Burning the flag is illegal: a constitutional amendment

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, July 2, 2005 02:01
VIEWED: 16637
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

OPUS

Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If nothing else we're being conned out of the tax dollars these clowns are getting paid to waste their time on this kind of nonsense. I'm just saying, that with all the hypocrisy and deceit practiced my both major parties, how is it that people keep voting for republicans OR democrats? Doesn't it irk you to vote for people who play these kinds of games rather than working on real solutions to real problems?

Political parties of all flavors do it, be they dem,repub,green, freedom...etc..in the past it was even worse.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:22 AM

Guess I'm just wondering why that makes it ok. Plus, I don't see any other parties doing it, besides the republicrats. You might argue that the only reason for that is that the other parties aren't in power, but why should would put up with it at all? Why don't we ask for more?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:40 AM

There are decent people in both parties who are trying to look our for what they think is best for the nation: Feingold, Conyers, McCain... They deserve our support. Unfortunately, the rest are just playing games. {Insert an emoticon for someone jacking off }

It has a lot to do with the system, because the need for money to run a campaign winnows out the honest. The only way to level the playing field is to require that major news outlets (especially televsion stations who receive their licenses from the FCC on the basis of promoting the "common good") provide free air time for all viable candidates. (And then, there should be a tow-week "cooling off" period before the vote, because that is typically when campaigns become hysterical)

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:20 AM

Maybe. I think we need major voting reform. The winner-take-all voting system demands an 'other-of-two-evils' voting strategy that keeps us forever propping up the entrenched powers. I can't even get very interested in the process of democracy under the current system. It's a farce.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, this is pretty far off topic.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WORKEROFEVIL

Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:40 AM

Opus,
I don't think NAMBLA has the right to publish something describing how to have sex with a child and get away with it. The reason is not because the idea is incredibly, incredibly reprehensible (which it is), but because they are encouraging a crime. You're not allowed to engage in speech that encourages criminal behavior. I wouldn't be allowed to stand up and tell people that they should form a mob and lynch NAMBLA members (although it's not a bad idea) because I'm inciting violence. Free speech can be limited if it poses a clear and present danger to others. Flag burning doesn't. I think it's ineffective because the message the protestors are trying to convey tends to get lost, but it's not dangerous.

OPUS

Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WorkerOfEvil:
Opus,
I don't think NAMBLA has the right to publish something describing how to have sex with a child and get away with it. The reason is not because the idea is incredibly, incredibly reprehensible (which it is), but because they are encouraging a crime. You're not allowed to engage in speech that encourages criminal behavior. I wouldn't be allowed to stand up and tell people that they should form a mob and lynch NAMBLA members (although it's not a bad idea) because I'm inciting violence. Free speech can be limited if it poses a clear and present danger to others. Flag burning doesn't. I think it's ineffective because the message the protestors are trying to convey tends to get lost, but it's not dangerous.

The ACLU would disagree with you about Nambla, they've defended them on numerous occasions.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:39 PM

Free speech does not apply to Children. We sometimes like to talk about children having rights, but effectively they do not. So where is the freedom in defending NAMBLA’s right to freedom of expression if it adversely influences a segment of the population that do not even have the same freedom of expression? That’s not freedom. That’s tyranny. That the ACLU doesn’t seem to understand this makes me very suspicious of them.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

OPUS

Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Guess I'm just wondering why that makes it ok. Plus, I don't see any other parties doing it, besides the republicrats. You might argue that the only reason for that is that the other parties aren't in power, but why should would put up with it at all? Why don't we ask for more?

Didn't say it was OK, just that that is the way it is and always has been.
As for other parties doing it, how about Rangel proposing to reinstitute the draft, a bill he knew wouldn't pass. The Dems opposing judicial nominations for purely political reasons, and Howard Deans recent remarks...well it could go on and on. It really has nothing to do if a party is in power or not.

OPUS

Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Free speech does not apply to Children. We sometimes like to talk about children having rights, but effectively they do not. So where is the freedom in defending NAMBLA’s right to freedom of expression if it adversely influences a segment of the population that do not even have the same freedom of expression? That’s not freedom. That’s tyranny. That the ACLU doesn’t seem to understand this makes me very suspicious of them.

It's been awhile, but if I remember correctly they like to argue that you have to prove a cause and effect. Meaning you would have to prove, first..that their literature and preaching directly caused a childs rape, and then that was the intent of the literature. I could be wrong though. If their literature is found on a pedophile they'll also try to suppress the evidence of such books.
I think most people would do well to look into the ACLU's history, such as who founded it and why.

OPUS

Sunday, June 26, 2005 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe. I think we need major voting reform. The winner-take-all voting system demands an 'other-of-two-evils' voting strategy that keeps us forever propping up the entrenched powers. I can't even get very interested in the process of democracy under the current system. It's a farce.

It's not a winner take all system, how much power either party has is determined on who's elected across the board, you can have one party hold the presidency and another controling the congress.
If you're talking about having more prominant third, fourth or more parties, do you really want a congressmen or president who could get elected with only 25% of the vote? Someone could hold office that 75% of the people didn't vote for.
Democracy is messy, IMHO there should be term limits for the congress just as there is for the presidency.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE