jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (23 posts)

Constitutional Outrage

  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    How could this happen in the U.S. ?

    I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!! mad

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010091 … dyStar.com

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Keep us abreast of your progress.  lol

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'll try, but my hands are kinda full right now.

    2. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I personally don't have a problem with women walking around topless, but the majority of the people where this girl lives, does. Her "rights" end at the point they infringe on the rights of another.

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The law itself seems contrary to the law of nature.

        A mother must feed her child, does the law put the mother in violation if someone catches a glimpse of a nip?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Technically, under Indiana law...

          Yes

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is now a Constitutional amendment that protects people from being offended by nature?

        You would have thought something like that would have made the nightly news.

        Damned liberal media! mad

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ha! Bare breasts should definitely be covered.......by the 14th Amendment! Where are the Tea Baggers when we need 'em?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ummmmmm, you mean uncovered don't you?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes. Comment corrected. Tnx.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Their defense of the Constitution is very situational.

    4. weholdthesetruths profile image59
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good for the judges.    Finally one says something that makes sense.

  2. lady_love158 profile image61
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    Masturbation is natural too and sex is a beautiful thing. So should a couple be allowed to f**k on their table in the middle of a family restaurant?

    I'm all for freedom and just like the lefties say you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, societal norms and what's acceptable limits our rights to express ourselves in any way we see fit, and rightly so.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Of course they should.  The restaurant also has the right to ban such activity.

      Your "yelling fire" analogy is absurd.  People don't generally die from being exposed to sexual activity in public.

      Freedom of expression is limited when the expression causes physical harm or danger.  It is not constitutionally limited when a bunch of religious zealots are unable to overcome their weekly brainwashing sessions.

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes and how about psycological harm to children?

        You lefties crack me up!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          See above reference to religious zealots.

          1. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah right! You lefties have no problem passing laws taking other people's money banning transfats, or french fries. You're right there to defend the man-boy love association and child porn, You have no problem forcing people to buy health insurance and CFP light bulbs even if the majority of Americans are opposed to these things.

            But here you are ready to defend the right of a 14 year old girl to display her nipples in public! No you lefties aren't hypocritical at all! LOL!

            1. manlypoetryman profile image74
              manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              !!! You go, lady_love 158

            2. livelonger profile image88
              livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Lefties" support NAMBLA and child porn? roll

              You can indulge in self-serving fantasy to make a point, but you end up only convincing the shrinking minority of right-wing fanatics...

            3. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              Your post lists your opinions on man-boy love, kiddie porn, phallic foods, hydrogenated lubricants and light bulbs...

              ...anything you want to tell us?  Don't worry, what happens on HP stays on HP.

  3. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Besides, it's the Pentagon that has all the child porn.

  4. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Don't worry, what happens on HP stays on HP."

    Unless somepeople get their poor wittle feewings hurt.

    Then it's off to the woodshed!!!

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Woodshed?  Sounds kinky.

 
working