Profiles In Liberal Hypocricy

Setanta wrote:

That's hilarious--so basically, you deny that the Fourth Amendment means what it patently says?

You never fail to entertain.

How soon we forget.

One can readily see that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Amendment IV was ratified December 15, 1791, and reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The "right to privacy" is based upon this amendment, as it has been construed by the courts. The Democratic Party did not exist in 1791.

I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution 1 is supported both by numerous [381 U.S. 479, 487] decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected, as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, ante, at 484. I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding.

So LSM is your personal preference for cosmoline, vasoline or K-Y jelly?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Setanta wrote:

That's hilarious--so basically, you deny that the Fourth Amendment means what it patently says?

You never fail to entertain.

How soon we forget.

Your use of the pronoun "we" is inappropriate--i have no good reason, based on this and many other threads, to believe that you've ever actually read the Constitution, and therefore have no reason to believe you have forgotten what you have never known.

I recommend this site for a copy of the United States Constitution. It is link-indexed, which is very convenient. If you read it several dozen times (as i had already done many, many years ago), you can find the appropriate citation very quickly.

dyslexia wrote:

So LSM is your personal preference for cosmoline, vasoline or K-Y jelly?

I have heard about vileness coming from people, but never have ran into anyone as vile & degrading,abhorrent, or as repulsive as you.
I thought that you might have one redeeming quality, but I was mistaken, the closest thing to redeeming about you I can find is that you're more than likely posting from under a rock with grub worms crawing all over you. The redeeming part of that is that the grub worms are more worthy & hopefully you haven't eaten them.

I don't believe "sen" is a word in English, is it?

I'm not familiar with it.

You ain't hittin' the gin again are ya?

Yup, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and UFO Monthly are not up to my standards, for reasons I have already given. Tell me, do YOU have any standards for sources, or does anything that manages to get printed or achieve space on a website count as proof for you?

KW,
You said...

Quote:

Yup, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and UFO Monthly are not up to my standards, for reasons I have already given. Tell me, do YOU have any standards for sources, or does anything that manages to get printed or achieve space on a website count as proof for you?

Tell me,if newsmax WorldNetDaily and other sites are not acceptable to you as sources,then what liberal sources are also not up to your standards?

Is CNN up to your standards?
How about FoxNews?
What about the NYTimes?

Why dont you give all of us an official list of sources that are up to your standards.
That way,when we use a source from your list,you cannot challenge it,because you approved it.

dyslexia wrote:

So LSM is your personal preference for cosmoline, vasoline or K-Y jelly?

I have heard about vileness coming from people, but never have ran into anyone as vile & degrading,abhorrent, or as repulsive as you.
I thought that you might have one redeeming quality, but I was mistaken, the closest thing to redeeming about you I can find is that you're more than likely posting from under a rock with grub worms crawing all over you. The redeeming part of that is that the grub worms are more worthy & hopefully you haven't eaten them.

KW,
Tell me,if newsmax WorldNetDaily and other sites are not acceptable to you as sources,then what liberal sources are also not up to your standards?

Is CNN up to your standards?
How about FoxNews?
What about the NYTimes?

Why dont you give all of us an official list of sources that are up to your standards.
That way,when we use a source from your list,you cannot challenge it,because you approved it.

Newsmax, CNS and WorldNetDaily are partisan rags which give only one side of the story-their "news" articles might as well be labelled editorials. I don't ask LoneStarMadam to rebut Democratic Underground or Daily Kos-I have the right to expect her to reciprocate and not expect rebuttal for NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, etc.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

So LSM is your personal preference for cosmoline, vasoline or K-Y jelly?

I have heard about vileness coming from people, but never have ran into anyone as vile & degrading,abhorrent, or as repulsive as you.
I thought that you might have one redeeming quality, but I was mistaken, the closest thing to redeeming about you I can find is that you're more than likely posting from under a rock with grub worms crawing all over you. The redeeming part of that is that the grub worms are more worthy & hopefully you haven't eaten them.

Its most common use is in the storage and preservation of firearms. Previously, cosmoline was used to preserve other things. Objects the size of entire vehicles could be preserved for future use with cosmoline.

I don't know the first thing about cleaning a gun, my husband does that.