ReBirth

Yep...but what's that have to do with the constitution?

You think minors who get in fights at school should go to jail? Jail's a little more harsh than a punch in the face. I've experienced both. I'm guessing you've experienced neither. Who are you to judge?

I believe they have a right to say what they want without government infringement. I don't believe anyone has the right to say anything they want under any circumstances with no ramifications. There's a big difference. If you call your boss an asshole and he fires you, does he not believe in the 1st amendment?

I generally don't carry a concealed weapon. If I were armed I would never initiate a physical confrontation. I would secure my weapon somewhere off my person first, then punch them in the face. I am NOT prone to violence in general. I don't fly off the handle and I don't strike at people in anger. If someone pisses me off, I walk away. But there are exceptions. Every man has their limit. I just happen to recognize what mine are.

I meant that you keep claiming that anyone who punched these fucktards didn't believe in, or was violating their 1st amendment rights. That's just not true. Here's a real world example. A friend of mine in high school died in a car accident. She was a freaky looking punk rock chick, and a straight edge. In school the next day, some asshole replied loudly in the hallway after someone mentioned her death, "well she was a druggie, she deserved it". I punched him in the face and we got in a fight. A few others broke it up. I got suspended...so did he. I didn't violate his first amendment rights. I punched an asshole in the jaw, he deserved it, and I'd do it again.

Now THERE'S a tradition we need to bring back!!

Oh, they do not. I think they's sexy. (As long as it's quality work.) I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a girl with a tattoo there. It's enough already. The dragon one above is the only unique one I've ever seen.

You keep saying that. Where did anyone advocate that the gov't should stop them from protesting? That's what's in the constitution. Otherwise everyone who socked some loud mouthed jerk for spouting off about anything would be charged with civil liberties violations. I'm generally a peaceful person. But people have to understand that there are consequences to actions. Anyone protests at a funeral of a friend or relative of mine, they're going to get hurt. Will I get arrested? Maybe. Those are my consequences to deal with.

Damn...dude...I've been waiting for you to step in. I'm no law talking guy like you. But it seems pretty clear to me, as a pro-choice, anti-establishment type of person, that this is a non-issue as far as putting a burden on anyone.

What's so hard is that she does NOT have to prove it. She just has to say it, and sign her name to it. If you can find a case of that ever being challenged, fine. But I don't think you will.

Nahh...I'm a dumb toad. As are all who compare themselves to the legendary PK.

Only if she is lying. If she is telling the truth, what jeopardy is she in?

Typical tax and spend democrat

lilberal trickseees they are

Those little tattoos on the small of a girl's back always look like they have a hairy ass from a distance.

Can you find a single instance of that happening in PA?

Only if you can't spell it.

It's that way in most cities where parking is a premium. You used hotels.com? Have fun with all the spam they're going to send you.

Again...we're talking PA here. In PA, restraining orders are issued based on accusations, false or otherwise, of the woman. The burden of proof is on the accused to proove they didn't do what they are accused of. Could you find a single instance of anyone being prosecuted for falsely claiming abuse or fear of abuse in PA? Making a supposition about what could happen is not a valid means of determining the burden. "that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her." How do you disprove her belief? ===================== Fine...let's drop all that and agree to disagree. Do you really find it that outlandish, considering I, as someone staunchly pro-choice disagrees with you, that this opinion should not be used to label someone as ANTI ABORTION? It was a legal decision based on an opinion of what undue burden is. I don't think it is undue burden, neither did 3 of the supremes. I don't see how this is being used to label Alito as a rabid anti-abortionist.

Still waiting for your source regarding unemployment being lower than anytime during Clinton's term.

All she has to do is sign a statement saying she is afraid. That's it. You're right. There is no caseworker, because that's not even necessary. All she has to do is say she's afraid, she gets the form, and signs it. That's it. Where's the convoluted legal system that the poor and uneducated can't navigate?

Great link...thanks. I'm also one of the HONEST guys in here who will say I like big fake boobies (as long as they aren't freakish). Most guys will say they don't like them, but then you drag 'em to the strip club and find them with their head buried between a set.

I think this guy said it best...he seems like a genius...and handsome, too. Why I, as an Atheist, celebrate Christmas

HAA!! First time I've been accused of that. How are they made to? All they have to do is tell the Dr. "I told my husband". That's it. They don't check with the husband. It's just a voluntary statement made by the woman before the procedure. What states are you referring to? Because this case was in PA, and PA has built in exceptions that are not difficult to navigate. In fact all they really have to do is say they're afraid and a social worker is immediately assigned to take care of the paperwork. As I've stated before and will say again, I am PRO CHOICE. I don't think this ruling is anywhere close to an example of limiting a woman's right to choose. If you look at this apolitically, it was a correct assessment. It's arguments like this why liberals are labeled as extremists. Nothing about this ruling would limit a woman's right to choose.

And note that we didn't start taking an interest in stopping terrorism until it was Americans getting killed. Your bias is showing, as usual.