fishinfool
Among other things
vraiblonde said:
House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment
- Thread starter ylexot
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
fishinfool said:
Goofing_Off
New Member
A sit-in, such as the type used during the civil rights movement, or other types of civil disobedience are illegal actions "seeking redress," which by your definition is speech. It is very conceivable, that some other groups "seeking redress," could burn a flag in protest of a government that has passed laws that they believe oppress them. Therefore, by your own argument that is speech as well.Bruzilla said:
I'm not in favor of flag-burning, but if someone does burn a flag I think it simply exposes their own ignorance. I don't think we need to make it illegal. Their ignorance will speak for itself, will discredit their own views, and show that we need not take them seriously to begin with.
fishinfool
Among other things
Bruzilla said:
Just to lighten things up a bit, would it be OK to use sign language to scream FIRE!! in a crowded theater full of deaf people? A movie with subtitles would be showing of course...hehe
Are you a fishinfool or a fool trolling?fishinfool said:
Triggerfish
New Member
Ken King said:
When I was still in high school my AFJROTC class retired a flag by burning it while playing taps....it was meant to be a respectful ceremony but the fire got a bit out of hand and spread a bit out of the planned area.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Words cannot express...
...how dissapointing that is to read yet it explains, exactly, the basis for you're thinking and logic on so many issues.
Now I understand.
...how dissapointing that is to read yet it explains, exactly, the basis for you're thinking and logic on so many issues.
Now I understand.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Sam...
Yes. Burn away.
You may FEEL it is a 'clear' protest of the US government. I 'feel' it is MY government and I 'feel' threatened and attacked when someone 'expresses' themselves by burning my Goddamn flag.
We are NOT the Klan. We are NOT Nazi Germany and we are NOT the CSA. None of those groups provided the rights to free expression and ability to openly oppose and challenge AND CAHNGE what our government is doing that upsets whomever.
If you are free to interpret what someone means by burning the flag then, surely, I am free to express how I take it, yes?
Yes. Burn away.
You may FEEL it is a 'clear' protest of the US government. I 'feel' it is MY government and I 'feel' threatened and attacked when someone 'expresses' themselves by burning my Goddamn flag.
We are NOT the Klan. We are NOT Nazi Germany and we are NOT the CSA. None of those groups provided the rights to free expression and ability to openly oppose and challenge AND CAHNGE what our government is doing that upsets whomever.
If you are free to interpret what someone means by burning the flag then, surely, I am free to express how I take it, yes?
Triggerfish
New Member
Larry Gude said:
CSA did as much or possibly more than the USA if you were white.
Larry Gude said:
So sorry to disappoint...but you know Uncle Larry, many people in America are "loose constructionists" and don't want to be bogged down by 220 year old language. But just to clear this up...I believe that the Bill of Rights and the constitutional protection of civil liberties are sacred, but that strict readings of many parts of the Constitution can lead to a government that is not responsive to 21st Century needs. That is what I am merely articulating; I am not suggesting that we completely ignore it. I am also not one to enfore 1789 morality on today's reading of the Constitution. The Constitution is a "living document" and I believe that our reading of it has to change with the changing needs of our times (for the most part; the freedoms of the Constitution, however, are non-negotiable).
That's a pretty damn big...
...'if', wouldn't you say?
Triggerfish said:
...'if', wouldn't you say?
Crap, pure crap...
'Strict' readings? Strict? Seems you are strict as hell when it suits and oblivious when it doesn't.
That '1789'; thinking, which, presumably, along with it's petrifying 'morals' is the very launguage that offers a clear and direct route to change, amendment. Hell, the whole paper says it's up to the people and it's all negotiable and it's all up for interpretation...IF YOU FOLLOW THE RULES.
Otherwise, anarchy lay and that means whatever 'loose' interpretations along with what you may or may not believe can be washed away just as simply and weakly as they appeared.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. They are changeable which makes them living and timeless if we, the people, simply treat them so. When we ignore that beauty and just 'interpret' as we see fit without changing the document to reflect changing public views and, yes, morals, then we leave any and all open to chaos, ANYTHING becomes possible.
Your view, admit it or not, says "I only want the parts I agree with' and it's because your afraid to make a case for your views and your afraid you can't carry the day and MAKE real change, thus, Constitutional interpretation for all! What do you want it to be today!?
This threatens no one more than poor folks and minorities. They're the first to have their stuff taken. What do you care? You're high minded. They NEED great thinkers like you to tell them what the Constitution really says.
Another secret; while you are absolutely petrified of morality not of your own making, the founders were flawed too. They ignored the very masterpiece they created in order to attend to popular opinion of the day; slavery.
BUT, they also left it in there the very mechanism to make us all equal under the law, to be later sanctified in blood and then reinforced by the 14th amendment and Father Time.
I submit to you that these imperfect men whose very name makes your knees shake merely at their mentioning would be appalled we've amended so
little. I submit to you that these 'titans' of imperfections expected people like you, who so disagree with their 'morality' such as you mis-interpret it, to work for change, to modify, to amend just as they'd expect me or anyone else to argue that 220 years of outstanding success might be all right as it is.
Another problem for you is that they also knew the process would keep ideas that were not actually pleasing to 2/3's of the people from becoming 1/2 baked law, or at least would do so as long as we respected it. That is key.
I know they wanted us to change it as we see fit or there'd be no amendment process nor any amendments to begin with.
I know that dissing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, picking and choosing, makes some people happy, thus the importance of corrupting the judiciary. It's their only path to victory, as they see it.
I know this very path makes their victories instantly enfeebled and, frankly, sets the table for what you would see as both good and bad, a short circuiting of the process. Short cuts work both ways.
That should scare you.
Have a nice day.
'Strict' readings? Strict? Seems you are strict as hell when it suits and oblivious when it doesn't.
That '1789'; thinking, which, presumably, along with it's petrifying 'morals' is the very launguage that offers a clear and direct route to change, amendment. Hell, the whole paper says it's up to the people and it's all negotiable and it's all up for interpretation...IF YOU FOLLOW THE RULES.
Otherwise, anarchy lay and that means whatever 'loose' interpretations along with what you may or may not believe can be washed away just as simply and weakly as they appeared.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. They are changeable which makes them living and timeless if we, the people, simply treat them so. When we ignore that beauty and just 'interpret' as we see fit without changing the document to reflect changing public views and, yes, morals, then we leave any and all open to chaos, ANYTHING becomes possible.
Your view, admit it or not, says "I only want the parts I agree with' and it's because your afraid to make a case for your views and your afraid you can't carry the day and MAKE real change, thus, Constitutional interpretation for all! What do you want it to be today!?
This threatens no one more than poor folks and minorities. They're the first to have their stuff taken. What do you care? You're high minded. They NEED great thinkers like you to tell them what the Constitution really says.
Another secret; while you are absolutely petrified of morality not of your own making, the founders were flawed too. They ignored the very masterpiece they created in order to attend to popular opinion of the day; slavery.
BUT, they also left it in there the very mechanism to make us all equal under the law, to be later sanctified in blood and then reinforced by the 14th amendment and Father Time.
I submit to you that these imperfect men whose very name makes your knees shake merely at their mentioning would be appalled we've amended so
little. I submit to you that these 'titans' of imperfections expected people like you, who so disagree with their 'morality' such as you mis-interpret it, to work for change, to modify, to amend just as they'd expect me or anyone else to argue that 220 years of outstanding success might be all right as it is.
Another problem for you is that they also knew the process would keep ideas that were not actually pleasing to 2/3's of the people from becoming 1/2 baked law, or at least would do so as long as we respected it. That is key.
I know they wanted us to change it as we see fit or there'd be no amendment process nor any amendments to begin with.
I know that dissing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, picking and choosing, makes some people happy, thus the importance of corrupting the judiciary. It's their only path to victory, as they see it.
I know this very path makes their victories instantly enfeebled and, frankly, sets the table for what you would see as both good and bad, a short circuiting of the process. Short cuts work both ways.
That should scare you.
Have a nice day.
That is the excuse of many liberals. The Constitution is only a living document in that it provides for a way to amend it. Many liberals and many conservatives don't want to take the time to go through the proper process.rraley said:
Last edited:
Well said.vraiblonde said:
Might I point out that the judiciary has applied the Fourteenth Amendment in ways it was never meant to be interpreted to establish federal control over state issues.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Well said. Flag-burners just want attention. They just want to provoke people, which I believe to be an infantile impulse. Not much different from Madonna being outrageous just to generate publicity. If you want to prosecute flag-burners, the best way might be to use the "creating a disturbance" laws already on the books.Goofing_Off said:
Last edited:
Triggerfish
New Member
2ndAmendment said:
all???
OK. I admit; too broad. How about many?Triggerfish said:
Goofing_Off
New Member
ylexot said:
While America's Founding Fathers were indeed some of the most accomplished and influential men in the country at that time, we should be careful of trying to place on them an undue aura of infallability, which I think that, in their humility, they themselves would find laughable. Let us remember that these same "best political and social philosophers of all time" were some of the same men who, as members of the Continental Congress, ratified the Articles of Confederation in 1781, which became a form of government that was so unwieldy and unworkable that they then had to come back eight years later to devise <I>another</I> form of government, which became our Constitution. That same Constitution was the result of a political process and negotiation, which we all know does not exactly produce perfection. It was the same Constitution that originally did not contain a Bill of Rights, and it had to be changed (amended) not two years later to include one.
I don't point out these things to detract from our Constitution in any way, because it is indeed the foundation of our government and of our country, which has lasted for 229 years, and obviously time itself is an arbiter of how well-founded its precepts are. However, I do think sometimes we treat this document as if it were holy writ, and its authors as if they were all-knowing prophets, which I think in reality is false. They were indeed wise, but fallible, men. The Constitution will continue to be interpreted and amended as the times change, as it should be.
Goofing_Off
New Member
Pete said:
"That is why you are doomed to suffer the atrocities that those honorable men rose up against." Wow, that's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction; don't you think? I think "atrocities" may be a bit of a reach; I don't know if the Stamp Act or having one's tea taxed without representation rises to the level of an atrocity. Moreover, I doubt that rraley drinks a great deal of tea, though I may be wrong.
I, however, would rise up and form my own country in a heartbeat if my beer were taxed without my representation in Congress. Thankfully I have Steny Hoyer to watch out for my interests!
Wow, Uncle Larry, once again you take an inch and make it a mile.
What I am merely saying is that we should not put the "end all and be all" emphasis on founder arguments and that I believe that if anything, the freedoms of the Constitution should be loosely interpreted to include greater freedom not to be narrowly viewed from a 1789 perspective. The biggest difference regarding constitutional interpretation between you and me is that I find that Medicare, Social Security, and other government programs are constitutionally protected by the elastic clause while you hold a more restrictive view of it. Your rant, however, suggests that we are leaps and bounds apart. We, sir, are not.
What I am merely saying is that we should not put the "end all and be all" emphasis on founder arguments and that I believe that if anything, the freedoms of the Constitution should be loosely interpreted to include greater freedom not to be narrowly viewed from a 1789 perspective. The biggest difference regarding constitutional interpretation between you and me is that I find that Medicare, Social Security, and other government programs are constitutionally protected by the elastic clause while you hold a more restrictive view of it. Your rant, however, suggests that we are leaps and bounds apart. We, sir, are not.