaning of the word "your" or the word "you're", even after being embarrassed several times now.

Shall I repost the definitions again?

While Republicans oppose "gay marriages" and Democrats support them, each would be a virtue of family values, unless you are stating that gays cant take part in a family and have their own set of values.

Suggesting that republicans can impose their view of what makes up a family on others is ludicrous. When gays get married, it has ZERO impact on anyone else. Yet the republicans want to keep them from doing so. The gays aren't telling republicans who they can marry.

I realize that's just too tough for you to grasp and all. There were some big words there. I left a few you don't understand out though so that you'd at least have a chance.

Great, you now agree that gays can have their own set of family values, but yet you argue that Democrats dont have any..

Now we make stuff up. You show me where I said Democrats didn't have family values. Good luck on that one.

What an odd flip all in the same thread..

I see your reading comprehension rivals your grammar.

For the same reason they care about individuals marrying their cousins, or polygamists.

So you liken gays to those who practice incest and marry several partners? Both of which are against the law. Of course you already knew that and made the stupid comparison anyway. Can pedophilia be far behind?

Whats the matter with either of these? Other than the fact that "marriage" = 1 male, 1 female..

Apparently we need to go to the dictionary for you again.


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :

the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

marriage - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Oops, looks like you overlooked that one.

And if you ignore this fact, then you are ignoring the law..

Oh now you're concerned with the law are you? How sweet. The law is made by lawmakers. Often referred to as politicians. And guess what? Many of those are republicans. Imagine that?

(we already know you dont mind ignoring the law, judging from your previous postings).

And we both know you're illiterate from your previous postings.

Another pretend argument that Republicans would ban gays, would ban abortions, would ban whatever else comes to your mind without one shred of evidence..

Here we go making stuff up again. Who said anything about banning gays? Oh wait, you just did. Not I.

As to abortions, if and when the courts slants conservative, one of your sick brethren will indeed bring it to the fore.

Bet your family values on it.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Remind me when the SCOTUS had the votes? Oh wait, it didn't happen. Thus it was never brought. Please try to actually read...

Proof positive that you dont have a clue.. the SCOTUS does not create laws, they only rule on them, and they have already ruled abortion legal. You could have 100% of the Supreme Court justices be conservative right wing christian finaticals, but without a case before them, they cant overrule the laws. CONGRESS would have to write a NEW LAW, which would outlaw abortion before a new case can be forwarded to the SCOTUS, which they have made NO such attempt to do so. Even when Republicans had a majority of all branches and could easily have written such laws no attempt was made. Pretend though that Republicans have made attempt to outlaw abortion, even though they havent if it somehow makes you feel important and superior, but then many of us know the difference between reality, and your pretend land.

Maybe you need to get a clue as to where the responsibility for creating laws lie because courts only enforce laws.

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Now look who's changing the subject again?

Actually it was you, I just needed to point it out again...

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Had you articulated the question with a modicum of clarity, it would have discernible. But hey, I guess I need to lower my expectations for a guy who STILL doesn't understand the meaning of the word "your" or the word "you're", even after being embarrassed several times now.

Does it make you feel superior because you keep using "your" and "you're", as if this somehow validates the incorrect information which you previously got wrong? Hell, you dont even know the difference between the dictionary, and laws, (proof below) nor do you understand that the SCOTUS only inteprets laws, while Congress writes them. Will you continue to show your ignornace and blame Clintons lies on Republicans for their witch hunt which started after clinton lied? Do you understand the timeline yet and do you need schooled on that again?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Suggesting that republicans can impose their view of what makes up a family on others is ludicrous. When gays get married, it has ZERO impact on anyone else. Yet the republicans want to keep them from doing so. The gays aren't telling republicans who they can marry.

This from the poster who linked me to a Republican "calendar" pointing out that Family is a child's most important source of support. "Family" has been defined by research as "anyone to whom you are emotionally attached."

The fact that it has ZERO impact on anyone else means NOTHING. We regulate laws ALL THE TIME, which have ZERO impact on anyone else. Thats kinda the job of Congress, but hey, while your on your ignorant ranting, tell me what Congress has done to limit gays getting married? Do I also need to remind you that Republicans indeed had a majority of all branches of government and could EASILY have passed a bill limiting gay marriages if they wanted to..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

I realize that's just too tough for you to grasp and all. There were some big words there. I left a few you don't understand out though so that you'd at least have a chance.

I know numerous kids that have to keep jumping from one argument to another when they are proven wrong on point after point, and when they run out of arguments, they start to belittle those being spoken too. Are you sure you're old enough to post here?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Now we make stuff up. You show me where I said Democrats didn't have family values. Good luck on that one.

Wow, how many pages later, and you FINALLY acknowledge that Democrats have family values... Odd because I said this postings ago and you tried telling me that it was Republicans that were the party of "values"..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

I see your reading comprehension rivals your grammar.

Perhaps its your own lack of ability to keep a thread straight and not jump from topic to topic whenever you are proven wrong.

But but but, McCain, Palin, Clinton, Republicans, Monica Lewinski, all got pulled into a thread which had nothing to do with them. Did you bring in Bush? I dont recall but wouldnt be surprised..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

So you liken gays to those who practice incest and marry several partners? Both of which are against the law. Of course you already knew that and made the stupid comparison anyway. Can pedophilia be far behind?

Ahh, the strawman argument, pedophilia... You know the argument gets desperate when you have to start talking about raping little children.. But yes, I liken the legislative ability to limit marriage between several partners to gays because we are after all dealing with LAWS, and ADULT choices, and the law says ONE man, ONE woman..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Apparently we need to go to the dictionary for you again.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

marriage - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Oops, looks like you overlooked that one.

Ahh, as usual, its YOU that overlooked information. Webster Dictionary is not a legal dictionary, and means nothing in a court of law... Here, let me help you out in correcting you AGAIN..

Legal Definition of Marriage
A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

A judge looks at the RULE OF LAW, not some random dictionary to define LEGAL issues, and only an ignorant forum poster could proclaim that a Webster Dictionary would hold value for legal issues.

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Oh now you're concerned with the law are you? How sweet. The law is made by lawmakers. Often referred to as politicians. And guess what? Many of those are republicans. Imagine that?

oooh boo hoo hoo, some lawmakers are Republican.. Isnt that just driving you crazy?. Need I remind you where I entered this convesation with you, by reminding you that Clinton VIOLATED the law? I've ALWAYS been concerned with the law, you however on the otherhand keep bringing up meaningless arguments and vocabulary words that have nothing to do with the law. I guess its convenient to ignore the laws when dealing with wishes..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Here we go making stuff up again. Who said anything about banning gays? Oh wait, you just did. Not I.

This wasnt you?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Now this just gets better. Care to explain why your party has fought gay marriage at every turn?

Wait, yes it was.. Thats twice on this thread that you've proclaimed you havent said something you did..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

As to abortions, if and when the courts slants conservative, one of your sick brethren will indeed bring it to the fore.

Bet your family values on it.

Ahh, more prove you dont have a clue how it works. In order to have the SCOTUS have a hearing on abortion, indeed one needs to violate the laws and then be charged with violating those laws. Since the SCOTUS has deemed abortion legal, only a NEW LAW, written by CONGRESS, will bring up a new challenge infront of the SCOTUS.

My grammer on a webforum might not be the best, but dam, you cant even keep your story straight from one thread to another, nor do you have a darn clue about how the levels of government work and who writes laws..

[JustCallMeTC]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Proof positive that you dont have a clue.. the SCOTUS does not create laws, they only rule on them.

Proof positive that your reading is challenged. The Roe V Wade case can be overturned by the SCOTUS. It's only a matter of time. Once the court shifts in political slant, someone can bring a case that ultimately gets there by due process regarding a woman's right to choose. And you're an even bigger fool if you think those on the right won't bankroll the very idea.

Its CONGRESS that would have to write a NEW LAW, which would then outlaw abortion, which they have made NO such attempt to do so, and thats even when Republicans and could easily have written such laws to legislate "morality".

Sure thing Einstein. Congress is in the habit of making laws they know won't pass muster with the existing SCOTUS.

This is fun. Can we do this again?

Maybe you need to get a clue as to where the responsibility for creating laws lie because courts only enforce laws.

Does it make you feel superior because you keep using "your" and "you're", as if this somehow validates the incorrect information which you previously got wrong?

No, it makes me cringe when I read it though. A grown man who doesn't know the difference. Sad.

Hell, you dont even know the difference between the dictionary, and laws,

Really. Is that "your" opinion? lolololol

(proof below) nor do you understand that the SCOTUS only inteprets laws, while Congress writes them.

Listen up Skippy, if you actually read what I posted about "lawmakers", which I realize is a big word, you'd be able to keep up.

Will you continue to show your ignornace and blame Clintons lies on Republicans for their which hunt which started after clinton lied?

Oh now you change the subject back to Clinton do you? You seem to be doing that a lot.

Do you understand the timeline yet and do you need schooled on that again?

Schooled? You? Funny you should mention School. Is that where you got "your" English lessons?

This from the poster who linked me to a Republican "calendar" pointing out that Family is a child's most important source of support. "Family" has been defined by research as "anyone to whom you are emotionally attached."

Oh you mean the link that showed the Republican Party claims that it's based upon family values? That link? I see.

The fact that it has ZERO impact on anyone else means NOTHING. We regulate laws ALL THE TIME, which have ZERO impact on anyone else. Thats kinda the job of Congress, but hey, while your on your ignorant ranting

,


lolol...there you go again...seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. Generally speaking when you refer to someone else as ignorant, it's a good idea to use decent grammar along the way. Call it a reinforcement of one's argument if you will. Of course when you use pigeon English along the way, you look foolish.

I know numerous kids that have to keep jumping from one argument to another when they are proven wrong on point after point

,

And yet you keep changing the subject time and time again? Imagine that?

and when they run out of arguments, they start to belittle those being spoken too. Are you sure you're old enough to post here?

Oh you mean like your suggestion right out of the gate to slow things down for me? Got it.

Wow, how many pages later, and you FINALLY acknowledge that Democrats have family values...

I never suggested they didn't. You however, made that assumption numerous times. I did however suggest they didn't claim to be the party of family values as some sort of exclusive. A fact you simply don't have the nads to own up to at all.

Odd because I said this postings ago and you tried telling me that it was Republicans that were the party of "values"..

No I said that the republicans "Call themselves" the party of family values. Do I need to repeat that again?

Perhaps its your own lack of ability to keep a thread straight and not jump from topic to topic whenever you are proven wrong.

And here you go again.

But but but, McCain, Palin, Clinton, Republicans, Monica Lewinski, all got pulled into a thread which had nothing to do with them. Did you bring in Bush? I dont recall but wouldnt be surprised..

And yet again you digress.

Ahh, the strawman argument, pedophilia... You know the argument gets desperate when you have to start talking about raping little children..

You liken gays to those who commit incest and those who practice polygamy. Both are serious crimes. Both involve sex. And I asked what's next? It's not like it's a stretch in the manner you're thinking. Oops, there's that "you're" word. Shall I explain that for you?

But yes, I liken the legislative ability to limit marriage between several partners to gays because we are after all dealing with LAWS, and ADULT choices, and the law says ONE man, ONE woman..

Perhaps we should ask the lawmakers to change the laws? Oh wait, I'm so confused. Who would that be?

Ahh, as usual, its YOU that overlooked information. Webster Dictionary is not a legal dictionary, and means nothing in a court of law... Here, let me help you out in correcting you AGAIN..

I realize a dictionary doesn't work for you. But that's been obvious.

A judge looks at the RULE OF LAW, not some random dictionary to define LEGAL issues, and only an ignorant forum poster

Now I'm ignorant? LOL Are you sure you have "your" facts right?

oooh boo hoo hoo, some lawmakers are Republican.. Isnt that just driving you crazy?. Need I remind you where I entered this convesation with you, by reminding you that Clinton VIOLATED the law?

Are we changing the subject yet again? Why yes I do believe we are.

Wait, yes it was.. Thats twice on this thread that you've proclaimed you havent said something you did..

So let me see if I get this. You're suggesting that when confronted with supporting or opposing gay marriage, republicans have on some occasions supported gay marriage (as a group)? You're going with that are you?

Ahh, more prove you dont have a clue how it works. In order to have the SCOTUS have a hearing on abortion, indeed one needs to violate the laws and then be charged with violating those laws. Since the SCOTUS has deemed abortion legal, only a NEW LAW, written by CONGRESS, will bring up a new challenge infront of the SCOTUS.

Thick is a good word here. How do you think cases get to the SCOTUS? Never mind, it's rhetorical. (Sorry, big word there)

My grammer on a webforum might not be the best,

LOL, so I'm to believe that your grammar is a different elsewhere? Seriously. Get help.

but dam, you cant even keep your story straight from one thread to another, nor do you have a darn clue about how the levels of government work and who writes laws..

That would explain why I mentioned the lawmakers so far back.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Proof positive that your reading is challenged. The Roe V Wade case can be overturned by the SCOTUS. It's only a matter of time. Once the court shifts in political slant, someone can bring a case that ultimately gets there by due process regarding a woman's right to choose. And you're an even bigger fool if you think those on the right won't bankroll the very idea.

Just so you know, most states made abortions available prior to Roe v. Wade. Even Texas (the state in which the case originated) abortions were allowed when the mother's life was in danger, and the appropriate facilities to handle such a procedure were available. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, the supreme court is not going to go around demanding each and every state ban abortions. Personally, I agree with most of the Roe v. Wade ruling, just not the fact that it is justified by the 14th amendment.

In any case, Sanford is not all that stellar of a governor. He has screwed the state over on more than one occasion, the worst of which was insisting the port of Charleston stay in state hands instead of privatizing it. As a result Savannah has decimated Charleston in terms of port usage. But then again, Sanford has helped restore industry over the past few years, including getting us the Boeing Dreamliner plant recently.

[JustCallMeTC]

I totally understand the states issue. There are plenty of "red" states however,

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Proof positive that your reading is challenged. The Roe V Wade case can be overturned by the SCOTUS. It's only a matter of time. Once the court shifts in political slant, someone can bring a case that ultimately gets there by due process regarding a woman's right to choose. And you're an even bigger fool if you think those on the right won't bankroll the very idea.

Right, Republicans are in such a hurry to overturn the SCOTUS ruling, that they've only been planning and plotting the overturning of it for 36 YEARS...

The laughter of your argument only becomes compounded by the fact that Republicans had branches of government from 1980-1985, 2001-2003, and TOTAL control from 1995-2001 and 2004-2006. If you think Republicans would do such a thing then find me ONE bill passed by Republicans to support your argument. JUST ONE. Shouldnt be hard given the list of 17 years listed above now should it?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Sure thing Einstein. Congress is in the habit of making laws they know won't pass muster with the existing SCOTUS.

And it takes a court challenge to rule Congress laws illegal. As pointed out above, and now confirmed by you, Congress makes laws that wont pass the SCOTUS, so now by your own admission, listing any of those laws passed should be rather easy now, shouldnt it? Lets list some of these imaginary laws passed by Republicans which outlawed gays, abortions, hell, anything you have claimed. Can you validate ONE claim?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Really. Is that "your" opinion? lolololol

Is that your latest dispute, just go "lolololol" and people will think you were kidding when you listed a dictionary definition to backup a legal definition? Sorry, I'm not buying it..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Listen up Skippy, if you actually read what I posted about "lawmakers", which I realize is a big word, you'd be able to keep up.

Reminds me of an argument a 12 year old might make when they run out of ability to keep going.. But.. but.. but.. "your stupid"... ok, I'm being generous, maybe a 10 year old would do such a thing..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Oh now you change the subject back to Clinton do you? You seem to be doing that a lot.

Actually YOU brought up the Clintons, I just keep throwing your errors up in your face.. Hows your Lewinski holding up again? Oooh laughable..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Schooled? You? Funny you should mention School. Is that where you got "your" English lessons?

Is that where you got your ability to stay focused on a subject and discuss things like an adult? Must have missed all of those classes, especially the history ones which discussed things like impeachment, job responsibility of Congress, how the SCOTUS determines which cases they will handle. ooh the humor of you bringing up "your" again, as if you've run out of anything intelligent to retort..

I acknowledge I was horrible in english, whats your excuse for lacking basic government job responsibilities or things which took place in history?

Here, this might be on your level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Oh you mean the link that showed the Republican Party claims that it's based upon family values? That link? I see.

I mean your link which pointed to a Republican Party supporting a Family day, as if that proved anything in your own argument other than you didnt do your own research as to what "family" meant from your own link.. ooh the humor..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

lolol...there you go again...seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. Generally speaking when you refer to someone else as ignorant, it's a good idea to use decent grammar along the way. Call it a reinforcement of one's argument if you will. Of course when you use pigeon English along the way, you look foolish.

Ahh, back to grammer class, why is that, because you dont want to discuss the issue you brought up?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

And yet you keep changing the subject time and time again? Imagine that?

Whats the matter, dont like it when someone brings up things that YOU said?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

I never suggested they didn't. You however, made that assumption numerous times. I did however suggest they didn't claim to be the party of family values as some sort of exclusive. A fact you simply don't have the nads to own up to at all.

I've made no such assumption once let alone numerous times. I said clearly that BOTH parties claim to have family values, its just the definition of "family values" varies from party to party. I would think it quite odd to think a party wouldnt be for families having their values..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

No I said that the republicans "Call themselves" the party of family values. Do I need to repeat that again?

Actually its the Democrats who do such a thing, its even included in their platform.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn...._bcm6b5l7a.pdf
It’s time we stop just talking about family values, and start pursuing policies that truly value families

Oooh the humor of you criticizing "family values" platform for Republicans while not even knowing that its not in the Republican platform but its in the Democratic one. More proof you dont have a clue wtf your talking about..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

And yet again you digress.

Still not liking people who repeat things YOU said? I wouldnt either considering how wrong you've been on so many counts..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

You liken gays to those who commit incest and those who practice polygamy. Both are serious crimes. Both involve sex. And I asked what's next?

Ahh, in many states gay sex continues to be illegal, so while you are busy making comparisons, lets
sex
consenting adults
illegal acts

Yep, they look rather similar to me, but I dont see you shouting to legalize poligamy. One can argue that gay sex shouldnt be illegal, but indeed we are discussing current laws, not your pretend ones..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Perhaps we should ask the lawmakers to change the laws? Oh wait, I'm so confused. Who would that be?

So your rationality in asking lawmakers to change the laws, is you bring out a dictionary but ignore a legal one? oooh, more humor!!

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

I realize a dictionary doesn't work for you. But that's been obvious.

Whats the matter, dont like the fact that laws are based upon LEGAL definitions, not ones from a dictionary, and when again pointed out how you were wrong, you have to then lower yourself again to personal attacks?

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Now I'm ignorant? LOL Are you sure you have "your" facts right?

Yes, yes you are..
You were wrong about Republicans going after Clinton due to Lewinski
Wrong about Clinton only lying due to a witch hunt by Republicans
Wrong about the definition of marriage
Wrong about Republicans calling themself the party of "family values"
Wrong about your claims that the SCOTUS would deem abortion illegal without new laws being created
Wrong about your claims that Republicans are going to outlaw abortions
Hell, you got so low that you had to bring up pedophilia into a discussion involving gay marriages..

I think the only thing you got correct through all of these back and forths were "grammar".. Woo hoo, you got me.. and on a webforum none the less.. Congragulations!!!

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

So let me see if I get this. You're suggesting that when confronted with supporting or opposing gay marriage, republicans have on some occasions supported gay marriage (as a group)? You're going with that are you?

Nope, never stated that.. Again, practice with your comprehension..

Republicans have done NOTHING on a NATIONAL level to ban gay marriages. I simply disputed you claiming they have. Groups containing religious individuals have fought gay marriages on STATE levels, but you cant list ONE thing on a national level by the GOP to backup your hateful claims.

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

Thick is a good word here. How do you think cases get to the SCOTUS? Never mind, it's rhetorical. (Sorry, big word there)

ooh look, its back to the personal attacks, usually one goes to this level when they have nothing else to argue.. Well that or they call in the grammar police again, I see you've done both while ignoring facts that the SCOTUS cant rule on laws not on the books..

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

LOL, so I'm to believe that your grammar is a different elsewhere? Seriously. Get help.

That would explain why I mentioned the lawmakers so far back.

Actually, I'm the one who brought up lawmakers, but I'll let you pretend to take credit if it makes you feel better..

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by JustCallMeTC

I totally understand the states issue. There are plenty of "red" states however,

So your evidence that the GOP would outlaw abortion, is you acknowledge that some GOP states legalized abortions prior to the SCOTUS?