Search results

oh dear , it's pitiful to see you flounder so much jem. Nothing I mentioned is out of context No one has ever, final arbiter or not , used unconstitutional religious tests as evidence. It just has not happened dude. Seriously man stop it, your going to make yourself sick again.

Still flapping around jem, trying to bullshit your way out I see. Doctrine of states' rights are those rights not denied by the Constitution. Religious tests are denied by the Constitution. Ironically and again in your ignorance, states rights doctrine is supported by the Tenth Amendment...

As well as out of your depth , you're out of steam jem. You have no argument left. Just like any state religious test which was always unconstitutional, your argument always had no ground to stand on. The Constitution says no religious test. That is all the proof I ever needed. There is...

You don't like proof. That's obvious enough. Not consistent with nor according to, or contrary to the U.S. Constitution... is what unconstitutional means It says right there in the U.S. Constitution... ”…no religious test…ever….” A religious test is not consistent...

The only one pretending anything here jem is you. Simple. Those religious tests were unconstitutional in 1892 because what you say is bullshit. You show no evidence whatsoever that The Supreme Court found "we are a Christian Nation" . Furthermore even had the Supreme Court so found...

Once again you've added nothing. Just more moan and groan at me. You've become a troll artist jem with nothing to offer. All you do is repeat that I am wrong. Your like a child crying your wrong your wrong over and over and nothing more. You'll probably make yourself puke in a minute to...

All you've got, all you've demonstrated, and no more clearly than above , is an ability to bitch. There's no substance in anything you say. Every post you make is either full of bellyaching , an illogical attempt at reasoning , or some confused rhetoric or other. As surmised, you're...

jem, it may help you comprehend better were you to desist from planting your own silly arguments onto me and then blaming me for your own silly arguments. At least if you could get that far it would be one step in the right direction. Like when you at last learnt to stop spelling cite as site...

You are obviously extraordinarily frustrated by this. My support for what you call my premise has always been the Constitution itself. More than enough to emphatically dispel the confused and garbled excuse for an argument you have tried to cobble up . It’s pathetic. You scramble around...

um... jem, just who are you talking to there :D I'll stick with the understanding that no religious test actually means no religious test. If you want to continue to live with the devious idea that no test means yes test, then be my guest.

For your own sake jem help yourself man... your problem is described here

Well ok, I suppose furthering misconceptions is bound to appeal to the state of denial your reasoning defaults to. Face it jem, anyone who doesn’t agree with that inappropriate religious prejudice of yours is "twisted". Recognize that and maybe one day you will understand where your...

jem, What are you trying to do flailing around like this? It just makes you look more and more incapable. Are you ill?

There is no point to miss jem , you don't have one . You referenced Buck v Bell , not I. It has been clearly described to you how Buck v Bell is not relevant. The case was brought in two ways neither of which tested a Constitutional right to reproduce. You clearly have no idea what you are...

You are suggesting that it helps your already totally shot credibility to argue eugenics would not (or should not - which?) violate the U.S. Constitution. Do you want to reconsider that? The Buck v Bell case challenged the right to substantive due process under the Constitution, the Court...

jem, you are obviously distraught. You should maybe just leave it. Obviously you haven't got a clue what's actually being said, nor can you make one lucid response. It's clear enough. Where the Constitution actually says "no" , you cannot try to say that means "yes" , by pretending...

I think you both argue theses points because deep down behind a blinding faith backed bigoted evangelical slant on the world , both AAA and yourself have a nagging feeling you are wrong. Making up more and more questions that have nothing to do with what I said isn't very bright of you. It...

My point was that using superstition, by whatever means it was acquired , is not being scientific. There's no reason to base the philosophy of materialism on anything but itself. Can you explain how anything in that book gives good reason to base it on evolution. By design I take it you...

Well one thing's for sure with two mistakes under your belt which you've now acknowledged , by putting my batting score at 0, your talent as a referee looks piss poor as well as your argument . Since when did you think that a semicolon would separate anything out ? The Clause and its...

If you want to quote case law, go do some homework first. Plessy v. Ferguson was to do with segregation not slavery. I repeat it was always unconstitutional correctly , one reason being - it is devious to try and suggest a limit to its remit where one does not exist The Senators and...