Comments on: Conservative Failure In Progress

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:56:32 +0000

I not only think they should fire his sorry ass, if he had said that about my daughter, I would kick his sorry ass all over his stage. If you think I am a conservative wack job supporter your as stupid as your comments. This is about horrible sexual comments about a 14 year old and complete disrespect to a woman. But of course numnuts like you want and look at it as poltical.
GFY

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:06:50 +0000

You just can’t accept the fact that there isn’t an asterisk in the 14th Amendment. The line of reasoning that supports negating equal protection to provide equal protection is similar to “We have to burn this village to save it”.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:29:01 +0000

Good stuff, Hick. AO, please take note.

By: I'm a Hick

I'm a Hick — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:51:02 +0000

“Congress has acted under this authority many times and I’m asking you: when has the Supreme Court found that Congress has exceeded its authority under the 14th?”

Quaker,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases

Famous for Harlan’s dissent.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:57:08 +0000

Duros your remarks say much about your personal decency and honor.

BTW, rather late, but you know nothing of my decency and honor. Perhaps you should not cast aspersions.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:26:06 +0000

The policy of Affirmative Action is in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment.

And while challenged many times in court, never found to be unconstitutional. I repeat my expression of astonishment at your uniquely superior understanding of constitutional law.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:22:18 +0000

The policy of Affirmative Action is in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment. It denies not mandates equal protection under the law.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:54:29 +0000

An illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court does not make it right. The language is clear, the meaning even more so.

Can I possibly be understanding you correctly?

The states amend the Constitution to guarantee equality for all citizens; the Congress makes laws to enforce that equality; the Supreme Court, time after time, finds that Congress has acted within its authority.

Yet they are all in error? And only you, AO, have received the revealed truth from the Founders?

Remarkable.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:07:31 +0000

An illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court does not make it right. The language is clear, the meaning even more so. Eroding the Constitution by judicial fiat brings us ever farther away from a nation ruled by law.

Affirmative Action was not legistlated into the form it is today. It was formed by policy which the Supreme court wrongfully failed to nullify when the case was brought before it.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:48:57 +0000

you seem to be leading up to the point that to enforce the Amendment you have to negate the Amendment.

I’m not.

The two are mutually exclusive. When Congress acts, its legislation is either within the authority provided by the amendment to enforce equal protection; or it is not. There’s no middle ground.

Congress has acted under this authority many times and I’m asking you: when has the Supreme Court found that Congress has exceeded its authority under the 14th?

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:06:40 +0000

The protest have come and gone, and it appears there were more media there than actual protesters.

I guess Dennis the Bigot was wrong.

How shocking.

By: Letterman Protest Fail « Oliver Willis

Letterman Protest Fail « Oliver Willis — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:06:31 +0000

[...] What I said two days ago: 1. The rally will be poorly attended. [...]

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:21:28 +0000

Quaker,
Fill me in, you seem to be leading up to the point that to enforce the Amendment you have to negate the Amendment.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:13:00 +0000

That lanquage was intended to give Congress the power to force the states to abide by the Amendment not negate it.

Correct. Now perhaps you could point out a few instances when the Supreme Court found Congress misinterpreted that authority.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:23:42 +0000

Yet his ratings were up. So maybe he’s apologizing because people are thinking he was talking about Willow Palin when he clearly meant Bristol and he’s sorry if he inadvertently caused any grief. The Apologist Southern Strategy

“Honest Officer, I truly thought she was 18!”

“I would never do this with a 14 year old. Trust me. I’ll never do it again, I swear.!”

Mr. Politically Astute says he checked to make sure ‘Bristol’ was 18, but didn’t bother to look at any pictures or read any text of just which daughter that he was going to joke about getting knocked up by A-Rod to make sure he got that right. And it’s just a case of political opportunism for Sarah and Todd to be angered by his this claimed honest mistake from a man who loves to interject himself into the political arena at every opportunity.

You’re an expert on how parents should react to cruel jokes about their daughter’s sluttiness just how, Strowbridge?

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:28:53 +0000

AO: “I mostly feel that resorting to namecalling is a sign of weakness in a debate.”

I feel that when a person can’t come up with a compelling argument it is a sign of weakness.

And you clearly can’t come up with a compelling argument.

You’ve decided that you have to redefine discrimination to include stopping people from discriminating against oppressed people. Because in your warped, racist mind, institutional racism is just awesome, but combating it is the real bigotry.

“You’re a lot smarter than he is but you’re still birds of a feather who advocate discrimination.”

This from a man who said it was acceptable to worry about the crime rate going up if minorities moved into your neighbourhood.

You are as racist as they come.

No wonder you hate Affirmative Action. You want to be allowed to keep minorities down.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:40:54 +0000

Good night Quaker, play with Strowbridge if you so desire. You’re a lot smarter than he is but you’re still birds of a feather who advocate discrimination.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:37:17 +0000

That is an illegitimate interpretation of
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That lanquage was intended to give Congress the power to force the states to abide by the Amendment not negate it.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:25:51 +0000

The 14th Amendment does not include a timeout or pay back clause.

You’re right. However, the 14th includes a section that allows Congress to make whatever laws necessary for enforcing the amendment. All the “discrimination” you’re complaining about is prescribed by those very laws.

By: Amused Observer

Amused Observer — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:22:02 +0000

CS,
I mostly feel that resorting to namecalling is a sign of weakness in a debate. But you are truly a jackass. What fit of intellectual dishonesty led you to fracture my post with your partial quotes and leave out this key portion which you cunningly substituted elipses for?

…why do we even bother with worrying about discrimination against blacks.

“It’s not discrimination against whites to level the playing field.” Not unless you use discrimination to do it, dumb ass.