| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Kerry the Boob" |
| Date: |
26 May 2004 08:06:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Which is why the liberal Democrats are so widely perceived as being totally
full of *****.
.
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 08:25:55 AM |
|
|
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
And pro-gun!
Holly cow, Sybil, you have EVERY attribute of the right wing wacko:
let's see: racist, homophonic, religious fanatic, prude, against the right
to abortion, narrow-minded, fascist AND pro gun! Let me guess, you're
probably also for the death penalty...
I told you before, you're not a person, you're a catalog of everything of
what is wrong with the USA.
Which is why the liberal Democrats are so widely perceived as being
totally
full of *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 10:26:12 AM |
|
|
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
5 ID's - all the same person, all posting within the same day, some within
minutes of each other, some responding to the
others.
"Kerry the Boob"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Ihatekerie Sosume"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"UnfitKerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Jeanne Frawd Kerree"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"John Fraude Kerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
Twisted right-wing psychopath.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge,
judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been
necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the
deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Slade" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 08:13:14 AM |
|
|
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Which is why the liberal Democrats are so widely perceived as being
totally
full of *****.
Prove it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kerry the Boob" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 08:26:51 AM |
|
|
"John Slade" <hitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:KJ0tc.57178$Wf7.5445@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such.
But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the
government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're
saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Since Barb didn't make the claim, Barb is perhaps unlikely to respond to
your challenge, John.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 10:26:35 AM |
|
|
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:vW0tc.259$Yd3.11@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
5 ID's - all the same person, all posting within the same day, some within
minutes of each other, some responding to the
others.
"Kerry the Boob"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Ihatekerie Sosume"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"UnfitKerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"Jeanne Frawd Kerree"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
"John Fraude Kerry"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.121.233
X-Complaints-To:
Twisted right-wing psychopath.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge,
judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been
necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the
deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriott
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theorem" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 09:17:04 AM |
|
|
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Perhaps he should have stated this more accurately as "liberal
Democrats tend to favor the idea of removing guns from society". Some
of us (liberal Democrats, that is) do not, but most seem to. I suppose
it's an ideal of some kind, to have a weapon-free society, but I think
human civilization has some way to go (probably not in our lifetimes)
before such an ideal could become a possible reality.
As long as criminals have access to guns, ordinary citizens must also.
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is. Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded. Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 09:24:46 AM |
|
|
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b99mvmpd9fm43@news.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell
you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're
saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Perhaps he should have stated this more accurately as "liberal
Democrats tend to favor the idea of removing guns from society". Some
of us (liberal Democrats, that is) do not, but most seem to. I suppose
it's an ideal of some kind, to have a weapon-free society, but I think
human civilization has some way to go (probably not in our lifetimes)
before such an ideal could become a possible reality.
As long as criminals have access to guns, ordinary citizens must also.
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is.
That just proves that you have not read the amendment and have no idea what
it is about.
Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded.
No it doesn't. In fact it reinforces them.
Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
Maybe you should read and understand the amendment and then get back to us.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theorem" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 09:57:31 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b99mvmpd9fm43@news.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell
you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're
saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Perhaps he should have stated this more accurately as "liberal
Democrats tend to favor the idea of removing guns from society". Some
of us (liberal Democrats, that is) do not, but most seem to. I suppose
it's an ideal of some kind, to have a weapon-free society, but I think
human civilization has some way to go (probably not in our lifetimes)
before such an ideal could become a possible reality.
As long as criminals have access to guns, ordinary citizens must also.
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is.
That just proves that you have not read the amendment and have no idea what
it is about.
Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded.
No it doesn't. In fact it reinforces them.
Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
Maybe you should read and understand the amendment and then get back to us.
Maybe you should post it here so we can all read it. Why didn't you
post it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 10:27:23 AM |
|
|
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b9c2qefpoes33@news.supernews.com...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b99mvmpd9fm43@news.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such.
But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the
government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell
you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're
saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Perhaps he should have stated this more accurately as "liberal
Democrats tend to favor the idea of removing guns from society". Some
of us (liberal Democrats, that is) do not, but most seem to. I suppose
it's an ideal of some kind, to have a weapon-free society, but I think
human civilization has some way to go (probably not in our lifetimes)
before such an ideal could become a possible reality.
As long as criminals have access to guns, ordinary citizens must also.
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is.
That just proves that you have not read the amendment and have no idea
what
it is about.
Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded.
No it doesn't. In fact it reinforces them.
Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
Maybe you should read and understand the amendment and then get back to
us.
Maybe you should post it here so we can all read it. Why didn't you
post it?
Be happy to. It's just one sentence long. And it gives each individual state
the right to vote on whether or not they wish to protect the flag. The same
as if they wish to allow same sex marriage, and many other states rights
matters.
`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the
flag of the United States.'.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:41:54 PM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory writes:
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is.
That just proves that you have not read the amendment and have no idea what
it is about.
Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded.
No it doesn't. In fact it reinforces them.
Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
Maybe you should read and understand the amendment and then get back to us.
Maybe you should post it here so we can all read it. Why didn't you
post it?
Brooks> Be happy to. It's just one sentence long. And it gives each individual state
Brooks> the right to vote on whether or not they wish to protect the flag. The same
Brooks> as if they wish to allow same sex marriage, and many other states rights
Brooks> matters.
Brooks> `The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the
Brooks> flag of the United States.'.
I do not favor carving out exceptions to the 1st amendment.
This is exactly what this does. It is stupid.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:44:10 PM |
|
|
<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote in message
news:kpg1xl6vs31.fsf@panix3.panix.com...
Brooks> `The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the
Brooks> flag of the United States.'.
I do not favor carving out exceptions to the 1st amendment.
This is exactly what this does. It is stupid.
This would just be another to add to the list.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theorem" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
27 May 2004 11:41:56 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b9c2qefpoes33@news.supernews.com...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b99mvmpd9fm43@news.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such.
But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the
government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell
you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're
saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Perhaps he should have stated this more accurately as "liberal
Democrats tend to favor the idea of removing guns from society". Some
of us (liberal Democrats, that is) do not, but most seem to. I suppose
it's an ideal of some kind, to have a weapon-free society, but I think
human civilization has some way to go (probably not in our lifetimes)
before such an ideal could become a possible reality.
As long as criminals have access to guns, ordinary citizens must also.
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is.
That just proves that you have not read the amendment and have no idea
what
it is about.
Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded.
No it doesn't. In fact it reinforces them.
Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
Maybe you should read and understand the amendment and then get back to
us.
Maybe you should post it here so we can all read it. Why didn't you
post it?
Be happy to. It's just one sentence long. And it gives each individual state
the right to vote on whether or not they wish to protect the flag. The same
as if they wish to allow same sex marriage, and many other states rights
matters.
`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the
flag of the United States.'.
Where does it give "each individual state the right to vote on whether
or not they wish to protect the flag"? I don't see that in the wording.
Regardless, it's a stupid amendment. It contradicts the First
Amendment. If this were somehow to pass (inconceivable!) I'll bet
there would be a huge spate of flag burnings by Americans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
27 May 2004 12:00:04 PM |
|
|
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10bc6ij61jvcc29@news.supernews.com...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b9c2qefpoes33@news.supernews.com...
Brooks Gregory wrote:
"Theorem" <Theorem@Axiometric.NOSPAMPLEASE.org> wrote in message
news:10b99mvmpd9fm43@news.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such.
But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even
the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the
government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats)
regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
Well if anyone needed evidence that you don't know what the hell
you're
talking about, here it is. Name one time the Democrats passed or even
proposed a bill that banned all guns in the home. Prove what you're
saying.
Hint: This is the last post Barb makes about this issue.
Perhaps he should have stated this more accurately as "liberal
Democrats tend to favor the idea of removing guns from society". Some
of us (liberal Democrats, that is) do not, but most seem to. I suppose
it's an ideal of some kind, to have a weapon-free society, but I think
human civilization has some way to go (probably not in our lifetimes)
before such an ideal could become a possible reality.
As long as criminals have access to guns, ordinary citizens must also.
But we're off the topic here, the anti-flag-burning amendment. I say
it's a ludicrous idea. Makes a mockery of freedom of expression, which
is what freedom of speech really is.
That just proves that you have not read the amendment and have no idea
what
it is about.
Makes a lie of the basic tenets
upon which this country was founded.
No it doesn't. In fact it reinforces them.
Smacks of totalitarianism.
Remember when we had the Soviet Union to point to as an example of how
not to do things? Have we forgotten so quickly?
Also, it's a fascist kind of idea, enforced patriotic *****.
Patriotism is meaningful only when it's voluntary. Otherwise we can
all line up to revere the Great and Dear Leader. Wouldn't that be nice
now? Be careful what you wish for!
Maybe you should read and understand the amendment and then get back to
us.
Maybe you should post it here so we can all read it. Why didn't you
post it?
Be happy to. It's just one sentence long. And it gives each individual
state
the right to vote on whether or not they wish to protect the flag. The
same
as if they wish to allow same sex marriage, and many other states rights
matters.
`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the
flag of the United States.'.
Where does it give "each individual state the right to vote on whether
or not they wish to protect the flag"? I don't see that in the wording.
Regardless, it's a stupid amendment. It contradicts the First
Amendment. If this were somehow to pass (inconceivable!) I'll bet
there would be a huge spate of flag burnings by Americans.
I think an amendment giving states the right to marry same sex couples is
stupid too, but I don't oppose it. If the majority in a state wants to do
something, fine as along as they don't make a state that opposes it follow
suit. So, if my state wants to outlaw flag burning, how does it hurt you?
And, as for the amendment giving the states that right, I'm just going by
what they are saying during the debate.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theorem" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
28 May 2004 06:12:58 AM |
|
|
Brooks Gregory wrote:
Regardless, it's a stupid amendment. It contradicts the First
Amendment. If this were somehow to pass (inconceivable!) I'll bet
there would be a huge spate of flag burnings by Americans.
I think an amendment giving states the right to marry same sex
couples is stupid too, but I don't oppose it.
States already have that right. No amendment to the US Constitution is
needed for that.
If the majority in a state wants to do something, fine as along as
they don't make a state that opposes it follow suit.
That, too, is fine. But the Constitution does require every state to
accept and respect every other state's judicial proceedings.
So, if my state wants to outlaw flag burning, how does it hurt you?
It doesn't. States have the right to do that. The federal government
does not.
And, as for the amendment giving the states that right, I'm just
going by what they are saying during the debate.
The only thing that would carry weight is the final wording and so
far, I do not see anything like what you suggested.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 01:52:10 PM |
|
|
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it. The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 02:00:15 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it. The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The Supreme
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is when
you talk, not when you act. Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein said,
you can even regulate speech.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "FDR" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:09:30 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:3P5tc.16291002$Of.2717898@news.easynews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The Supreme
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is
when
you talk, not when you act.
I feel bad for the mute people of the country.
Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein said,
you can even regulate speech.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:44:36 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:3P5tc.16291002$Of.2717898@news.easynews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
This is how Congress does nothing. Flapping about hysterically about
flag-burning was the run-up to singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol
steps on 9-12.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 04:01:35 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10ba0dkpjabs44b@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:3P5tc.16291002$Of.2717898@news.easynews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
This is how Congress does nothing. Flapping about hysterically about
flag-burning was the run-up to singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol
steps on 9-12.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
So how many of you have contacted your representatives demanding a "No"
vote. Not a one, I bet. You just want to blow smoke.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 04:14:35 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10ba0dkpjabs44b@corp.supernews.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:3P5tc.16291002$Of.2717898@news.easynews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
This is how Congress does nothing. Flapping about hysterically about
flag-burning was the run-up to singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol
steps on 9-12.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
So how many of you have contacted your representatives demanding a "No"
vote. Not a one, I bet. You just want to blow smoke.
Inhale deeply.
Oh and by the way, I'm not WEARING socks, so NYAH NYAHnyah NYAH
nahhhhhhhhh!!
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FDR" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 04:12:43 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10ba0dkpjabs44b@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:3P5tc.16291002$Of.2717898@news.easynews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
This is how Congress does nothing. Flapping about hysterically about
flag-burning was the run-up to singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol
steps on 9-12.
It happens every few years. The other thing they do every few year is get
all upset about deficits. Funny how that hasn't happened in the last 4
years. Only under Clinton did you hear about balanced budget amendments.
Republicans flip flop about things like that.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 05:56:10 PM |
|
|
"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fL7tc.89391$hY.4740@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10ba0dkpjabs44b@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:3P5tc.16291002$Of.2717898@news.easynews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in
message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get
it.
This is how Congress does nothing. Flapping about hysterically about
flag-burning was the run-up to singing "God Bless America" on the
Capitol
steps on 9-12.
It happens every few years. The other thing they do every few year is get
all upset about deficits. Funny how that hasn't happened in the last 4
years. Only under Clinton did you hear about balanced budget amendments.
Republicans flip flop about things like that.
You'll get no argument from on that. But, that's the nature of a politician.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 02:21:22 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it. The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The Supreme
You don't get it. The flag gives no rights. The Constitution does.
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is when
you talk, not when you act. Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein said,
you can even regulate speech.
Burning a flag is a statement. You need to shut up.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 02:26:29 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9rhiaq2ljm73@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the
Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The Supreme
You don't get it. The flag gives no rights. The Constitution does.
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is
when
you talk, not when you act. Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein said,
you can even regulate speech.
Burning a flag is a statement. You need to shut up.
No, it is conduct. Just hide and watch.
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 04:32:59 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:Fb6tc.5342132$iA2.624484@news.easynews.com...
Burning a flag is a statement. You need to shut up.
No, it is conduct. Just hide and watch.
It is in fact conduct, as is typing this message. Some conduct is also
speech. Writing an article. Printing a newspaper. Painting a picture.
In this case, it is conduct involving my own personal disposition of my own
personal property, and it's none of your fucking business.
--
-Mr. N
-------------------------------------------
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq
demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience
in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish
the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
"The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?
Pull this curtain back."
-Nancy Pelosi, American Patriot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:02:43 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9rhiaq2ljm73@corp.supernews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get it.
The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the
Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The Supreme
You don't get it. The flag gives no rights. The Constitution does.
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is
when
you talk, not when you act. Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein said,
you can even regulate speech.
Burning a flag is a statement. You need to shut up.
No, it is conduct. Just hide and watch.
Brooks Gregory is dishonest.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:09:25 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9tv3kmt6jk55@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9rhiaq2ljm73@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
humbubba@smart.net
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get
it.
The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the
Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The
Supreme
You don't get it. The flag gives no rights. The Constitution does.
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is
when
you talk, not when you act. Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein
said,
you can even regulate speech.
Burning a flag is a statement. You need to shut up.
No, it is conduct. Just hide and watch.
Brooks Gregory is dishonest.
And you need to wash your socks because your feet stink.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 03:42:46 PM |
|
|
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9tv3kmt6jk55@corp.supernews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9rhiaq2ljm73@corp.supernews.com...
"cLIeNUX user" <r@cLIeNUX.> wrote in message
news:10b9pqq545m2m4f@corp.supernews.com...
John Slade wrote:
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Support for an anti-flag-burning amendment is proof you don't get
it.
The
flag represents the freedom to burn the flag. Flags will burn at my
inauguration. Contrast that to the current trend to use the
Constitution
as toilet paper.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
It most certainly does not give you the freedom to burn it. The
Supreme
You don't get it. The flag gives no rights. The Constitution does.
Court did that in a, soon to be proven erroneous, judgement. Speech is
when
you talk, not when you act. Conduct is not speech. And as Feinstein
said,
you can even regulate speech.
Burning a flag is a statement. You need to shut up.
No, it is conduct. Just hide and watch.
Brooks Gregory is dishonest.
And you need to wash your socks because your feet stink.
Right. I prefer to stink on the outside.
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FDR" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 08:17:05 AM |
|
|
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
I own a gun. Lots of people own guns. Another REPUBLICAN LIE.
Which is why the liberal Democrats are so widely perceived as being
totally
full of *****.
Uh huh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: "I support this amendment because I believe |
26 May 2004 08:23:16 AM |
|
|
"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lN0tc.88013$hY.17124@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Kerry the Boob" <HerBreastsWontSaveHim@dnc.com> wrote in message
news:PD0tc.244$Yd3.78@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94F559D6C3FD1bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
flag burning is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated as such.
But
to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the
right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the
government
can prohibit someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif
Not if there is a fire.
Yet the government (when in the hands of liberal Democrats) regularly
and
repeatedly prohibits the American people from owning a gun in their
home,
even when there is an intruder with a gun in their home.
I own a gun. Lots of people own guns. Another REPUBLICAN LIE.
Which is why the liberal Democrats are so widely perceived as being
totally
full of *****.
Uh huh.
And I bet with the threat of terroism right here on our side of the pond,
you are against renewing the assault weapons ban, right?
--
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
