La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for October 03, 2014

There are, however, African-Scots, who were able to vote in the recent referendum.

No Americans, either; but at least sixteen-year-olds could decide our fate. What could go wrong?

Lalo’s back on his Meds. He’s normal again, hateful as usual.

Plenty is wrong with the Republicans.

So what’s wrong with them?

All I’m saying is that we’ll probably not hear Lalo saying that about the Democrats.

Maybe because, other than the criticisms he directs their way, he largely agrees with them? And fundamentally disagrees with the Republicans? Perish the thought!

Oh, and what is the language in the Bill of Rights that talks about women’s rights and unwanted pregnancies?

According to Roe v. Wade, it exists in the Fourteenth Amendment (the right to privacy). The Supreme Court, who probably know a little bit more about the Constitution than either you or I do, found it right there.

And the posters here find fault with me for only going after Lalo….

Meh. I personally find fault—often on factual grounds—with the arguments you make. Does this make you feel put-upon? Do you, deep down, feel like it’s not fair?

I never thought I would see Jim Crow and Poll Taxes again in my lifetime but the GOP has managed to bring back both. With Gerrymandering and rigged machines they will have a successful coup in November and we America will end once and for all. Congrats to all you ignorant self-destructive racists out there who made this possible. Oh and you lazy, non-voting Dems deserve some of the credit too.

I was addressing you, but somehow, a butt-inski commandeered the comments.

Sorry, buddy, but if you post to a public forum, you’re going to get public comments back. It’s the very reason these things exist. If you’d like to have a nice private chat with @Night-Gaunt49, I’d suggest giving N-G your email address. Or maybe your phone number. Until then, you can complain about other folks joining the conversation, but it’s not going to do you a whole lot of good. Or is it that you don’t want to deal with any substantive points this “butt-inski” brought up?

Edit to my earlier post, where my typo’d sentence reads, According to Roe v. Wade, it exists in the Fourteenth Amendment (the right to privacy).:

It’s actually the Fourth Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights), not the Fourteenth, that gives the right to privacy. The Fourteenth deals with citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. The SC did use Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14 to construct their argument, so 14 still manages to get in there.

It’s just so easy for you to go into full-snit mode, indie. I’d suggest keeping that blood pressure medication handy so your fingers don’t blow their capillaries.

INDIETHINK DISAGREES WITH LALO. IT BALANCES OUT.

And agrestic and many other people disagree with indie. Does this mean we’re back to a karmic imbalance?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND UNWANTED PREGNANCIES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

I didn’t misread you, but I also didn’t realize you were such a radical strict constructionist. If the right isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist? No need for a Supreme Court then really, is there? But, see, there’s this little amendment, #9, that extends rights that aren’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And #4, in combination with #9 (and 1, 3, 5, and 14) were deemed by the SC to give women the right to choose how to treat their own bodies, unwanted pregnancies and all. Or is it that you were just trying to score some of those “points” that you’re always on about?

Paraphrasing the rest of your post: ARGLE-BARGLE!

A-yup. Your full-snit mode is in full effect. No doubt.

I do believe there are African-“Scots”…

I didn’t misread you, but I also didn’t realize you were such a radical strict constructionist.IF BY THAT YOU MEAN AM I PRECISE IN MY WORDING, YES I AM

No, that’s not what I mean. Strict constructionists argue for focusing only on the text of a law and not allowing for any sort of inference beyond the text itself. Your original question was so silly—of course anyone who has a passing knowledge of the US Bill of Rights would know that there isn’t explicit mention of pregnant women—that it seemed more likely you were asking what in the Bill of Rights would apply to protecting women’s right to control their own bodies. Your question seems slightly less silly if you were asking a rhetorical question as a radical strict constructionist. But you’ve made it apparent that no, you’re just asking a really silly question. I guess to score some sort of self-congratulatory point? It’s definitely not in an effort to enlighten.

AND IN ALL CAPS, YET.

Yup. Seems apropos when paraphrasing you.

AGAIN WITH THE MEDICATION SUGGESTION

Hey, man, it’s an issue of ongoing concern when it comes to you. Wouldn’t want you keeling over on us, now.

“FULL-SNIT” AGAIN.

That’s what performers refer to as a “call-back.” Academics might relate to it instead as a summary in conclusion.