RightWingExtremist's picture


MEMBER FOR 4 years 11 weeks


RightWingExtremist is following

recent comments

[quote][b]snarkydude[/b] -
Barney Frank
Chris Dodd
Teddy Kennedy
I guess they were all Republicans.

You forgot a few. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and etc.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 16:47

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - The whole article just took the religious arguments we always hear and replaced them with patriarchy and cis-centrism.[/quote]

I don't read articles like that. Trust me.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 15:54

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - Well there are magnitudes more single celled organisms on the planet than multicellular. And also, cell division is even present in multicellular organisms, as its the way that individual cells reproduce themselves.[/quote]

Yes, we call it cell meiosis and mitosis. Not asexual reproduction. This is still not an excuse for such a blatant error in what was being posited as a factually sound argument.

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - Not knowing you or the circumstances of your birth, it is a possibility that you were a product of in-vitro fertilization, and its within the realm of possibility that one of your biological parents may have been an anonymous donor or a surrogate. [/quote]

I assure you, I know my father, I've seen pictures of my biological mother. I was none of those things.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 13:06

[quote][b]Digdug[/b] -
What the heck happened to Costello??

Frankenstein got to him. Had to find a new partner.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:29

[quote][b]Anonymous Dude[/b] - He has just blown your comment out of the water; a proper reply to your disingenuous assertion that only left wing activists perform corporate sabotage.[/quote]

Aren't you the people saying "corporations are evil"? What now? Huh? Did you have your head up your backside when Occupy was going on? Sure, Republicans are a danger to corporations. (Guffaws) Good one man.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:27

@Colonel McCheese;

"Sexual reproduction is the primary method of reproduction for the vast majority of macroscopic organisms, including almost all animals and plants."

"The majority of animal species reproduce sexually."

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:17

[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - This couldn't be farther from the truth. Overall "nature" favors asexual cell division as a method of reproduction. [/quote]

Wait what? I was spawned? Two people didn't come together to sexually reproduce me? I have a problem with that. A big one.

What I was taught in school was that the majority of species in nature reproduced sexually. Only a smattering of species reproduced asexually.

Now if you can refute your claim, I am all the more happy to see it. Otherwise, this statement has completely discredited parts of your argument.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:54

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] -
YOU HAD TO VOTE BECAUSE IT WAS INEQUITABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY WERE DENYING HUMANS THEIR RIGHTS IN 1964! Same as they are now, just gays not blacks. They SHOULDN"T need a vote, but when the law is bad the only way to undo it is a vote.

So in essence, the people are not allowed to make laws for themselves, as the Constitution grants? So the only way we could introduce something like this is by proposing it as a law or an amendment. So I guess I shouldn't vote on anything else, since the court has the right to reverse my vote, and therefore my opinion.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:39

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - They are involved because the previous government involvement was impartial to only one side of it and they are trying to MAKE it neutral![/quote]

So by taking up one side, they are in a sense trying to be neutral? That doesn't jibe for me.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:32

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - I don't think I should have to tolerate not being allowed to buy a beer on Sunday because some religious group gets more votes for their belief system, but that is how it is.[/quote]

So does it work both ways? Mine and yours?

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - The issue is that some things. like equal rights, shouldn't need a vote!!!![/quote]

So, I guess a lot of other things didn't need a vote either.. say the Civil Rights Act of 1964? At what point does an opinion even matter anymore?

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:28

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - BUT, when government involves itself in it, they have to be equal to all, unlike a church.[/quote]

But in this case it ISN'T. You have the entire Obama Administration filing amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in defense of gay marriage. It isn't being neutral, it is being partial. If it were to be completely neutral government, then they should stay out of it period. They should make laws and statutes according the ruling put forth by the court.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:25

@ppensyl: And somehow I feel (despite what others have told me) that I am obligated to tolerate homosexuality. I don't want to be. And by voting against it, I am exercising my right to vote for what I believe to be true and justified, not just of pure religious zealotry. But then again, I have been accused of "legislating someone else's rights" by voting period. My vote is my voice, my vote is my right. I don't think the court should hold the overtly pluralistic ability to systematically overrule the will of the people.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:20

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - .they are already out of gay marriage by not allowing it or "governing it".[/quote]

Actually it remains involved in the marriage issue by making cases for its (gay marriage) allowance. If were indeed truly neutral, it wouldn't defend either side. That's how I see it.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:09

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - I noticed you and RWE negged that answer, so it must be religious issue for you then.[/quote]

Well @Pologize: likes to make a habit of antagonizing me, negging my posts and plussing anyone who disagrees with me. He never explains why.

It is as much a religious issue for me as a legal one.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:06

@ppensyl: So in making your point, mine has been made. The definition of marriage is a states issue. It would be improper for the federal government to define marriage because you have states conflicting with others on such a premise. You can't completely rule government out of marriage either, you need some type of governance over such.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:01

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - Not sure how everyone paying the same tax would be better for one than another[/quote]

I didn't say everyone I just meant LGBT couples.

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - But a reduction to equity is still equitable.[/quote]

Care to expound, for the layman?

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:40

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - Replace Citizen with Gay citizen, or any other adjective of your choice (black, white, atheist, christian, catholic, jew etc...) and re read section one. [/quote]

If you are wanting to read Section 1 for what it is, it makes no mention of homosexual, blacks, whites, Atheists, Christians, Catholics or Jews." Furthermore, it does not clearly define what a "citizen" is.

Unless you read the transcript of the debates that took place when the 14th Amendment was being introduced as legislation.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:35

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] -
How so?

I believe a flat tax would be lower than the average. It would seem to me that it would be a tax break for them, and not for straight couples. Ironically, Rand Paul has made a similar case.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:27

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - It actually uses the word privilege in the 14th amendment .[/quote]

You're right, it does. Didn't catch that. Speed reading has its flaws.

But at any rate, the 14th Amendment confines jurisdiction to "the states wherein they reside." That makes it a states issue. And as it stands, the states have already exercised their rights to define marriage. ALL OF THEM. So if the court overturns these state amendments, is it taking their rights to define marriage away from them? Because as I see it, even the ones that have legalized it would have to start from scratch, you take one state's rights away, I believe you take them ALL away.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:23

Those aren't zombies folks, just elected officials.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:18

@Millionexus: This is what I have a problem with,

"Third, abortion data are compiled and reported to CDC by the central health agency of the reporting area in which the abortion was performed rather than the reporting area in which the woman lived. This inflates abortion statistics for reporting areas in which a high percentage of abortions are obtained by out-of-state residents and undercounts abortions for states with limited abortion services, more stringent legal requirements for obtaining an abortion, or geographic proximity to services in another state. To adjust for these biases, CDC attempts to categorize abortions by residence in addition to occurrence. However, CDC was unable to identify the reporting area, territory, or country of residence for 11.5% of reported abortions."

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:13

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - I believe the opposite RWE, I think it clearly states that the States cannot do things.[/quote]

That is a bit vague. Does it stop them from defining marriage?

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:06

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - It's funny, when it's a person's religion or your guns the constitution is to be read PRECISELY as it reads...why not for the rest of it???[/quote]

Because, as it says, it should not be construed to deprive anyone (Gay or Straight) of rights not specifically enumerated within.

Marriage is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, nor is it defined (save DOMA) by it. So how would I be using the constitution to deny someone their right to marry? Marriage is a rite (not right) or a privilege. Privileges are not covered by the Constitution. So how exactly am I to construe the Constitutional definition of marriage when there (technically) isn't one?

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:04

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - Why not all just pay the same tax and not have it based on one's sexual orientation, or color, or religion, or sex, or hair color, or eyes?[/quote]

Well, that is the compromise I see. And to be flatly honest, that would be highly advantageous for LGBT couples.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 09:57

[quote][b]ppensyl[/b] - How do gays pay less tax than you do proportionally? You are certainly free to an opinion though. I just read the words as they are written.[/quote]

I propose that if they want all the rights and benefits granted by marriage therein.. that they should pay a flat tax instead of highly adjustable tax rates that other straight couples do.

posted @ Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 09:53

Find us on Facebook & Twitter

Find us on Facebook Find us on Twitter


  • Andrew

    Blog: Watching movies by myself

    Summary:  I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. read more

  • Jim

    No cartoons on racism

    As you might imagine, the vast majority of the editorial cartoons available these days for publication through the syndicate which supplies cartoons to the Athens Banner-Herald/OnlineAthens are addressing the situation in Ferguson, Mo., where the fatal shooting of a black teen by a white police officer has touched off a number of demonstrations -- some peaceful, but many not at all peaceful, with tear gas fired by police officers and gunshots fired by some protester. read more

see more blogs