SCOTTYM's comment history

SCOTTYM said...

"Here's another thought experiment: If you have 10 "additions" built onto that house at the same, could it be or could it not be considered another/separate house?"

It would still be the same house.

Are you retarded?

December 17, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy123,

Nice try. Read this again...

Amendment - an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

The amendments are an "addition to" the U.S. Constitution.

Here's a thought experiment. If you have an "addition" built onto your house, say a nice sunroom, is it or is it not a part of your house when it is finished?

U.S. Constitution took effect on 3-4-1789. The BOR became official amandments on 12-15-1791.

The attempted backpeddle to "2-5 years" barely works. The actual stated 25 years is not even close.

""You fail U.S. History 101."

Not quite."

Yes VERY.

December 17, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy123-"You are aware that the Bill of Rights isn't actually in the Constitution, right? It's a separate document created 25+ years after the Constitution."

Idiocy.

Amendment - an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

The BOR are in fact the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and are therefore a part of the document. The BOR was insisted upon by various states BEFORE they would ratify the Constitution. It was a part of the Constitution before it took effect. There was no 25 year lag.

You fail U.S. History 101.

Perhaps if you are going to be using the phrase "dumbass", you should make sure that your head is not actually inserted in your own ass.

December 17, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Good night all, got to be at the office bright and early.

August 24, 2012 at 4:26 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

jazzman

Oh another leftard has come out to play.

"Who do you want making that decision for the woman?"

Someone has to speak up and defend the defenseless.


"The 'pro-abortion' comment is meaningless."

Is this because you say so and it is so? Sorry that line of "reaoning" doesn't fly.

Pro - meaning to argue in support of Abortion - I think we are all pretty clear on what this means.

Try again, but next time, use a little logic.


"You seem to imply that women who choose to have an abortion do it without consideration."

I implied nothing of the sort, and can't believe than anyone would think that could possible be true. You made that up out thin air, without any input from me. BTW it's a strawman. FIRE UP THE TORCHES!!!!


"The 'debate' is about whether an individual woman can make her own reproductive medical decisions free from government or religious interference."

No it isn't. The debate is about whether a fetus is a living human or not. Of course the science in unequivocal on this point, not that leftards care about science.

If this is the best you've got, you may as well go on back to bed.


"The current 'no exception' rule that is part of the RNC platform and many republicans, would force a woman to bear a rapists child."

You've been into the Kool-aide haven't you? What you have been lead to believe by the leftist media is a fabrication. There will never be a law that requires rape victims to carry the product of that rape to term.

So, are you just a gullible person who actually believes the B.S. their being fed, or are you one of the nasty partisans who will say anything to win regardless of who is harmed?

I don't know you well enough to even guess at the answer.

Try again.


August 24, 2012 at 4:25 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

How is this for deluded blindness.

happy wrote.. "anti-homosexual people" instead of pro-heterosexual and then one line down, you let the butthurt flow because I wrote pro-abortion instead of pro-choice.

hypocrite.

"He can't even admit that the labeling is intentional. Such deceitful ignorance."

Holy smokes. Of course it's intentional. Only a moron would think otherwise. There is no deceit involved and the ignorance you think you see is, once again, projection.

That's a good try at demonization but once again, you're just not very good at it.


"And good show misrepresenting Obama's position too!"

I wrote... "As a matter of fact, the POTUS that those on the left are so enamored of apparently thinks that if an abortion is botched (i.e. the fetus is born alive) it should be permissible to leave them alone until they die on their own."

From the article you posted... "In part, the bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

Then-state Sen. Obama opposed the legislation because he said it would undermine the legal protections given to abortions under Roe v. Wade."

Maybe you should read the articles before you post them to make sure they refute what I wrote rather than support it like this one.

Idiot.


"Still, I won't stop you from lying, no. I will suggest you refrain from them if you have to have credibility though."

You have yet to point out a lie on my part or a straw man for that matter.

All talk, no substance. Of course it has to be be that way because you are standing on ideological sand, and you can't think your way out of wet paper bag.


August 24, 2012 at 4:08 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

"SCOTTYM: Don't you realize how stupid it sounds when the right plays its "race card" card?"

More repetition. Around and around you go.


"And do you care how stupid it is to say that being subject to hatred and bigotry isn't saying you are the victim of that action?"

Victim is a mindset. You can attack all you want, but the only victims are those who let the negativity in, and unlike you with your broken mind, most people are not so soft.


"It's just a restriction of service in restaurants. That's why it's not a law against consumption."

This is a distinction without a difference, again just like when you wrote it before. If I'm sitting in a restaurant in NY, my choices ARE being limited. I know that you may not actually have the brain power to comprehend this, but do try.


"It's just not factually accurate as to the law in New York."

Hey dumba** your sophistry doesn't work. Your no good at and even if your were, I'm not buying.


"Be honest, admit you aren't representing things truthfully. Maybe that's due to ignorance and other people's lies, but maybe you don't care."

Projection again! You just can't see it can you?


"Just like you don't when you describe the pro-choice movement as the pro-abortion movement."

Around and around you go. Last time for this one.

pro-choice = pro-abortion right. unequivocally.

You may not like it, but your FEELING do not alter the reality of the situation. Get over it.


"And yes, you have claimed I've represented things inaccurately."

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Maybe I can call you a whaaaabulance.


"Or do you honestly think your statements about my use of "logical fallacies" are different somehow?"

You apparently don't understand what a logical fallacy is, nor why the use of them lost stature as debating tactics, oh about 3000 years ago.

I'm guessing that you were partying way too much in college to actually retain very much.

Or I could be wrong and you just don't care as you've been coasting through most encounters with folks who disagree with you by spinning around and around and around till they get dizzy and give up.


"I hate it when people do that too. It's not good for them."

Yes, let the butthurt flow through you.


"somehow I suspect ScottyM will treat this example of violence as demonstrative of the homosexual agenda being replete with such acts."

Somehow I suspect that you are wrong. He was just another crazy, riled up by all the hate flowing out from the left.

August 24, 2012 at 3:49 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

happy

"My hatred is for things I consider wrong and evil...."

Then by all means, embrace your hatred, your only fulfilling your "job" as a leftist by doing so, just try not to project your own foibles upon others who are not so weak minded.


" They do not have to blindly argue for the Constitutionality of something..."

It's called separation of powers, you should read up on it. But go ahead and keep on defending the lawlessness of Pres.Obama, it just makes you look even more like the far left foot soldier that you are.


"Then you are resting on their authority, not your own."

Um, yeah. It's called "the rule of law", and without it we would devolve into tyranny or anarchy. The personal opinions of me, you and the President are all secondary to the law. Or should be. Not that the left give a crap about things like civilization and civil society.


"But then as a right-winger, you probably don't care about that kind of moral responsibility."

See, this is your ignorance talking. Go and read up on the separation of powers. You aren't going to get any traction making excused for lawlessness.


Blah, blah, you keep projecting you own hatred. Why can't you come to grips with the fact that not everyone is a broken person like you?


Around and around you go like a dog chasing his tail.

"Because you'd have to admit that your hate isn't at all for good reasons."

Your projecting again, have you ever thought about seeing a shrink?


"But it's actually you who has the hatred, and quite evident in your disdain and negativity for me and the left. Really, you think I can't read your words and see what you feel?"

More projection. You've got it bad. And no, I can't SEE what I FEEL, and contrary to your delusions YOU can't SEE what I FEEL either. What a stupid line of "reasoning". You really shouldn't post under the influence of LSD, or is that just how your mind "works"?


"You should at least own up to it."

Perhaps you should own up to your own projection problem.


"And I've got no shame in that."

Of course not. You seem to revel in wallowing in your own hatred, intolerance and ignorance while projecting those character flaws upon others.

I'm kind of starting to feel sorry for you having to go through life like that. It is really sad.

August 24, 2012 at 3:18 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

easy cont.

"You might want to brush up on your American history."

Please point me toward the books that contain the part where the meaning of the words "voting" and "slavery" were changed and I'll be happy to study up on it.


"No, they don't have the right to marry who they wish."

Sure they do. So long as the person they wish to marry is of the opposite sex.


"Not accepting intolerance isn't "intolerance". I know you'd like to make it seem that way in order to make your viewpoint seem more legitimate but it's not working and it never will."

Not accepting the viewpoint of others because it isn't the same as yours IS intolerance.

What makes you think your opinion is superior to all others and that you can therefore define who is tolerant vs. who is intolerant so that your goofy "logic" of "intolerance(1) toward intolerance(2) = not intolerance" can be applied?

Pure idiocy.

August 24, 2012 at 2:35 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

easy

"Ah, the old "If you don't like it then leave" argument. Do I even need to elaborate on how ignorant that is?"

This is a central tenant of federalism. I guess you missed that in history class, yes. This is why matters like gay "marriage" should be left to individual states.


"You still don't get it. Calling you out on your bigotry isn't bigotry. All ideas and beliefs are not equal."

You didn't read the definition of bigotry did you? You don't get to decide which beliefs and ideas are or are not worthy of defending. By attempting to do so YOU are being a bigot.


"Compromises shouldn't be made on basic rights."

Repetition again? Gay people have exactly he same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else. Which part of this is confusing you?


r.e. "" willing to do things like walk into an office run by the opposition and start shooting.""

"And I haven't heard of any gays doing such things."

Then you aren't paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-research-council-shooting-injured-guard-tackles-gunman/story?id=17013563#.UDcYCKB_WAQ


"You're moving the goalpost. Civil institutions like marriage should be guaranteed to everyone."

I haven't touched a goal post, and marriage is guaranteed to everyone.


"Gay is gay."

Yes, and I don't care, even a little bit, about anyone's sex life but my own.


"They deserve the right to marry anyone of either sex. And you would deny them this right. You have made that clear. Are you backtracking?"

This is where you are wrong. Marriage is a relationship between two (or more, I don't care) people of the opposite sex.


"They should have the right to marry who they wish."

Yes, as long as the person is the opposite sex, which is not what most gay people are going to do.


"You are denying them a basic right. Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals."

No I'm not and yes it is.


"I don't tolerate intolerance. :-)"

Surprise, surprise, and intolerant leftist who believes he/she is entitled to define the contours of the battlefield.


"Again, they are homosexual. They should have the right to marry who they wish. You are denying them a basic right."

Yes, again and again and again. You leftist seem to love repetition. Is it the old "progressive" proverb about repeating the same B.S. over and over until it becomes the truth? Because if so, you should know that it only works on folks with a weak mind.


"Marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals."

Really? The law of the land disagrees.


"How far do you think you can move that goalpost? Again, you are denying them the right to marry who they wish. You're grasping for an argument."

Repetition again? I'm not grasping for anything. My reasoning is well established, and this is why you and the other dimwit aren't getting any traction.

August 24, 2012 at 2:35 a.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.