SHARIA RULE OF LAW COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD...

Hey MC . . . Ekim already has his head up his ass; there’s no room for your nose. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Whatever you say, Black Knight.

What is “disarming” is how in the face of overwhelming evidence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necrophilia) Ekim, with MC and now Doofus' support, "witlessly and unarmed" presume to deny Merriam-Webster’s preeminence in spelling.

Speaking of “witless and unarmed” please note how Doofus had his ass handed to him in another thread (thus his appearance in this thread):

Since there was already a law protecting the life of a "living" infant, then this bill was either 1)needlessly duplicative, or 2)a bill that had nothing to do with protecting the life of a "living" infant. Originally Posted by Doove

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant.

Final analysis, in all of your wormy deceit you still haven't refuted the fact that Obama hypocritically voted against a bill which met every precondition he set; thus, he voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant.

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No it didn't. Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, you lie, obfuscate and deceive. This is from the cited article - paragraph #2:

"At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive."

This is Illinois Bill SB 1082:

LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b 1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3 represented in the General Assembly: 4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding 5 Section 1.36 as follows: 6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new) 7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant. 8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any 9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various 10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", 11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant 12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any 13 stage of development. 14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with 15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion 18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean 23 section, or induced abortion. 24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall 25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate 26 protection under the law.27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 28 becoming law.

You have repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, attempted to misdirect the argument, but you have failed to refute Obama's hypocritical vote against a bill which met every precondition he set. He voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=232

Whatever you say, Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, now that you have honorifically kowtowed, you are dismissed.

First, learn to quote. Originally Posted by MC

You'd do better to learn how to pick your battles. Both of these asswipes you are in cahoots with have already had their butts handed to them; then you reveal yourself to be an asswipe-jerk by supporting their already failed arguments.

Secondly, the mentality of most Uber Right Wingers on this site seems to fit that of the Black Knight.

Even if the facts are staring them right in the face, they refuse to listen. Originally Posted by MC

Look in the mirror, asswipe. This is precisely what you, Ekim and Doofus are doing at this very moment: you are denying facts that are staring you in the face.

dont anyone tell IB how to spell dufus ... he thinks using big words makes him look smart ...

BBAAAWWWWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHA

Aint my neighborhood aint my Judge you deserve what you elect. Originally Posted by ekim008

Hows that hopey changey thing working for ya?

Looks like someone (i won't say who, but his initials are I B) is just a bit obsessed.

Looks like someone (i won't say who, but his initials are I B) is just a bit obsessed. Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus the “witless and unarmed” caught in multiple lies and suffers a major Smack Down!!!!

Since there was already a law protecting the life of a "living" infant, then this bill was either 1)needlessly duplicative, or 2)a bill that had nothing to do with protecting the life of a "living" infant. Originally Posted by Doove

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant.

Final analysis, in all of your wormy deceit you still haven't refuted the fact that Obama hypocritically voted against a bill which met every precondition he set; thus, he voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant.

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No it didn't. Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, you lie, obfuscate and deceive. This is from the cited article - paragraph #2:

"At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive."

This is Illinois Bill SB 1082:

LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b 1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3 represented in the General Assembly: 4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding 5 Section 1.36 as follows: 6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new) 7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant. 8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any 9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various 10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", 11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant 12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any 13 stage of development. 14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with 15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion 18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean 23 section, or induced abortion. 24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall 25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate 26protectionunder the law.27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 28 becoming law.

You have repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, attempted to misdirect the argument, but you have failed to refute Obama's hypocritical vote against a bill which met every precondition he set. He voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=232

Whatever you say, Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, now that you have honorifically kowtowed, you are dismissed.

That's just like one of you Kansas-hayseed, necrophilic-liberals to defile the sanctity of a grave site just to get a cheap fuck. BTW, you need to move out of your mom's house and quit pimping her out. She's getting on up there in age.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

the trick to a putdown is if you checked to see if you misspelled necrophiliac which you did asshole.which makes me happy because you showed your ass once again.Oh be sure to check your spelling above..

Hows that hopey changey thing working for ya? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

working great for me my net worth has gone up,how you doing???

Well you never fail to disappoint, Originally Posted by ekim008

Whereas, you always a disappoint.

you can wave your arms stomp your little feet turn red in the face,and fill the air with bombast,but in your right wing idiotic way will never admit a wrong. Originally Posted by ekim008

You are describing yourself. First you moronically assert the word necrophilic (adj. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necrophilia) was misspelled, and then you moronically insisted – like a pathetic little child kicking and screaming – you were right in the face of bona fide evidence to the contrary.

And it is necrophiliac. you keep digging yourself in deeper. Originally Posted by ekim008

"Necrophilic" is also correct!

You have left the letter a out every time you spell it. Originally Posted by ekim008

Again you are wrong, and you are lying! http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=54
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=56

I know what it is looser you misspelled it. Originally Posted by ekim008

Wrong and wrong (and more lying)!

the trick to a putdown is if you checked to see if you misspelled necrophiliac which you did asshole.which makes me happy because you showed your ass once again.Oh be sure to check your spelling above.. Originally Posted by ekim008

Still wrong! Some words, like “necrophilic,” are not in the Eccie word base. When someone uses any word in a post that is not in the Eccie word base, it is underscored by a “wavy red line” – like your “words” that are highlighted in red above are not in the Eccie word base as you have written them. Which means the use of the word "necrophilic” – as spelled and in spite of Eccie’s “wavy red line” warning – was purposeful and intentional despite your stupid ass claims to the contrary.

dumb ass is two words,and WTF is a obamanite? Originally Posted by ekim008

BTW, “words” and “and” are two-separate words not joined by a comma. And to answer your question: you are, you dumbass Obamanite!


BTW, you wife/sister/cousin shared this picture of you on her Kansas-Hayseed Facebook Page.

there you go again stomping your little feet waving you fists and getting red in the face again.I bet you look like chuckie when you get in your fury.Tell me I B when you are porking those dead people you know so much about,do you go for the women or the men???

i want SHAYLA'S "rule of law " cumming to MY hood !!!

carry on...

First, learn to quote.

Secondly, the mentality of most Uber Right Wingers on this site seems to fit that of the Black Knight. Even if the facts are staring them right in the face, they refuse to listen.

King Arthur: Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound. Originally Posted by MC

LOL so true

Look, regardless of all of the mindless verbage about who can, and cannot, spell "doofus" or "dufus", I think we are all in agreement that Sharia Law has no place in our judicial system.

That is, unless Congress passes the law, the President signs it, and it then passes the Constitutional Muster of the SCOTUS.

If that happens, we are in a lot more trouble than we all suspect.

there you go again stomping your little feet waving you fists and getting red in the face again.I bet you look like chuckie when you get in your fury.Tell me I B when you are porking those dead people you know so much about,do you go for the women or the men??? Originally Posted by ekim008

More of the same Ekim? You still have your head up your ass.

More of the same Ekim? You still have your head up your ass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I hope you did one for Fuck Gun, little louey, little stevie (little and little are they trying to tell us something ?) and the other malcontents but they all look like this to me