| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Joe Blowtowski" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2004 03:55:39 PM |
| Object: |
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
He is also against protecting the Unborn.
Didn't he say that ''a Fetus is not a Human Being''
.
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 04:36:17 PM |
|
|
"Joe Blowtowski" <Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l8dlg01172qhhmta02o8qe0hacdun3sdb3@4ax.com...
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
Because he repeatedly protects the United States Constitution.
We don't need to amend the Constitution to make U.S. law look more like
Communist Chinese law, no matter how many of you Constitution-haters think
so.
--
-Mr. N
*****************************
"The (Bush) administration has an overly simplistic view of how and when to
use our military. By not bringing in our friends and allies, they have
created a mess in Iraq and are crippling our forces around the world."
-Retired Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under
Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Smith quandaryNSyou guessed" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 05:37:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:36:17 -0700, "Mr. N"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Joe Blowtowski" <Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l8dlg01172qhhmta02o8qe0hacdun3sdb3@4ax.com...
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
Because he repeatedly protects the United States Constitution.
Only selected portions, but not all of it as he has sworn to do.
Bill Smith
We don't need to amend the Constitution to make U.S. law look more like
Communist Chinese law, no matter how many of you Constitution-haters think
so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Grogan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 09:55:45 PM |
|
|
Joe Blowtowski <Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<l8dlg01172qhhmta02o8qe0hacdun3sdb3@4ax.com>...
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
He is also against protecting the Unborn.
Didn't he say that ''a Fetus is not a Human Being''
I wonder if Pickles would give mouth to mouth to save a human fetus
the way his daughter reported her daddy saved a drowning rodent?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 06:07:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:55:39 -0700, Joe Blowtowski
<Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
Because you're not the only fascist voter.
A majority of Americans, like you, oppose the Bill of Rights.
He is also against protecting the Unborn.
Didn't he say that ''a Fetus is not a Human Being''
No, he didn't say that.
Bush Bush says embryos are human beings, and he favors their wholesale
slaughter in fertility clinics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blowtowski" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 07:44:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:07:36 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:55:39 -0700, Joe Blowtowski
<Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
Because you're not the only fascist voter.
A majority of Americans, like you, oppose the Bill of Rights.
He is also against protecting the Unborn.
Didn't he say that ''a Fetus is not a Human Being''
No, he didn't say that.
Bush Bush says embryos are human beings, and he favors their wholesale
slaughter in fertility clinics.
*****
he said "a fetus is not a human being"
right after he left the Senate when he
VOTED AGAINST the Lacy-Conner Bill
"to protect the rights of the Unborn"
"a fetus is not a human being"
- Senator Lt. John Forbes Kerry the Fetus Hater
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 06:32:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:44:43 -0700, Joe Blowtowski
<Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:07:36 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
<tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:55:39 -0700, Joe Blowtowski
<Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
Because you're not the only fascist voter.
A majority of Americans, like you, oppose the Bill of Rights.
He is also against protecting the Unborn.
Didn't he say that ''a Fetus is not a Human Being''
No, he didn't say that.
Bush Bush says embryos are human beings, and he favors their wholesale
slaughter in fertility clinics.
*****
Joe, why does Bush limit reserach on embryonic stem cells?
Because they are little human beings.
In his speech about that he had only good things to say about
fertility clinics, which through in vitro fertilization create huge
numbers of embryonic stem cells only a few of which are used. The
others are destroyed.
Thus President Bush does not favor protecting the unborn.
He favors an intellectually bankrupt policy which might get some
votes.
Let me help you out Joe.
WHY does Bush limit the number of lines permitted for research in this
area Joe? What is his stated reason?
Go ahead, look it up, and write down the WHY of his policy.
Hint - the answer is - embryos are little human beings who should not
be killed, just as we should not kill grown up human beings.
Now Joe, Bush DOES favor fertility clinics. He has never said a bad
thing about them. He has never supported any policy to limit them. He
has instead said good things about them. ANd Joe it is true that in
those fertility clinics they create lots and lots of embryoss to find
some to use in creating babies - and destroy all the others.
They murder little human beings in those places Joe and Bush is all
for it.
Bush favors the wolesale slaughter of human beings, Joe.
By HIS OWN DEFINITION.
he said "a fetus is not a human being"
right after he left the Senate when he
VOTED AGAINST the Lacy-Conner Bill
"to protect the rights of the Unborn"
How in the world do you construe the Lacy-
Conner Bill as protecting the rights of the Unborn, Joe?
If you shoot a woman and kill her fetus, you have broken the law in
every state.
Do you seriously argue that it's legal to do that in any state?
ABsurd.
In addition, using your own words does not count as providing evidence
that KERRY said those words.
"a fetus is not a human being"
- Senator Lt. John Forbes Kerry the Fetus Hater
Let me guess. President Bush told you that and you believed him, just
as you believed him when he said there was no doubt Saddam had all
those WMD - right?
Joe - the President is a big fat liar. You can't take his words as
gospel.
Your inability to document your claim about what Kerry actually said
is noted.
AND you left off the part about how President Bush supports the
slaughter of such little human beings.
Bush - Baby Kller, supports fertility clinics.
It's a fact, Jack.
BY his own definition of what a human being is, Bush supports mass
murder.
WHy do you support someone who won't stand up for the rights of the
undorn Joe?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Smith quandaryNSyou guessed" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 04:19:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:55:39 -0700, Joe Blowtowski
<Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
When people participate in a demonstration, they hope to do two
things; bring to the public's attention a subject that the
demonstrator thinks is needed and to try to bring observers around to
their point of view. When a demonstrator takes some action that
offends those they are trying to convince, they defeat their own
purpose. Flag burning doesn't threaten the Republic, it's nothing
worse than stupid.
Instead of complaining about the Flag being burned you should be
thankful that these idiots go to so much trouble to discredit
themselves.
Bill Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 05:06:18 PM |
|
|
"Bill Smith" <quandaryNS(you guessed it)@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:q8elg0tgf336mn1g4126st3dohf29o3866@4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:55:39 -0700, Joe Blowtowski
<Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention
his votes against for protecting the FLAG?
When people participate in a demonstration, they hope to do two
things; bring to the public's attention a subject that the
demonstrator thinks is needed and to try to bring observers around to
their point of view. When a demonstrator takes some action that
offends those they are trying to convince, they defeat their own
purpose. Flag burning doesn't threaten the Republic, it's nothing
worse than stupid.
Instead of complaining about the Flag being burned you should be
thankful that these idiots go to so much trouble to discredit
themselves.
Bill Smith
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "SmirkS" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 05:34:59 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much bigger.
simpleton.
--
TheTruthHurts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 08:39:48 PM |
|
|
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much bigger.
simpleton.
Not to mention that "flag burning" is the OFFICIAL WAY in which you dispose
of a flag (unless you bury it).
I wonder if super-patriot Brooks Gregory ever buries his plastic flags from
K-Mart, or does he throw them out in the trash like all the other
"patriots?"
Maybe he gets knowledgeable patriotic politicians like George W. Bush or
Hillary Rodham Clinton to sign his flags, too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 09:31:27 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ELCOc.3613$cK.2494@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much
bigger.
simpleton.
Not to mention that "flag burning" is the OFFICIAL WAY in which you
dispose
of a flag (unless you bury it).
I wonder if super-patriot Brooks Gregory ever buries his plastic flags
from
K-Mart, or does he throw them out in the trash like all the other
"patriots?"
Awww. The personal attacks. More immature *****. What Brooks does is take
his flags to the American Legion post he is a member of and has it disposed
at the quarterly ceremony. What do you do, besides personal attacks?
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 03:21:38 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:33OOc.20879787$Of.3465768@news.easynews.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ELCOc.3613$cK.2494@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much
bigger.
simpleton.
Not to mention that "flag burning" is the OFFICIAL WAY in which you
dispose
of a flag (unless you bury it).
I wonder if super-patriot Brooks Gregory ever buries his plastic flags
from
K-Mart, or does he throw them out in the trash like all the other
"patriots?"
Awww. The personal attacks. More immature *****. What Brooks does is
take
his flags to the American Legion post he is a member of and has it
disposed
at the quarterly ceremony. What do you do, besides personal attacks?
And how do THEY dispose of the flags? The point behind "free speech" and
flag-burning is that the ONLY difference between the official flag burning
ceremony and a protest action is the *THOUGHT* of the person. You can't
arrest someone for a thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 03:52:39 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mbTOc.4213$cK.2373@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:33OOc.20879787$Of.3465768@news.easynews.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ELCOc.3613$cK.2494@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much
bigger.
simpleton.
Not to mention that "flag burning" is the OFFICIAL WAY in which you
dispose
of a flag (unless you bury it).
I wonder if super-patriot Brooks Gregory ever buries his plastic flags
from
K-Mart, or does he throw them out in the trash like all the other
"patriots?"
Awww. The personal attacks. More immature *****. What Brooks does is
take
his flags to the American Legion post he is a member of and has it
disposed
at the quarterly ceremony. What do you do, besides personal attacks?
And how do THEY dispose of the flags? The point behind "free speech" and
flag-burning is that the ONLY difference between the official flag burning
ceremony and a protest action is the *THOUGHT* of the person. You can't
arrest someone for a thought.
*****. What the hell do you think "Hate Crimes" are? Burning a flag is
conduct, not speech. So says Diane Feinstein, and that's good enough for me.
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 05:33:10 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:rETOc.1867883$ef4.218573@news.easynews.com...
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
Not to mention that "flag burning" is the OFFICIAL WAY in which you
dispose
of a flag (unless you bury it).
I wonder if super-patriot Brooks Gregory ever buries his plastic
flags
from
K-Mart, or does he throw them out in the trash like all the other
"patriots?"
Awww. The personal attacks. More immature *****. What Brooks does
is
take
his flags to the American Legion post he is a member of and has it
disposed
at the quarterly ceremony. What do you do, besides personal attacks?
And how do THEY dispose of the flags? The point behind "free speech" and
flag-burning is that the ONLY difference between the official flag
burning
ceremony and a protest action is the *THOUGHT* of the person. You can't
arrest someone for a thought.
*****. What the hell do you think "Hate Crimes" are? Burning a flag is
conduct, not speech. So says Diane Feinstein, and that's good enough for
me.
But the CONDUCT is the flag burning. How do YOU know what is respectful and
what isn't? The ceremony for burning a flag isn't defined as far as I know.
Can you point to me the relevant US Code that says what "due ceremony"
entails?
OTOH, *signing* a flag IS flag desecration, and isn't an act of free speech,
even though politicians from both parties do it all the time now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 01:36:36 AM |
|
|
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4>...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much bigger.
When an American flag is burned, it's not any kind of threat to your
physical safety. It's got nothing to do with you. It's an act of
protest against the government which, the protester believes, has
acted against the Constitution that protects us all. When I say the
government which has acted against the Constitution, I mean some
elected officials in positions of power who have interpretted the law
in such a way that the protester believes is unConstitutional.
The point of flag burning is as a clarion call to fellow citizens.
It's to get everyone's attention, and once you are paying attention,
to let you know what the government has done to evoke such an extreme
reaction. It is then up to the people of the United States of America
(who are the government) to direct their employees (elected officials)
to rectify the situation. Or not.
But leave it to conservatives to lack the intellect to go beyond their
shocked reaction to seeing the American flag burned. You're supposed
to be shocked! It's about waking you up to threats far more
distressing. On the evolutionary scale, conservatives are the
equivalent of the deer caught in headlamps. When conservatives hear a
fire alarm, they call the police to complain about the loud noise.
Cross burning is not done by atheists to protest Christianity.
Cross burning is a crime against people. It's to threaten and
intimidate black people. When a cross is burned on somebody's lawn,
it's to scare the ***** out of a black person. In the history of our
nation, it's been the opening act to the MURDER of black people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 09:31:29 AM |
|
|
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:881a53f6.0407302236.36924994@posting.google.com...
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4>...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much
bigger.
When an American flag is burned, it's not any kind of threat to your
physical safety.
When a cross is burned, people have been prosecuted under the doctrine of
committing a "Hate crime" because there was an intent to intimidate someone.
Last case I remember was in Katy, Texas a couple or so years back. Flag
burning can be just as intimidating to a Veteran. But you try to prosecute a
flag burner under the same doctrine.
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 02:53:36 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<53OOc.20879789$Of.3465545@news.easynews.com>...
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:881a53f6.0407302236.36924994@posting.google.com...
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4>...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much
bigger.
When an American flag is burned, it's not any kind of threat to your
physical safety.
When a cross is burned, people have been prosecuted under the doctrine of
committing a "Hate crime" because there was an intent to intimidate someone.
Last case I remember was in Katy, Texas a couple or so years back.
Oh! It's hate crime legislation that's the real rub to you! Why
didn't you say so?
The day that I meet an honest, sincere, and direct conservative will
be the day that pigs fly.
Flag
burning can be just as intimidating to a Veteran. But you try to prosecute a
flag burner under the same doctrine.
Hogwash, but try to make the case in court. Try having a veteran sue
a flag burner for pain and distress caused by seeing an American flag
burned in the public square.
Yeah, I'm goofing with your head, Brooks.
Is there any part of rule of law, our constitution, democracy for that
matter, that conservatives understand?
People don't burn flags to personally threaten individual veterans.
If they did it would probably be illegal and classified as a hate
crime. But when people burn flags their protest is not directed at
towards an individual neighbor. It's directed towards a system or a
law or an administration, and that's the difference.
A veteran being "intimidated" by a burning flag is equivalent to a
cross burning on a black American's lawn? If a veteran reads a flag
burning as being intended to intimidate him or her, the problem is
PTSD and the veteran needs to contact the VA immediately. Assuming
that there is any help available at the VA after the Bush
administration guts all of the Veterans' programs.
Trying to compare flag and cross burning as you're doing is a false
equivalency.
If you have an issue with Christianity and you burn a cross as a
protest of the Christian religion, then that most likely would be
legal. It's only when you burn it on somebody's front lawn, implying
the physical harm to that person. So it's not the burning itself
that's the issue. It's the intent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 03:55:54 PM |
|
|
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:881a53f6.0407311153.5eec987b@posting.google.com...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:<53OOc.20879789$Of.3465545@news.easynews.com>...
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:881a53f6.0407302236.36924994@posting.google.com...
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4>...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much
bigger.
When an American flag is burned, it's not any kind of threat to your
physical safety.
When a cross is burned, people have been prosecuted under the doctrine
of
committing a "Hate crime" because there was an intent to intimidate
someone.
Last case I remember was in Katy, Texas a couple or so years back.
Oh! It's hate crime legislation that's the real rub to you! Why
didn't you say so?
The day that I meet an honest, sincere, and direct conservative will
be the day that pigs fly.
Flag
burning can be just as intimidating to a Veteran. But you try to
prosecute a
flag burner under the same doctrine.
Hogwash, but try to make the case in court. Try having a veteran sue
a flag burner for pain and distress caused by seeing an American flag
burned in the public square.
Yeah, I'm goofing with your head, Brooks.
Is there any part of rule of law, our constitution, democracy for that
matter, that conservatives understand?
Maybe you should ask Diane Feinstein. She endorsed an Amendment against flag
burning by saying "flag burning is conduct, not speech". In fact, a number
of noted LIBERAL professors are now saying the same thing. Why is that, you
reckon?
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 05:37:43 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:uHTOc.20895737
[...]
Maybe you should ask Diane Feinstein. She endorsed an Amendment against
flag
burning by saying "flag burning is conduct, not speech". In fact, a number
of noted LIBERAL professors are now saying the same thing. Why is that,
you
reckon?
Maybe because they don't understand the Supreme Court's point?
Flag burning is the *proper* way to dispose of the American flag. The
difference between disposing of the flag properly and burning it as a form
of protest is the thought behind the action.
Unless you're saying you want to outlaw ALL flag burning, including the
traditional ceremony to dispose of the flag properly. Is THAT what you're
saying? As long as the flag burning ceremony for proper disposal is allowed,
burning the flag in protest has to be allowed to. Burning a cross is a
different issue since there's no legally mandated way to dispose of a cross
so free speech issues don't arise. BTW, burning a cross in your OWN backyard
in private, is allowed, AFAIK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 06:37:14 PM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:XaVOc.4624$9Y6.2832@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:uHTOc.20895737
[...]
Maybe you should ask Diane Feinstein. She endorsed an Amendment against
flag
burning by saying "flag burning is conduct, not speech". In fact, a
number
of noted LIBERAL professors are now saying the same thing. Why is that,
you
reckon?
Maybe because they don't understand the Supreme Court's point?
Flag burning is the *proper* way to dispose of the American flag. The
difference between disposing of the flag properly and burning it as a form
of protest is the thought behind the action.
Unless you're saying you want to outlaw ALL flag burning, including the
traditional ceremony to dispose of the flag properly. Is THAT what you're
saying? As long as the flag burning ceremony for proper disposal is
allowed,
burning the flag in protest has to be allowed to. Burning a cross is a
different issue since there's no legally mandated way to dispose of a
cross
so free speech issues don't arise. BTW, burning a cross in your OWN
backyard
in private, is allowed, AFAIK.
That's just more cop out *****. If we can ask someone to stand ready to
give up their right to life in the service of this country, surely we can
make way to ask someone to give up what is dubious at best one minor element
of some convoluted right of speech.
I don't care to argue about it. In the final analysis, if the Amendment is
passed and ratified, IT WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL, will it not?
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
01 Aug 2004 01:22:59 AM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:K2WOc.1875760$
[...]
I don't care to argue about it. In the final analysis, if the Amendment is
passed and ratified, IT WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL, will it not?
Sure. Go for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
01 Aug 2004 08:53:20 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7%%Oc.4613$cK.1949@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:K2WOc.1875760$
[...]
I don't care to argue about it. In the final analysis, if the Amendment
is
passed and ratified, IT WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL, will it not?
Sure. Go for it.
I believe I stated I was going for it from the beginning.
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
01 Aug 2004 01:19:21 PM |
|
|
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in message news:<uHTOc.20895737$Of.3468703@news.easynews.com>...
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:881a53f6.0407311153.5eec987b@posting.google.com...
Is there any part of rule of law, our constitution, democracy for that
matter, that conservatives understand?
Maybe you should ask Diane Feinstein. She endorsed an Amendment against flag
burning by saying "flag burning is conduct, not speech". In fact, a number
of noted LIBERAL professors are now saying the same thing. Why is that, you
reckon?
Oh, DIANNE FEINSTEIN says so! And "noted liberal professors" say so!
That's different! I change my mind.
Who gives a ***** what Dianne Feinstein says? I'm sure that the day
that Dianne Feinstein announces a run for the White House, you will
try to paint her as "the 2nd most liberal senator after John Kerry,"
when the truth is Feinstein's votes are closer to Zell Miller's than
Paul Wellstone's. But I know that that won't stop you from
misrepresenting her record, which is fine with me because I have no
interest in seeing another republican in democrat clothing go into the
White House.
The question I have for you is, don't you know how to think for
yourself? Why is it you can't argue your own position on issues, but
must invariably hold up someone else's conclusion to hide behind? I'm
sure that Adolph Hitler also thought burning a Nazi flag was conduct,
not speech. WHO GIVES A *****?
This is America, Brooks. Our opinions carry equal weight, but we try
to build concensus to our sides by our reasoning. Are you sure you
want your reason to be, "because Dianne Feinstein and some liberal
professors agree with it"? If more people stampeded over the edge of
a cliff, would you follow them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SmirkS" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 12:45:41 PM |
|
|
Barney Lyon wrote:
The point of flag burning is as a clarion call to fellow citizens.
excellent post.
--
TheTruthHurts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Warren Stupidity" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 06:20:22 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2004 23:36:36 -0700, (Barney Lyon)
wrote:
"<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<Xns95369E91F6031itsmemcd@130.133.1.4>...
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much bigger.
When an American flag is burned, it's not any kind of threat to your
physical safety. It's got nothing to do with you. It's an act of
protest against the government which, the protester believes, has
acted against the Constitution that protects us all. When I say the
government which has acted against the Constitution, I mean some
elected officials in positions of power who have interpretted the law
in such a way that the protester believes is unConstitutional.
The point of flag burning is as a clarion call to fellow citizens.
It's to get everyone's attention, and once you are paying attention,
to let you know what the government has done to evoke such an extreme
reaction. It is then up to the people of the United States of America
(who are the government) to direct their employees (elected officials)
to rectify the situation. Or not.
But leave it to conservatives to lack the intellect to go beyond their
shocked reaction to seeing the American flag burned. You're supposed
to be shocked! It's about waking you up to threats far more
distressing. On the evolutionary scale, conservatives are the
equivalent of the deer caught in headlamps. When conservatives hear a
fire alarm, they call the police to complain about the loud noise.
Cross burning is not done by atheists to protest Christianity.
Cross burning is a crime against people. It's to threaten and
intimidate black people. When a cross is burned on somebody's lawn,
it's to scare the ***** out of a black person. In the history of our
nation, it's been the opening act to the MURDER of black people.
You can burn all the crosses you want on your own property with the
appropriate local fire permits.
Burning crosses on somebody else's property, just like burning
anything on somebody else's property is most likely illegal.
Burning anything on public property is a matter of local/state/federal
regulation, depending on the jurisdiction. If it is a fire hazard it
is most likely illegal.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Warren Stupidity" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 09:56:59 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jul 2004 22:34:59 GMT, "<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much bigger.
simpleton.
Besides they are both illegal.
The Washington NeoClowns can't even get their clown
shoes on right, and there is no wrong way to do that.
==
Mark Roddy
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event like a
new Pearl Harbor."
-- Project for a New American Century,
-- the neocon cabal's blueprint for world empire.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brooks Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
31 Jul 2004 09:30:27 AM |
|
|
"Warren Stupidity" <weaselMark@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fj2mg0dileau761e6ikcdoi8te2lmkfpgd@4ax.com...
On 30 Jul 2004 22:34:59 GMT, "<SmirkS>" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
"Brooks Gregory" <brooksgregory@sbctelco.com> wrote in
news:tDzOc.20732619
$Id.3429454@news.easynews.com:
We should also be ***** that it is illegal to burn a cross on
public
property, but not to burn a flag on public property.
fire hazard issue. crosses burn considerably longer, and are much bigger.
simpleton.
Besides they are both illegal.
Not on a Federal law basis. Only cross burning.
--
John Kerry abandoned our POW/MIAs for
personal financial gain. He sold the souls of
American GIs for personal riches. Here is the
proof. But first, put this in Google.
C. Stewart Forbes CEO of Colliers International
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2527/ssc.html
Brooks Gregory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blowtowski" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 06:59:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 -0700, Bill Smith <quandaryNS(you guessed
it)@newsguy.com> wrote:
Instead of complaining about the Flag being burned you should be
thankful that these idiots go to s
Oh I'm not complaining
I want to know Why Lt. John Forbes Kerry didn't bring up his Votes to
protect Flag Burners in his Extreme Falsehood Speech last night
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 08:42:34 PM |
|
|
"Joe Blowtowski" <Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3olg0pct5lbp2u74tvhi68d05e96p3gs6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 -0700, Bill Smith <quandaryNS(you guessed
it)@newsguy.com> wrote:
Instead of complaining about the Flag being burned you should be
thankful that these idiots go to s
Oh I'm not complaining
I want to know Why Lt. John Forbes Kerry didn't bring up his Votes to
protect Flag Burners in his Extreme Falsehood Speech last night
Why doesn't President Bush sign an excutive order authorizing the souvenir
signing of flags so he isn't in violation of the Flag Code?
Or do you justify it because Senator Clinton is just as stupid or perhaps
you think that anything the President does that would otherwise be illegal
is legal by implied Executive Order?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why didn't Lt. Kerry mention his votes for FLAG BURNING |
30 Jul 2004 09:52:07 PM |
|
|
Joe Blowtowski <Joe_Blow@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:h3olg0pct5lbp2u74tvhi68d05e96p3gs6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 -0700, Bill Smith <quandaryNS(you guessed
it)@newsguy.com> wrote:
Instead of complaining about the Flag being burned you should be
thankful that these idiots go to s
Oh I'm not complaining
I want to know Why Lt. John Forbes Kerry didn't bring up his Votes to
protect Flag Burners in his Extreme Falsehood Speech last night
If flag burning is such a problem perhaps
you can tell us the last time it happened.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
