User Profile: Tom Rath

Tom Rath

Member Since: April 03, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • February 17, 2015 at 3:12pm

    Sheep #3 (uncredited)

  • [3] February 9, 2015 at 6:15pm

    As someone who’s been voting almost exclusively GOP for about 35 years, all I can do is chuckle with incredulity when i see comments like this. It’s amazing how any judge who applies the Constitution in a manner somebody doesn’t like is suddenly a “filthy leftist”…even those jurists recommended by Reublican lawmakers and appointed by Republican presidents. Heck, at least ONE of the federal judges striking down a state marriage law (Pennsylvania?) had also run for or been elected to a non-judicial public office as a Republican!

    Oooooh…but he’s a “filthy leftist”, now, because HE thinks Constitutional protections apply to everyone, including people YOU find “yucky”. HA! Fool.

  • [3] February 9, 2015 at 5:54pm


    And just like Comcast3 above, you take something you saw somebody else say somewhere and have convinced yourself that “Tenth Amendment!” and “State’s rights!” is the end-all, be-all of the issue. The concept of federalism instills many powers, but the ability to use the precepts of sovereignty does not grant to the states immunity from judicial rebuff when in violation of Constitutional protections such as equal protection and due process. Numerous courts have, to date, found the various statutes placing restrictions against same-sex marriage to be in violation of these protections, under both standard and heightened scrutiny.

  • [6] February 9, 2015 at 5:28pm

    Seriously? Yet another “It’s not enumerated! It’s not enumerated!” parroted argument?


    Of COURSE not every issue is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But, do you know what is?….concepts like “equal protection” and “due process”, which are applicable to non-enumerated topics, genius.

    Seriously, people, READ A BOOK or something before you start spouting off about things you obviously don’t f’n understand!

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] February 9, 2015 at 5:20pm

    Not exactly up to speed on the Constitution, Article III and the concept of judicial review, I take it.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] February 6, 2015 at 9:04pm

    Kudos, Presley. Unlike so many that CALL themselves “constitutionalists”, you actually get it.

    In reply to the contribution Ted Cruz Is Wrong about Same Sex Marriage

    Responses (2) +
  • February 6, 2015 at 12:47pm

    Why is this supposed to be “surprising”? Statistics have shown the same trend in viewership of online porn. Those wacky, lovable Baptists! LOL!

  • February 3, 2015 at 9:16pm

    Reminds me of the scientific studies that showed how children raised in a religious household had a harder time distinguishing between reality and fantasy.

  • February 3, 2015 at 9:12pm

    I am Prophet Tom, and I see a bible verse in your future. ;)

  • [7] February 3, 2015 at 8:51pm

    Ken’s just mad ’cause Carnival has all these boats and Kentucky won’t pay for his. :>)

  • [1] January 18, 2015 at 10:13pm

    Like I said…..

  • [3] January 18, 2015 at 7:06pm

    Evolution isn’t something you “believe in” or “don’t believe in”. You either UNDERSTAND evolution, or you don’t. Simple.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 2, 2015 at 6:56pm

    No cover at The Cheetah with conference badge!

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] December 22, 2014 at 4:10pm

    He’s no white supremacist. He’s just another Talibaptist who likes to make shtuff up to try to push his vision of an American theocracy.

  • [-2] December 20, 2014 at 3:37pm

    Just to clarify, the specific lesson is not “part of Common Core”. Common Core is sets of standards that the individual local/state-adopted curricula are designed to meet. This particular lesson is simply part of the specific curriculum adopted by this system. There is nothing that indicates or implies that if the system had adopted a curriculum with an alternate lesson plan that did not include this specific lesson, that it would not have STILL met all standards put forth in Common Core.

    Of course, explaining it *that* way wouldn’t have been nearly as inflammatory. Starnes knows he needs “red meat” and hyperbole (and lies) for the kind of readers he has to write for….those just stupid enough to believe anything/everything he feeds them.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] November 23, 2014 at 12:51pm

    Still waiting for all the savants railing about “sodomy” to start trying to attack the vast majority of married, straight couples who engage in acts falling within the definition.

    But they won’t, because it’s not actually about the acts….it’s the actors.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 18, 2014 at 8:34pm

    Well, if anyone knows all about making sh-tuff up to promote their agenda, it’s David Barton. Ha!

  • [-1] November 18, 2014 at 12:38pm

    It doesn’t matter because the Bible. And Jesus. And stuff.

  • [-2] November 12, 2014 at 8:45pm

    Both the school *and* the student were in the wrong, here.

    The school can no more make leading the school in The Pledge a compulsory “assignment” (and no, allowing for additional work in lieu doesn’t cut it) than they can require any student to recite it or even stand for it. This is settled law.

    The student, however, in choosing to fulfill the ill-informed “assignment” of leading the recitation had no business altering it from its current McCarthyism-inspired form and opting for the original socialist/nationalist version.

  • [-4] November 10, 2014 at 12:46pm

    Oh noes!! Something that conflicts with our long-standing mythology-based belief structure! BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!


123 To page: Go
Restoring Love