I see. You were just “pointing out” something when you wrote:
Quakers have never been willing to pay the price for our freedom and liberty that must be paid from time to time. They have rode for free at the expense of others.

Keep it up for a while, AO. You may yet bait me into improving your education.

I never understood bigotry against Canada. We are far too small and far too polite a nation for any otherwise sane individual to hate.

And if it wasn’t for Canada, your socially inept high schoolers would have no pretend girlfriends.

And that’s a huge difference. Without subsidies, there is no corn crop. Without corn, there is no food industry.

Seriously. Most of the food you eat is dependent on corn. Either as starch, sweetener, or food. Watch a movie called King of Corn for more info. It is quite fascinating.

“So Canada doesn’t have a liberal immigration policy?”

Compared to what?

“How much does someone have to pull your leg before you get a clue.”

Two points…

1.) I’m trying to ignore your lame attempts at humor and stick to your actual point.

2.) This is hard because you seem to only have lame attempts at humor left.

Speaking of an actual point…

The fact remains, rural areas are more dependent on the Government than Urban areas. Look up federal spending per tax dollar and you will see is is the rural states that take and the urban states that give.

Rural areas wouldn’t have electricity, phone lines, etc. if it wasn’t for the government.

Well, Roe v Wade comes to mind. As does the 2007 decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003 (Gonzales v. Carhart).

Decisions involving abortion include,
Doe v Bolton
Bigelow v Virginia
Connecticut v. Menillo
Singleton v. Wulff
Planned Parenthood Association of Central Missouri v. Danforth
Beal v. Doe
Maher v. Roe
Poelker v. Doe
Colautti v. Franklin

In just the past few years in addition to Gonzales there have been
Scheidler v. NOW, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood and Schiedler v. NOW II.

So, Amusie, just what was your point?

Actually, it makes far more sense. A vegetarian won’t partake of the BBQ and isn’t affected by your choice to do so. Pacifists, like everyone else in a society, are affected by decisions on whether that society should go to war. The vegetarian has no basis for having an opinion on which spices make the best rub to bring out the flavors of pork. But anyone can have an informed opinion on whether we should go to war or not.

What you’re saying is that anyone who doesn’t already agree with your foregone conclusions should not be consulted in actions that will directly affect them.

So Canada doesn’t have a liberal immigration policy?

How much does someone have to pull your leg before you get a clue. You really think the Idea of Americans crossing the border and pillaging Canada after first getting pysched up at a series of bbqs feasting on the remnents of America’s beef herds is a serious proposition? You are quite gullible.

Quaker,
You haven’t studied up much on the Constitution, thats for sure.

” the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the issue many times.” How many times was that Quaker? Many times Quaker? cites?

Pointing out Quaker pacifism isn’t an example of bigotry. Serious Quakers won’t fight in the military, some will do medical work etc. as CO’s.

Discussing military affairs with a pacifist makes as much sense as discussing bbq recipees with a vegatarian.

Actually, the right to privacy is ingrained in the constitution. Or do you think it is okay to compile lists of people who own guns, what guns they own, when they bought them, when they buy ammo? This way the government could check this list for anomalies and use this as ‘probable cause’ to search anyone they see fit.

A better question is, why am I talking to you like you can understand me. You are clearly stupid. It is as clear that you are stupid as it is clear that you are racist. Then again, those traits go hand-in-hand.

CSS: The American food industry, and it is an industry, is 100% dependent on the government.

Amused 0: It must be difficult for Canadian farmers to compete in a global marketplace with American farmers who are 100% subsidized by the government.

CSS: 1.) I never said 100%…

I can see where a distinction between “the food industry” and “farmers” when talking about the food they raise would be difficult to see.

No, AO, you bring up AA because you are racist. You hate black people and think they are inferior. The racism they face every day is justified in your mind, so anything that fights against it must be wrong.

This is a fact that is clear from your writings here.

Two points…

1.) I never said 100%, but then again, you are not adverse to lying, are you?

2.) The Canadian government also subsidizes our agriculture industry.

“I understand Canada has a liberal immigration policy.”

No, AO, you understand nothing. That is why you are a Republican.

Translation: Since your beliefs differ from mine, yours are to be disregarded.

Translation 2: Those who don’t think the only suitable policy is “Attack! Attack!” should be disregarded.

You keep introducing your religious bigotry as if it had relevance. It does not.

Abortion is not a constitutional issue.

It certainly is. There are volumes of case law on the subject and the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the issue many times. The rights of individuals or married couples to be free of state interference in private decisions is inherently a Constitutional matter.

“Because I say so” is not germane. The Supreme Court accepted the case, heard arguments, and rendered a judgment. That makes it a Constitutional issue.

only one unaquainted with The Federalist Papers and other writings of our founders would think the preamble to the 2nd amendment leaves room to diminish the right of the people to bear arms.

Any arms? In all places? I can tote a rocket launcher into a shopping mall? The state has no compelling interest to keep me from lugging a flamethrower into a kindergarten?

You’d like the Constitution to be absolute. It simply isn’t.

Abortion is not a constitutional issue. The reasoning behind the ruling is made up of whole cloth. Voting rights in general are covered by the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 24th, and the 26th. Beyond the limitations and qualifications in those amendments it is a matter for the states to administer.

Firearms are covered by the 2nd amendment and only one unaquainted with The Federalist Papers and other writings of our founders would think the preamble to the 2nd amendment leaves room to diminish the right of the people to bear arms.

Etc. Etc. Etc. If you want to change the Constition you amend it, not redefine the words with which it was written.

People like you wish to “interpret” the Constitution to achieve ends that you can not achieve by ballot or legislation. That kind of thinking is a cancer upon the body politic. You would trade away our birthright for a short term solution to a momentary problem. You do so not out of malice but ignorance. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quakerism takes a certain kind of courage to stand by your beliefs and convictions in the face of popular opposition. At times in our history the Quakers beliefs acted as a beacon of conscience for our national charactor. But that being said, Quakers have never been willing to pay the price for our freedom and liberty that must be paid from time to time. They have rode for free at the expense of others. Not out of cowardice perhaps but just as useless in times of conflict. A Quakers opinions on matters of national defense or military matters is by the nature of thier beliefs to be for the most part disregarded.

Do you really want civil liberties to be based on the ideology of the court that decided Dred Scott?

Yeah. We kinda figured that out LONG ago.

And yet you return, day after day, to LOL at us. Blogs are free, man. Start your own if this one doesn’t suit you.

We don’t change the meaning of the Constitution by interpretation to fit a changing ideology, not legally anyhow.

And yet it happens. On one day, restrictions on abortion are constitutional and on the next day they’re not. What happens in between? The Supreme Court interprets the meaning of the Constitution because they must–the framers neglected to provide direct guidance on abortion restrictions. Likewise with laws regarding voting rights, firearms, property rights, prayer in schools, and a whole long list of other matters.

The world is not as it was in 1789. We can either interpret the meaning of the Constitution as best we can or scrap it and start over. An insistance on observing the letter of the Constitution only just isn’t an option.

The alternative is the tyranny of the majority. I ask you collectively and not as a rhetorical question Do you understand what that means?

Oliver your posting is most disturbing. You clearly don’t know what the rule of law means. Your basic middle school civics classes have not taught you what makes this country unique in the history of the world. More’s the pity.

“In the real world this is called “the Supreme Court”. The 3rd branch of gov’t interprets the constitution as it sees it.”
You clearly don’t understand the ramifications of your statement. We don’t change the meaning of the Constitution by interpretation to fit a changing ideology, not legally anyhow. We amend it through the process proscribed within the Constitution which is deliberatly designed to be difficult to provide a buffer between the Supreme law of the land and the momentary whims of a temporary majority.

Do you really want the foundation of black civil liberties to depend on the changing idealogy of the Supreme Court? I would think that you would choose to be protected by the rule of law rather than the whims of a temperary majority.

We mostly shout past each other here, I understand that and I am guilty of the guilty pleasure of deliberately tweaking liberal pretensions and hypocrisy.

There is far to little serious discussion here, perhaps because this is Oliver’s sounding board. Intelligent discussion is not the objective or he wouldn’t preface his posting the way that he does. Gotcha propaganda is his dayjob.

Bruce this may be hard for you to understand but your points all support rather than diminish the case for the importance of the 14th amendment and the equal protection of the law that it provides for all Americans. Eroding the 14th amendment on a temporary basis does not safeguard black civil liberties it places them at risk.

You failed to address a single point I made after the quote from the Constitution. Not a single point, instead you bluster about, all sound and fury but you won’t address the issue at all with a reasoned reply.

Oh dear. Is AO off on his “I can overrule the Supreme Court” rant again? AO, the Supremes get to decide what is or isn’t Constitutional. Since you were such an outstanding student in high school civics, you might recall this.