Constitutional Outrage

1. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   How could this happen in the U.S. ?
   
   I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!
   
   http://www.indystar.com/article/2010091 … dyStar.com

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Keep us abreast of your progress. 

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
   2. 62

      lady_love158posted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin 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?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Technically, under Indiana law...
            
            Yes

            replyreport
      2. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin 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!

         replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         ummmmmm, you mean uncovered don't you?

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. Comment corrected. Tnx.

            replyreport
      2. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Their defense of the Constitution is very situational.

         replyreport
   4. 61

      weholdthesetruthsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
2. 62

   lady_love158posted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         lady_love158posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yes and how about psycological harm to children?
         
         You lefties crack me up!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            See above reference to religious zealots.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               lady_love158posted 14 years agoin 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!

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  manlypoetrymanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  !!! You go, lady_love 158

                  replyreport
               2. 91

                  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "Lefties" support NAMBLA and child porn?
                  
                  You can indulge in self-serving fantasy to make a point, but you end up only convincing the shrinking minority of right-wing fanatics...

                  replyreport
               3. 61

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
3. 80

   lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
4. 80

   lovemychrisposted 14 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!!!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Woodshed?  Sounds kinky.

      replyreport