"TERRORIST HATER" is a stupid fuck!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I don't mind being called out... I just don't like the way you did it.

 

Once you overcame the initial cold water shock and anger...it caused you to think didn't it? Then it accomplished the goal.

 

You're stronger for the experience. Well done.

[TerroristHater]

What a fucking dumbass. I'm sorry big fonts does not constitute legitimate debate points. Clearly ADHD boy is a moron.

 

 

Clearly, all you can do is use the phrase "adhd boy", which tells me you are a hapless cocksucker who deserves a slow painful death.

 

Please douse yourself in gasoline and then stand next to an open fire.

[TerroristHater]

The right to sell your home is not in the constitution are far as I can recall (then the damn thing keeps changin so who knows)

 

 

There are safeguards in the constitution, which specifially forbid the government from interfearing in contracts between private citizens. This was done so that people could buy, sell, and trade WITHOUT the government interfearing.

 

 

[tizz]

Ya and you can still sell your house, you just need to find a new buyer..... Like the law said it cannot effect those incarcerated BEFORE the law was inacted. It stops NOTHING!!!

[TerroristHater]

Ya and you can still sell your house, you just need to find a new buyer..... Like the law said it cannot effect those incarcerated BEFORE the law was inacted. It stops NOTHING!!!

 

Yes it does.

 

The government CANNOT tell me who I can sell my property to. In doing what they have done they are potentially interfearing in my right to coduct business WITHOUT thier interfearence.

 

:0

[TerroristHater]

CES,

 

The truth is, I would gladly concede my argument if this moron had any basis for the above claim... BUT he doesn't, He just keeps repeating that the bill of rights applies to everyone including incarcerated felons. Maybe they do and maybe they don't I just want the dipshit to explain his fucked-up position. And if the truth be known, all he would have to do is say that he feels like they should and I'd be happy, but so far he just makes the claim as fact without basis and it pisses me off.

 

You, CES, have worked miracles in getting him to back off of some his wilder claims. You must have the patience of job, the wit of Will Rogers, and the quill of Samuel Clements. Hats off to you!

 

I have repeatedly tried to explain the reasoning to you, however, you are not able to understand it. This is because you choose not to understand it.

 

The first 10 amendments of the constitution (the bill of rights) are declaratory and specifically state that ALL AMERICANS are entitled to to these rights regardless of status) These rights are the property of the people NOT THE GOVERNMENT, as such, the GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY. This is clearly stated in my earlier posts, which I am quite sure you are not reading or understanding.

 

As such, it is YOU who is a moron.

 

Kindly group up.

 

You jackass!

 

 

[TerroristHater]

Once you overcame the initial cold water shock and anger...it caused you to think didn't it? Then it accomplished the goal.

 

You're stronger for the experience. Well done.

 

I like your signature quotes, Cogito.

 

[tizz]

Yes it does.

 

The government CANNOT tell me who I can sell my property to. In doing what they have done they are potentially interfearing in my right to coduct business WITHOUT thier interfearence.

 

:0

 

The govt also says you cannot show prejudice when selling a house. You cannot refuse to sell it to someone based on race religion of sexual preference. A sex offender cannot BUY a house in a school zone or other places that will likely be too much temptation. NOT a constitutional thing here.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I have repeatedly tried to explain the reasoning to you, however, you are not able to understand it. This is because you choose not to understand it.

 

The first 10 amendments of the constitution (the bill of rights) are declaratory and specifically state that ALL AMERICANS are entitled to to these rights regardless of status) These rights are the property of the people NOT THE GOVERNMENT, as such, the GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY. This is clearly stated in my earlier posts, which I am quite sure you are not reading or understanding.

 

As such, it is YOU who is a moron.

 

Kindly group up.

 

You jackass!

 

 

 

 

OK shit-for-brains, this is why you are so full of shit. I will keep all these points short and simple for your special ADHD condition.

 

1) The second ammendment guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms. However, firearms, knives, swords and all other forms of weaponry are denied to all incarcerated people (including american citizens that are in jail).

 

2) The 4th ammendment guarantees against searches and ceasure of property without a warant signed by a magistrate upon sworn oath of probable cause. All incarcerated people (including american citizens in jail) can be searched at any time without prejudice.

 

You have admitted that these two rights may lawfully be denied to prisoners.

You have also stated that the 1st ammendment may not be denied.

 

Now here is the same question that you have never answered. Why is the 1st ammendment more "inalienable" than the 4th ammendment?

 

It is your failure to answer that one question that makes you the moron that you are. In none of your idiotic babblings have you so much as hinted as to the reason why the 1st ammendment applies to prisoners but (some of) the other ammendments in the bill of rights do not apply.

 

I would even be inclined to agree to with you, if you could answer the question. I am not sure if you are intentionally dodging the question, don't understand the question, or are just plain illiterate. Right now I believe it is all three.

[snafu]

Why is everybody going around and around with this?

A felon loses some rights. Their lucky they aren

[TerroristHater]

OK shit-for-brains, this is why you are so full of shit. I will keep all these points short and simple for your special ADHD condition.

 

1) The second ammendment guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms. However, firearms, knives, swords and all other forms of weaponry are denied to all incarcerated people (including american citizens that are in jail).

 

2) The 4th ammendment guarantees against searches and ceasure of property without a warant signed by a magistrate upon sworn oath of probable cause. All incarcerated people (including american citizens in jail) can be searched at any time without prejudice.

 

You have admitted that these two rights may lawfully be denied to prisoners.

You have also stated that the 1st ammendment may not be denied.

 

Now here is the same question that you have never answered. Why is the 1st ammendment more "inalienable" than the 4th ammendment?

 

It is your failure to answer that one question that makes you the moron that you are. In none of your idiotic babblings have you so much as hinted as to the reason why the 1st ammendment applies to prisoners but (some of) the other ammendments in the bill of rights do not apply.

 

I would even be inclined to agree to with you, if you could answer the question. I am not sure if you are intentionally dodging the question, don't understand the question, or are just plain illiterate. Right now I believe it is all three.

 

Your ignorance is bothering me. Go back to mexico.

[TerroristHater]

Why is everybody going around and around with this?

A felon loses some rights. Their lucky they aren

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Your ignorance is bothering me. Go back to mexico.

 

Go crawl back into that WHORE'S putrid snatch that bore you!

[TerroristHater]

Go crawl back into that WHORE'S putrid snatch that bore you!

 

 

That was weak. You can do better.

[phreakwars]

That was weak. You can do better.

I agree, I give it a 6.8.

.

.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

And the judges results are...

[TerroristHater]

And the judges results are...

 

 

Was the judge who voted "WTF" the french member of the panel?

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Was the judge who voted "WTF" the french member of the panel?

 

 

Nah, that was me!

[TerroristHater]

Nah, that was me!

 

 

Oh. My bad. I just had to ask... the curiosity of it all was killing me!

 

[fullauto]

Ok... now I think you're an idiot! the bill of rights are AMMENDMENTS to the constitution... They can, and have been repealed... remember the 18th... Prohibition... well go and read the 21st...

 

just because the first ten haven't been touched yet, doesn't mean they CAN'T be repealed... they can... but we have never had to.

 

I'm the fucking imbecile?

You gave me bad rep because I pointed out the fact that amendments have been made and repealed in the past!

But I'M the imbecile?

Listen meat-whistle, you're no better than KV... I love your zeal, but you're WAY too fucking sensitive about this shit considering you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about! The Beauty of our system is that ANYTHING can be changed if need be... The right to bear arms is currently being debated, and some seem to think #4 (illegal search) is being attacked as well!

Who ever told you that the first ten amendments were above all this shit is a fucking loon...

Granted, it's not likely that the first ten will change, but it is possible... and if it's possible, you have to calculate that possibility into ANY political equation...

DON'T back door me because you don't like the truth...

 

You need to put your creative energy into something other than political debate... at least until you've been around the block a few times...

 

If you need a block to go around, I suggest circling the Super Dome for a while!

[TerroristHater]

I'm the fucking imbecile?

 

You gave me bad rep because I pointed out the fact that amendments have been made and repealed in the past!

 

But I'M the imbecile?

 

Listen meat-whistle, you're no better than KV... I love your zeal, but you're WAY too fucking sensitive about this shit considering you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about! The Beauty of our system is that ANYTHING can be changed if need be... The right to bear arms is currently being debated, and some seem to think #4 (illegal search) is being attacked as well!

 

Who ever told you that the first ten amendments were above all this shit is a fucking loon...

 

Granted, it's not likely that the first ten will change, but it is possible... and if it's possible, you have to calculate that possibility into ANY political equation...

 

DON'T back door me because you don't like the truth...

 

You need to put your creative energy into something other than political debate... at least until you've been around the block a few times...

 

If you need a block to go around, I suggest circling the Super Dome for a while!

 

Actually, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. The first ten ammendments are considered the property of the PEOPLE not the government. As such, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CHANGE THEM.... EVER ... PERIOD ... END OF STORY.

 

If you don't like it... too bad.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

READ BELOW:

 

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Actually, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. The first ten ammendments are considered the property of the PEOPLE not the government. As such, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CHANGE THEM.... EVER ... PERIOD ... END OF STORY.

This is so WRONG it is not even funny... TH, you have just proven just how stupid you are about the law, the constitution and just plain old common sense!

 

The ammendments are just that they are AMMENDMENTS to the original constitution. The constitution itself has the rules to ammending itself!

 

If you don't like it... too bad.

The first ten ammendments are indeed called the bill of rights, but under the constitution they have no more or less authority than than any other ammendment or article, unless a later ammendment changes the meaning of a previous one.

 

Have a nice day.

How sweet!

 

 

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

This is nice, but absolutely false and meaningless... who said it? Where is it? Since the constitution is literaly the "highest law of the land" if these sentences are not found in the constitution, the constitution supercedes them.

 

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't we only have the words of the moron "TH" as our proof!

 

For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution.

Perhaps that's because they were never there to begin with... at any rate, even if these two sentences are found somewhere in the constitution, thiose senetences can be "ammendeded" as well! ...

 

Here for the perusal of the intelligent is Article 5 of the constitution.

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal

Suffrage in the Senate.

 

Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people.

No, they can be changed by Article V... see above you slack-jawed, slobering moron!

 

By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception.

WTF???? Everything is interpreted under English Common Law....????

 

The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself.

Nice try, dumb-ass!

[phreakwars]

I asked a lawyer to view the last 2 comments, and his response to me was this:

 

 

Whew! What a flame war those two have going! The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as The Bill of Rights. That's about the only thing those jokers have right.

The question being posed, as I understand it, is whether the Bill of Rights COULD be amended. The short answer is, yes, they could...potentially. All that is required is ratification of such a proposal by (if I remember correctly) 2/3 of the states.

 

The more appropriate question, in my view, is whether any of the individual rights WOULD ever be amended. To that question my answer is a resounding "NO"! Somehow I can't see the Second Amendment, for example, being repealed so as to completely outlaw ownership of firearms any more than I could see someone's right to worship as they choose be repealed. Any elected official who would ever make such a proposal would be committing political suicide.

 

That is not, however, to say that rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be restricted or controlled. For example, one cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, and child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. The level of review that courts have always used in considering laws that appear to restrict constitutional rights is what we refer to as "strict scrutiny". In this sort of analysis the law is scrutinized to determine if (1) it meets a compelling governmental interest, and (2) whether it does so without unnecessarily restricting that right. For example, the prohibition against convicted felons owning firearms might, at first blush, appear to violate the Second Amendment. However, our Supreme Court has held that this prohibition serves a compelling governmental interest (public safety) and does not unnecessarily restrict firearms ownership. Obviously non-felons can still own firearms so the restriction is not unreasonable.

 

The bottom line is that NO right guaranteed in the Constitution is an absolute...not even the Second Amendment. To function as an orderly society even rights have to have limitations. More simply put, your rights end when they start to abridge mine.

 

 

Hope that helps.

.

.

[TerroristHater]

This is so WRONG it is not even funny... TH, you have just proven just how stupid you are about the law, the constitution and just plain old common sense!

 

The ammendments are just that they are AMMENDMENTS to the original constitution. The constitution itself has the rules to ammending itself!

 

The first ten ammendments are indeed called the bill of rights, but under the constitution they have no more or less authority than than any other ammendment or article, unless a later ammendment changes the meaning of a previous one.

 

How sweet!

 

 

This is nice, but absolutely false and meaningless... who said it? Where is it? Since the constitution is literaly the "highest law of the land" if these sentences are not found in the constitution, the constitution supercedes them.

 

Maybe they do, maybe they don't we only have the words of the moron "TH" as our proof!

 

Perhaps that's because they were never there to begin with... at any rate, even if these two sentences are found somewhere in the constitution, thiose senetences can be "ammendeded" as well! ...

 

Here for the perusal of the intelligent is Article 5 of the constitution.

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal

Suffrage in the Senate.

 

No, they can be changed by Article V... see above you slack-jawed, slobering moron!

 

WTF???? Everything is interpreted under English Common Law....????

 

Nice try, dumb-ass!

 

 

 

Actually, that applies to you, not me.

 

The Bill of Rights is declaratory, which means it's the PEOPLE SPEAKING IN ONE VOICE.

 

Anyway.

 

You bore me sir.

 

-TH

[TerroristHater]

I asked a lawyer to view the last 2 comments, and his response to me was this:

 

Hope that helps.

.

.

 

Indeed.

 

Now... please delete this thread already.

 

 

It's getting old.