Which is more evil?
Hillary wants to pass a no-burn flag law instead of amending the Constitution. So which is more evil? At least the Republican nutjobs acknowlege that there has to be an amendment to mess with freedom of speech. They are sociopaths for suggesting it, however.
Hillary wins the blind patriot points with out putting real teeth into it. Is manipulation less evil than force?
The Dems need to not run someone this time whose followers "know" (s)he doesn't really believe the nonsense (s)he spouts.
Hill's goal here is to force the Rs to spend stomping up-and-down time on an issue that doesn't really resonate with the public. And also to get them mad at her. If they are mad at her, she will win.
[size=1]I didn't read Sun Tsu but I've spent time with people who did[/size]
Until I read UT's post I was thinking "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"
Now I realize it is more of the same political shenanigans. Ugh. Still, how about stirring up some real shit, instead of these red herrings? (Hilary)
BTW, I met Hilary once and she has back. All kinds of back. She's got back she hasn't used yet.
The only way to win political office in this country is to make sure and divert the public from anything bearing even the most remote similarity to an actual issue. Make shit up, blame it on the other guy, sit back and bake until done.
I think UT's got this one right.
BTW, I met Hilary once and she has back. All kinds of back. She's got back she hasn't used yet.
Huh?
They're both evil. One of the things the flag stands for is my right to burn a flag if I feel like it (assuming it's my own flag)
I think that all flags wrapped around politicians should be burned! ;)
Flags are essential. We must have a flag so that cannon fodder can wrap themselves in it. We need our cannon fodder properly directed. Every nation needs cannon fodder from time to time. Don't burn flags. Otherwise we would never have tools to convince cannon fodder that they are the patriots.
[SIZE=1]This safely posted here because no one in the Cellar would be foolish enough to become cannon fodder. I could be wrong.[/SIZE]
cannon fodder? well, i guess i've signed up to be cannon fodder for the last 13 years(although January 12th will bring the end of my military career). i don't think i'm the most stupid individual on the planet.
i do believe that burning that flag is a constitutionally protected right that i'm willing to give my life for. even if the people who do it are, IMO, ignorant and generally just piss me off.
i believe that the idiots who want an amendment banning flag burning are just that - idiots. most of them don't get why some of us who have been willing to put on a uniform and hold a position are ok with the constitution the way it is.
i believe that the idiots that want to pass a law against flag burning, don't truly believe in the cause, and are only doing it to position themselves for the next election cycle and are double damned.
i don't care what the hell you stand for, just truly stand for it and i'll support your right to do that. if you are just vocalizing certain "beliefs" to get votes... well, i'd like to shoot you for it.
[SIZE=1]yep, i've been absent from the cellar, but little has changed in my thought process.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]yep, i've been absent from the cellar, but little has changed in my thought process.[/SIZE]
It is nice to be able count on some things.
Hill's goal here is to force the Rs to spend stomping up-and-down time on an issue that doesn't really resonate with the public. And also to get them mad at her. If they are mad at her, she will win.
I'm not sure on this one. I think getting your opposition mad at you might be a bad idea. Making your oppo made gives them a reason to come out and vote against you, even if they don't like their particular candidate. You want your opposition to be apathetic and disinterested, and to stay at home on election day.
-sm
The only poeple who will get mad over flag burning are histrionic politicians. Few will go to the polls over it.
The only poeple who will get mad over flag burning are histrionic politicians. Few will go to the polls over it.
Eh, back in the late 60's the "love it or leave it" crowd might have. I don't see it as being one of today's burning issues, though (so to speak ;) )
We've been through why such a law or amendment won't work before. But just taking the burn part, burning is the proscribed way to dispose of a flag.
So in order to prosecute, intent has to be proven....like hate crimes. That's a very slippery slope. :eyebrow:
cannon fodder? well, i guess i've signed up to be cannon fodder for the last 13 years(although January 12th will bring the end of my military career). i don't think i'm the most stupid individual on the planet.
The smart soldier is not cannon fodder. Flags are but one tool so that cannon fodder can be directed into their hell. As Patton said, the other soldier should die for his country. Unfortunately, every nation at some time needs some cannon fodder. Flags are but one tool to recruit and direct those types into a frontal assault.
The smart soldier also knows the difference between a flag and a country.
I think that all flags wrapped around politicians should be burned! ;)
I like that idea!
Dangerous subject either way. Burning the flag is inherently obscene to me, but I still think people should have the right to do so if it makes 'em happy. Tough call.
This site explains why an amendment or law against flag burning will not work. Can't be enforced. Is a huge warm and fuzzy joke. :headshake
dar512! And you; a musician. I'm shocked.
Rap is not music.
Entertainment? Yes.
Art form? Possibly.
Music? No.
But thanks for the link. Now I know.
Rap is not music.
Entertainment? Yes.
Art form? Possibly.
Music? No.
But thanks for the link. Now I know.
Yeah, well true. But the joke would have been too cumbersome if I tried to acknowledge that fact.
In fact, I question its entertainment potential.
Other than a quick-fix for some rebellious attention whore, what could possibly be gratifying about burning a flag, anyway?
I say let the people who feel compelled to burn flags go ahead, spend their life savings on flags and burn as many as they can afford.
Just leave mine alone.
After the flag is burned, there is no way to tell what it represented anyway. It is not the flag that makes a country strong, but the people who fly them.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong about burning a flag.
Interesting that many of those who oppose burning the flag have no problem suspending the provisions of the Constitution because they are too lazy/stupid/wrong to go through the Constitutional provisions to fight the "war on terror."
In other words, If *I* violate the Constitution its "for your your own good" so its ok but if you torch a symbol of the Constitution without actually violating any of its provisions then its off to pound-you-in-the-ass prison for you.
Imagine the consternation of the right wing when the "activist judges" on the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional. :lol:
Imagine the consternation of the right wing when the "activist judges" on the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional. :lol:
Imagine your consternation as your toilet seat slaps you on the back of your neck as you're getting a drink. :comfort:
Imagine the consternation of the right wing when the "activist judges" on the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional. :lol:
And it could very well happen, laying all jokes aside. Nothing surprises me anymore. :mg:
They would then make it a campaign donation rallying point. ;)
They would then make it a campaign donation rallying point. ;)
The conservative right will rally to support a law introduced by Hillary Clinton? Now THAT's priceless.
Ironic or not they'll pass up no oportunity for fund raising or vote gleaning. :3some:
Tw never fails; he always manages to say something I curl my lip at. The poor boob actually believes he's "too intelligent" to serve in uniform. Having some experience in this field, I've got news for him he doesn't want to hear: it's better, saner men than tw that put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line for their society.
Hillary is following her political instincts here. Too bad she's a mix of socialist and sociopath, and her instincts run towards the oppression of anyone not her, and the convenience of herself. We watched her in action during the Clinton Administration, the most anticonstitutional in recent memory simply because the Clintons cared for nothing beyond the convenience of the Clintons (typical of people who get their political education in an effectively one-party state like Arkansas) and we don't trust her any farther than we could throw her across the Hudson.
during the Clinton Administration, the most anticonstitutional in recent memory
Whoo boy. I don't even know how to respond to that one other than to say I'm happy that you have come out of your 5-year coma and will be happy to debate you once you read a few newspapers and catch up on current events.
As for being in uniform. The one advantage of a volunteer army is that you can get to pick your Commander-in-Chief. If what TW says is that at least he will not be forced to fight and possibly die in a pointless foreign conflict like Vietnam which had very little to do with a real threat to the US, than that is a reasonable statment.
A smart commander is one who picks his battles. A bad commander is one who gets himself pulled into bad ones.
Whoo boy. I don't even know how to respond to that one other than to say I'm happy that you have come out of your 5-year coma and will be happy to debate you once you read a few newspapers and catch up on current events.
Alas, Bush isn't a memory yet.
Imagine your consternation as your toilet seat slaps you on the back of your neck as you're getting a drink.
Thank goodness you don't post much. Your content-free reply to a clever post was very revealing.
Rich, your posturing may impress you, but it cuts no ice with me. I'm wiser than you; I've read your posts, young man. I'll routinely pound you into the ground.
The quickest check for how Constitution-friendly an Administration is is its attitude towards the Second Amendment. (Other libertarians, perhaps after a moment's thought, will tell you the same thing.) A Republic is only a genuine republic when the electorate is powerful. One sort of power translates readily into another sort, and an electorate with the power of life and death widely distributed through it is about as powerful as an electorate is likely to get.
The quickest check for how Constitution-friendly an Administration is is its attitude towards the Second Amendment.
Sooo, as long as everyone can buy a hunting rifle, they are safe from an oppressive government? That is the most simplistic and naive argument I have ever heard.
From what I understand, the Branch Davidians had a very impressive personal armory. It didn't do them very much good.
I hope that when you took your oath, you took it to the entire Constitution and not just the second amendment, which allows for
militias, and makes no claims towards the carry rights of civilians.
In a government that only respected the second amendment, the only solace would be the last bullet you saved for yourself.
I will agree that when you get drunk watching Bill O'Reilly, you probably are the wisest living thing in the room. Assuming of course, that you let the cat out.
Do we have to do this again ...
How can basically all the other rights in the bill of rights be individual rights and only the second amendment be considered a collective right?
(and the Branch Davidian thing basically got started because of their exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I happen to think they were a bunch of nutjobs, but I wouldn't have seen autopsy photos of the crispy remains of David Koresh if the ATF hadn't decided to knock on the door that day. Ditto for Randy Weaver. Remind me ... who was in charge of the govt at that point?)
Do we have to do this again ...
How can basically all the other rights in the bill of rights be individual rights and only the second amendment be considered a collective right?
(and the Branch Davidian thing basically got started because of their exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I happen to think they were a bunch of nutjobs, but I wouldn't have seen autopsy photos of the crispy remains of David Koresh if the ATF hadn't decided to knock on the door that day. Ditto for Randy Weaver. Remind me ... who was in charge of the govt at that point?)
I'm not going to defend the ATF handling of the case because it was atrocious, but the incident didn't occur because the ATF showed up. It occured because the ATF showed up and were shot at.
That being said, I just get annoyed at the focus on the second amendment to the exclusion of the other nine in the Bill of Rights. The idea that if everyone can keep a gun everything will be all right is a silly idea. In fact, if everyone were paying attention, they would note that the insurgents in Iraq are using explosives, not guns. The kinds of guns people can legally own are of limited use against a military force with automatic weapons, body armor, and armored vehicles.
The only intelligent thing UG has said recently is about a 'powerful electorate'. IMO, this is an informed electorate which jealously guards it's rights and pays attention. It is one that refuses to give in to fear and to abdicate it's rights for the illusion of safety.
Now, I may want to pound UG, as he colorfully puts it. But I will happily pound anyone who tries to interfere with his right to express his views, no matter how wrong headed they are. IMO, he is overbearing and obnoxious, but noone can say that he is apathetic and disengaged, like so many people appear to be these days. My view comes thanks to the first amendment, which protects and encourages discussion, debate, disagreement, and argument in as loud and raucous a manner as possible.
The real danger isn't when they come for the guns, but rather when people begin to check themselves before speaking - when the chill of a real or perceived oversight slips into private or public conversation. When that happens, we will have stepped onto the same road as people in the Soviet Union, the Weimar Republic, or any of a number of states that have raised oppresive regimes out of fear or ignorance.
I'll routinely pound you into the ground.
Why are logical responses from richlevy justification for Urbane Guerilla to again exercise testosterone? Some people think with their brains. Others use their balls. It does explain Urbane Guerilla's selective filtering of reality. Is there such a thing as a testosterone haze?
Tw never fails; he always manages to say something I curl my lip at.
Of course you do. That's the difference between one who uses his brain and one who thinks with his balls. Is this an insult? No. It is how some males - those that also make excellent cannon fodder - do think. Unfortunately Urbane Guerilla traditionally will take insult seeing this post as an attack by his enemies. A classic 'black and white' perspective.
Curious. Urbane Guerilla also advocates a violent response to richlevy. Is that someone using a brain ... or using ...
Curious. Urbane Guerilla also advocates a violent response to richlevy. Is that someone using a brain ... or using ...
TW, I'm going to be charitable here and assume that UG meant that he was going to 'pound me into the ground in a debate' and that he wasn't trying to reenact the last scene from West Side Story.
"Fists. Chains. Knives. Zip Guns."
Of course, I may be wrong. See me shaking?
TW, I'm going to be charitable here and assume that UG meant that he was going to 'pound me into the ground in a debate'
He sounds like Nikita Krushchev standing before the UN pounding his shoe on the podium and proclaiming, "We will bury you!" Where is the attitude any different?
Rich, your posturing may impress you, but it cuts no ice with me. I'm wiser than you; I've read your posts, young man. I'll routinely pound you into the ground.
Just post your damn post. We'll all decide for ourselves who won. I seldom side with Rich but at least he let's his posts do the talking.
How can basically all the other rights in the bill of rights be individual rights and only the second amendment be considered a collective right?
Personally, I think the second ammendment is a personal right, which should be well regulated.
The real danger isn't when they come for the guns, but rather when people begin to check themselves before speaking - when the chill of a real or perceived oversight slips into private or public conversation. When that happens, we will have stepped onto the same road as people in the Soviet Union, the Weimar Republic, or any of a number of states that have raised oppresive regimes out of fear or ignorance.
We have long since passed that point.
Merry Christmas.
Dismissing the importance of the 2nd amendment because you don't own a gun is like dismissing the 1st amendment because you don't own a television station. Don't ever think that you can attack the constitution on one front, and have it held sacred on the others. It's either [capital]The Constitution[/capital], or a flimsy set of guidelines written in pencil. No middle ground. We're not talking about some "no donkey riding on Sunday" law in some backwater -- these are the basics upon which all of this country's laws are based.
And the 2nd amendment guarantees the safety of the rest, in the final analysis.
How quickly we forget. Rights are NOT granted by the government ... we get them automatically (versions vary whether that's at birth or before), and the bill of rights keeps the government from messing with them.
Dismissing the importance of the 2nd amendment because you don't own a gun is like dismissing the 1st amendment because you don't own a television station. Don't ever think that you can attack the constitution on one front, and have it held sacred on the others. It's either [capital]The Constitution[/capital], or a flimsy set of guidelines written in pencil. No middle ground. We're not talking about some "no donkey riding on Sunday" law in some backwater -- these are the basics upon which all of this country's laws are based.
And the 2nd amendment guarantees the safety of the rest, in the final analysis.
I'm not dismissing the importance of the second amendment because I don't own a gun. I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is at best a tool to guarantee the other amendments. If you had to choose between owning a gun and freedom of assembly, speech, religion, the press and petitioning of grievances, which would you choose?
The guns that actively protect the Constitution are in the hands of the soldiers who have taken an oath to do so. Civilians who are not naturalized citizens have not taken that oath. The guns might be nice to have. They may even provide protection in the event of a breakdown of society, but they would not provide protection againsts tanks and automatic weapons.
I'm not dismissing the importance of the second amendment because I don't own a gun. I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is at best a tool to guarantee the other amendments. If you had to choose between owning a gun and freedom of assembly, speech, religion, the press and petitioning of grievances, which would you choose?
The guns that actively protect the Constitution are in the hands of the soldiers who have taken an oath to do so. Civilians who are not naturalized citizens have not taken that oath. The guns might be nice to have. They may even provide protection in the event of a breakdown of society, but they would not provide protection againsts tanks and automatic weapons.
I certainly wouldn't want to have to make that choice.
Actually, the guns that protect the constitution are in the hands of the citizens. The gov't has a certain impetus to avoid living by the constitution in some ways, after all it is a significant check on its powers. It was the possession of those firearms by the civilians and used by them against the monarchy that made the constitution possible. And as to the tanks and automatic weapons those aren't necessarily as much of an advantage as you might think. At least not in a stand up fight. Just ask the Mujahideen. Throw in the factor of a much more likely unified and supplied resistance. There are a lot more guns available to citizens than the military can bring to bear. Especially if that military is going to spend all of its time elsewhere...
That's why the military is spending umpteen billions on robots and autonomous fighting machines........quickly destroy ANY group of people, even Americans. :(
And let's not forget about monkeywrenchers and the 5th column too.
Just ask the Mujahideen.
Who fought in inaccesible regions. The US highway system was designed for the rapid deployment of forces.
Also notice that most of the damage done by insurgents is from bombs, not guns. Any group of insurgents who attempted to fight using guns would be wiped out by artillery, helicopters, or unmanned drones.
The whole point of an insurgency is not to get in a stand up fight. The guns that do the most damage are used by snipers. The only defense insurgents have is to blend in to the population. That's hard to do carrying a rifle. Handguns might be useful. Shotguns would be suicide.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a heroic struggle, just a doomed one unless there was a split in the military or the intervention of an outside nation.
Also consider that an oppressive government would be backed by a significant portion of the population, either Red or Blue depending on which fringe took power, who would be equally armed.
UG was right in that the only way to prevent the rise of an authoritarian government is to watch for it and stop it before it forms. That means paying attention to what is happening in Washington. Right now because of 9/11 and a one party government, we are putting a lot of unchecked power back into the executive branch. Fear makes us do things like that.
Oh I didn't say it wouldn't be ugly. :)
I think that unless it happens quite a way down the road after significant changes in the US population it might not turn out like anyone expects, even me. Can anyone out there do a comparison of our current civilian vs gov't arms levels against any other times in history? I know guns and swords aren't the same thing but it's a same vs same comparison as long as you don't consider nukes.
In the ridiculously unlikely event that we have some kind of military-vs-populace clash in my lifetime, my privately owned guns won't keep me from getting killed by a tank. They will, however, make a terrific racket -- each clang representing a firmly upraised middle finger.
In the meantime, they're good for fun times with the family and to put meat in the freezer, and they represent my freedom. If I break the law with them, I lose that freedom. Until then, hands off.
If the shit goes down, forget the cap in your ass. We've learned its IEDs all around.
If I break the law with them, I lose that freedom. Until then, hands off.
Correction, if you break the law, or someone claims you did, you lose them until you satisfy the local law enforcers. :(
Sad but true, xoxoxoBruce. And that gradual erosion of a basic right is what concerns me. No one is going to say "Okay, all guns are outlawed as of right now" It's a continuous process that might look something like this:
The right to own a weapon for self defense is inherent, and not to be infringed upon by the government.
Well, not just any weapon, but guns are at least protected by the Bill of Rights.
Okay, guns are still legal, but they can't fire too quickly.
Oh, and they can't be easily hidden on your person.
Hm. They can't hold too many rounds either. Or have a handle that protrudes below the stock. Or have a detachable stock.
Okay they can have 2 of the 3. But if they have more, they're "assault weapons". Can't own assault weapons, you know.
That barrel's too short -- can't have that kind of grip with that kind of barrel. Only crooks use those.
Got any guns left? Fine. You can have them in your home, but only if you register them with us. Oh, and don't have them in your car. Need to take them to the shooting range? You have to drive around city X -- if you drive through it, you're committing a felony.
Your ex-girlfriend said you hit her. Is that true? No? Well, until you can prove otherwise, we get your guns.
Good job, you cleared your name. But I think the law now should be that if you ever go to jail for domestic problems (not convicted, just go to jail), you can never own a firearm.
Oh by the way, neither can anyone who lives in your house.
What kind of politics/religion/club is that? That sounds dangerous. No guns for you. Maybe we'll even send in a tank to enforce it. Woah, you put that lantern too close to our tank. Sorry about your "compound".
Let's see, where do we stand...you can own a gun, but you have to tell the government what kind and how many. If it's cosmetically similar to something I associate with war or maybe saw in a movie, it's verboten. Likewise, it can only be of X dimensions, hold Y amount of ammunition, and when you pull the trigger, only Z number of rounds per minute can come out the barrel. Which has to be between 14 and 24 inches. Unless it's a pistol. Then it has to be 3-12 inches. Cuz, you know, the safety of the populace and all that.
Got it? Good.
Oh wait, some douchenozzle left one loaded where his baby could reach it. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11! The rest of you........you're leaving YOUR guns loaded around kids too, aren't you? Oh me. I knew we shouldn't have let "the gun problem" get out of control. You know what? This is a civilized society, what's the point of these barbaric objects, anyway? They practically jump off the table to maim and kill the innocent. We can't let the whining of one special interest lobby keep us from saving our people from such evil things.
------------------------------------------------------
Ding, guns get taken away. One more right flushed down the tubes. By the time I got done rambling, I realized that someone COULD, in fact, say "Okay, all guns are outlawed from now on."
Oh well, at least that would stop the criminals from getting their hands on them. :right:
[/ramble]
If the shit goes down, forget the cap in your ass. We've learned its IEDs all around.
Step one: find an unguarded stockpile of explosive munitions and raid it.
Step two: wait a minute, not done with step one yet. :neutral:
Sad but true, xoxoxoBruce. And that gradual erosion of a basic right is what concerns me. No one is going to say "Okay, all guns are outlawed as of right now" It's a continuous process that might look something like this:
Look on the bright side mrnoodle. At least noone can shoot you in the head for coming to close to a military convoy or bomb your house because suspicious looking people may have run into it.
As for the slippery slope argument, I wish the people who are willing to apply it to even full automatic weapons would apply the same logic to flag burning and other free speech issues.
No disgruntled worker ever walked into his office and talked his coworkers to death.
As for the slippery slope argument, I wish the people who are willing to apply it to even full automatic weapons would apply the same logic to flag burning and other free speech issues.
Meet L. Neil Smith not a great sci-fi writer but he does take a no nonsense approach to the Bill of Rights.
http://www.lneilsmith.org/bor_enforcement.htmlMeet L. Neil Smith not a great sci-fi writer but he does take a no nonsense approach to the Bill of Rights.
http://www.lneilsmith.org/bor_enforcement.html
Not true. I love his 'adventures in Libertarian-land' sci-fi stories.
Look on the bright side mrnoodle. At least noone can shoot you in the head for coming to close to a military convoy or bomb your house because suspicious looking people may have run into it.
As for the slippery slope argument, I wish the people who are willing to apply it to even full automatic weapons would apply the same logic to flag burning and other free speech issues.
No disgruntled worker ever walked into his office and talked his coworkers to death.
Couple things.
First, I'm not sure that people are getting shot simply for coming too close to a military convoy. Of course, if you're talking about a checkpoint that has been bombed 3 times already and has a sign in 5 languages saying "If you try to drive through here without stopping, you're going to be shot", and I try to drive through it without stopping....well. And if a terrorist hides in my house, it will be because I'm already dead. Otherwise, the good guys can come pick up his bullet-riddled body at their convenience.
Secondly, I take issue with the slippery slope argument as it applies to free speech. At least, I think we're talking about vastly different grades of slope. It's a looooooong slow ride from "you can't display your feces in a jar here" to "you can't say anything derogatory about the government". It's almost a vertical drop from "that gun looks military, so it's banned" to "that's a gun, it's banned."
If they really gave a shit about anything but a complete ban on guns they'd enforce the hundreds of laws that are on the books.
They tout the background checks preventing ineligible people from buying guns but never prosecute those people for trying, as the law demands. :mad:
No disgruntled worker ever walked into his office and talked his coworkers to death.
Though he may make them wish they were either asleep or beyond sleep. Certain weighty office supplies, briskly applied to such bores, may in extremis shut them off.
Joking aside, the thing that makes these guys dangerous isn't that they come in shooting, but that their targets were impeded from having arms of their own with which to resist being murdered. It's kind of hard to make a successful moral case for telling someone that he must suffer murder -- just because you've got a little problem with gun owning and generally bearing arms about as one sees fit.
Rich, I give you praise, though: in this thread, you are mostly not talking BS. Keep up the good work.
Thoughtful Second Amendment advocates become First Amendment activists almost as a law of nature.
The truth is that the kind of "workplace violence" that rich is referencing is extremely rare, but catches a lot of media attention.
Thoughtful Second Amendment advocates become First Amendment activists almost as a law of nature.
Maybe you can tell that to the people who think that freedom demands that no flags be burned or 'disrespected'.
If we could attach a rider to the second amendment that guaranteed the right to burn a flag in anger, that would probably shut up the most vocal advocates of the idea that protecting the symbol of freedom at the expense of the freedom it represents is a good idea.
Hilary is nuts.
I don't have no time for her and her anti-americanisms.
I'm starting to feel better about Wendy.
Hilary is nuts.
I don't have no time for her and her anti-americanisms.
I'm starting to feel better about Wendy.
Why? Everybody, knows Hilary is nuts. :D
Hillary wants to pass a no-burn flag law instead of amending the Constitution. So which is more evil? At least the Republican nutjobs acknowlege that there has to be an amendment to mess with freedom of speech. They are sociopaths for suggesting it, however.
All jingoist rednecks should be castrated before they breed more rednecks. Then again, I guess we need to keep a few around to change our oil and greet us when we go into Wal-Mart :D
the end result could be noone left to read your posts.
The flag flap is
up for a vote soon.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was the lone committee Democrat to vote for the measure, saying its language was designed to both protect the flag and First Amendment free speech protections.
It's funny because that's mutually exclusive.
Anyone who thinks limiting freedome of speech is a good idea should think about what gives them the right to say such a thing... then shut-up.
To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason~
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder
TJ on Disarming Public
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-- Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
The flag flap is up for a vote soon.
It's funny because that's mutually exclusive.
;)
He took the *crutch* of some crippled vet to poke fire on the flag?!
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was the lone committee Democrat to vote for the measure, saying its language was designed to both protect the flag and First Amendment free speech protections.
You know, I don't think I could bring myself to agree with Senator "which end of a rifle is up" Feinstein on anything, even though I have very strong feelings about flag desecration being a
bad thing.
The flag does not make the country. It doesn't determine laws, rights, or freedoms, it simply represents whatever we want it to, good or bad. And yes, we're really good at both. It's just a symbol, open to just as much praise and abuse as any other.
If they do manage to pass an amendment against descration of the flag, can I still eat my hotdog on one of these paper plates on the 4th of July, drip ketchup all over the graphic, and then toss it into the grill to burn when I'm done as I wipe my mouth on a napkin of the same appearance?
This is
why any flag burning amendment won't work. Burning a paper plate is not the same as burning a flag. A flag is a symbol, and if you burn a symbol of that symbol, you can get virtually the same effect, without breaking the letter of the law. And there are much better symbols of the flag than paper plates. See the link for examples that would be legal to burn, but are virtually identical to flags.
Any amendment would be a waste of ink. But at least it keeps the Republicans busy with something that doesn't matter.
Nice find, Glatt. I love this:
Real Americans don't take away the freedoms of other Americans.
And yes, per the comment on it in the blog, it
does need to be made into a bumper sticker.
You know, I don't think I could bring myself to agree with Senator "which end of a rifle is up" Feinstein on anything, even though I have very strong feelings about flag desecration being a bad thing.
That's because, in our youth, we could read the paper or just look around and see the bad, but the flag always represented the good things about the country.
Intentional desecration is annoying but it's someone making a statement, what bothers me more is the unintentional (careless) desecration I see countless examples of every day. You know, fashions, decals, Kit's paper plates, advertising and
flags with "Made in xxxxx" tags. :(
btw, I said it was a stupid amendment
a year ago and still think so.
I don't like to see a flag desecrated, and when I see something that bothers me it makes me more happy than sad... means that the 1st is still alive.
Just like TJ said, freedom of speech is the freedom to hear shit you don't want to hear & unpopular speech (loosely quoted). Every time I hear Rummy or Dubya open their mouths I can't believe that every flag in the nation does not flip upside-down then burst into flames spontaneously.
As for the first thing we do during the revolution, those of us raised ready, we don't raid stockpiles... we have them. We teach our neighbors to make and care-for C4 in their kitchen after arming them and teach them tactics.
If they really gave a shit about anything but a complete ban on guns they'd enforce the hundreds of laws that are on the books.
They tout the background checks preventing ineligible people from buying guns but never prosecute those people for trying, as the law demands. :mad:
We are of one mind, Bruce. Good going!
Have I ever asked if you've read
JPFO's website, particularly on how you need gun control in order to have a genocide without getting all your
Einsatzkommandos shot by their intended victims?
That's because, in our youth, we could read the paper or just look around and see the bad, but the flag always represented the good things about the country.
Intentional desecration is annoying but it's someone making a statement, what bothers me more is the unintentional (careless) desecration I see countless examples of every day. You know, fashions, decals, Kit's paper plates, advertising and
flags with "Made in xxxxx" tags. :(
btw, I said it was a stupid amendment a year ago and still think so.
Those things don't bother me, I have a flag bandanna... they are not flags.
UG, I've seen it.
rkzenrage, depends on whether it's a flag replica or bunting (red/white/blue/stars but not the pattern?) material.
I suppose it depends on what the flag represent to the individual. I'm well aware of our (USA) place in the current scheme of things, but my view of the flag is solid 1950. I know that's not hip or even rational but it's a piece of who I am. :us:
I have a very solid view of what this nation and the flag means to me.
However, what a flag is and what a Flag is are two very different things, being a Scout and volunteering for every burning ceremony I could so I could honor those old soldiers meant something to me... something that just looks like a flag does not.
Not arguing with you, I see your point of view, I just don't share it.
My favorite overreaction-to-free-speech is the dude who got taken by airport security and missed his flight cause he was listening to the Clash in the taxi on the way there. I'll try to find the story...
..war toys...
I painfully refrain from comment.
Just me talkin: I won't wear the colors I risked my life to protect. Until they cover me completely and I can no longer be of service to my country. Pardon me while I shut the fuck up.
Had it passed, it wouldn't have changed things a lot. There will always be disrepectful commies lurking in the shadows of the free world.
I do wish it had passed, tho....
I do wish it had passed, tho....
Why?
Just a personal view. No offense. :2cents:
I'm not offended. I just don't get it. It's like passing a Constitutional Amendment to stop Anne Coulter from publishing books.
At least the government would have made a 'stand up for the colors' statement had they passed it. As stated above, I don't think it would have made a major difference but I appreciate a stand up and shout it out effort in regards to these patriotic issues.
It's not a patriotic issue. Patriotism can be indicated by what choice you make when given one, not by removing the choice.
At least the government would have made a 'stand up for the colors' statement had they passed it. As stated above, I don't think it would have made a major difference but I appreciate a stand up and shout it out effort in regards to these patriotic issues.
I don't mean to touch on a sensitive issue, but don't you feel at least a bit odd that while appreciating the "stand up and shout out" for "these patriotic issues" that one is, at the same time, supporting the violation of the first amendment?
supporting the violation of the first amendment?
And not just that, removing First Amendment protection for something that it was most fundamentally written to protect - political dissent.
Point taken. I tend to be a little zealous about these issues. A weakness on my part maybe.
Hell, I guess the way to look at it is, if people are turned on by 'banner' desecration.... so fuckin what? They're not hurting me.
It's not a patriotic issue. Patriotism can be indicated by what choice you make when given one, not by removing the choice.
You are so right, HM. I just seem to have a soft spot in me about the Flag. Great discussion.