Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right to self indulgent stupidity more like

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It didn't. But, that was fixored.

If you (or anyone) doesn't agree with a certain part of the constitution, get it fixored again. People often point to the fact that the original constitution didn't recognize women and people other than white men as being whole. Well, that's been fixed. Why didn't they fix the other stuff that was wrong while they were at it?

Whilst the 14th and 19th amendments went a long way in addressing inequality for women and non-white men as regards equal protection under the law, and the extension of suffrage to women, the Equal Rights Amendment would affirm these protections in a simple way. Read the text -- I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's a model of simplicity:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Edited June 7, 2011 by elmcitymaven

[slim 1,533]

Had you read the link, you'd know it's not a matter of lay libtards simply disagreeing with it. But since you didn't read it and don't intend to, I suppose this conversation ends here.

Lay libtards never simply disagree and that's my point. It's always a case of "well, we interpret that to mean this" instead of "this is what it says but we disagree and will try to change it." If they said that, they wouldn't sound so libtarded.

These are the same folks that think you have a right to happiness. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to happiness. It most certainly does not say the government should give it to you. And taking it a step further, it definitely does not say that we should all pay for your happiness.

Yet, somewhere along the way, some ** interpreted something to mean exactly that. "I can take money away from you and give it to someone else because they have a right to be happy too."

Oh, ok. If you want to be literal, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't contain the words, 'handgun,' nor does it make any distinction as to what is and isn't an 'arm'. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say an 'arm' is a handgun, but not a tank, or a rifle, but not vile of anthrax?

I absolutely agree with you! There is no distinction and that's why it's illegal for the government to make any law infringing upon our rights with regards to arms.

[slim 1,533]

Whilst the 14th and 19th amendments went a long way in addressing inequality for women and non-white men as regards equal protection under the law, and the extension of suffrage to women, the Equal Rights Amendment would affirm these protections in a simple way. Read the text -- I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's a model of simplicity:

It's very simple but I don't support an amendment to affirm those protections. We've already done so in the 14th and 19th. Are we going to add another amendent to affirm our other freedoms as well? "Bearing of arms under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State." Do we really need that? I mean, it's pretty clearly expressed already.

"But slim, your 2A rights are trampled on all the time and that's not fair." Well, keep that in mind next time you're having trouble understanding why the 14th and 19th are still not fully accepted.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see how it's an invasion of privacy of there is no name or picture of the woman.

People in the community could recognise the guy and put 2 and 2 together. However this seems more like libel than anything. Of course the real question is why the guy decided to put up the billboard in the first place. It's pretty dumb. I guess he prefers to air his dirty laundry in public. What a moron.

[slim 1,533]

People in the community could recognise the guy and put 2 and 2 together. However this seems more like libel than anything. Of course the real question is why the guy decided to put up the billboard in the first place. It's pretty dumb. I guess he prefers to air his dirty laundry in public. What a moron.

What's even dumber is a woman who isn't identified on the billboard claiming privacy issues and then taking her case public.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's the same line of thinking that some believe the Constitution doesn't give women equals rights as men.

Digging again eh? Why waste the bandwidth ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't have to identify the person to others for it to be harassing to the individual concerned.

Digging again eh? Why waste the bandwidth ?

Why worry about the bandwidth? Its so cheap as to be practically free

[slim 1,533]

You don't have to identify the person to others for it to be harassing to the individual concerned.

You also don't have to work hard to disprove their claim.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

To those who voted for the privacy rights, whats your logic?

I voted for freedom of speech and see this as a civil issue where if the woman shows she had a miscarriage, she will get plenty in the way of damages.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

None of it is worth a discussion thread, the entire situation is ludicrous.

[slim 1,533]

I voted for freedom of speech and see this as a civil issue where if the woman shows she had a miscarriage, she will get plenty in the way of damages.

Who's to even say she's the woman?

Who's to even say there was a woman?

Perhaps this man was simply making a point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who's to say there was even a billboard?

[slim 1,533]

Who's to say there was even a billboard?

There is a billboard. However, what's NOT on that billboard is a woman, a woman's name or anything even remotely implying that a certain woman is the woman who is making the very public claim that the man on the billboard is implicating her.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Who's to even say she's the woman?

Who's to even say there was a woman?

Perhaps this man was simply making a point.

It can be a reasonable connection to the person, without a name. In this case, I don't have all the facts, so I don't know.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Sousuke