Do You Support A Constitutional Amendment to Ban

[ieatcrayonz]

I was going to do a poll on who believes Ed has really gotten laid. But who are we kidden, Ed couldn't get laid at a Madonna convention

 

But on a more serious note. What do people think about flag desecration? Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

[Alaska Darin]

My $.02 on the subject:

 

Freedom doesn't cover the majority. It truly is the place where the minority flourishes and truly show their worth (right or wrong). At the end of the day, the ability to consider the alternative argument is more important than disagreeing wholeheartedly with it. There is no greater statement of Freedom than the allowance to burn the symbol of same.

[KRT88]

I'd don't support one. Though I would never burn my own flag in protest I do feel you have the right to as part of your freedom of speech.

 

I also don't support a new constitutional amendment that would allow foreign born individuals to run for President. Therefore no Arnold in the White House!

[KRC]

I'd don't support one.  Though I would never burn my own flag in protest I do feel you have the right to as part of your freedom of speech.

 

I also don't support a new constitutional amendment that would allow foreign born individuals to run for President.  Therefore no Arnold in the White House!

358927[/snapback]

 

So, you believe in freedom of speech, but only for the people born here?

 

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S. Sorry, can't do it.

[Cugalabanza]

1. I'm against the ammendment because it would unnecessarily restrict freedom.

 

2. It would be ridiculous because it would actually CAUSE many people to burn the flag in protest.

 

 

Absolutely no need for this. I don't see flag burning as a serious problem in my life (or anybody's) right now.

[ch19079]

at first i thaught, any mother fu*ker who doesnt like america can get the fu*k out!.

 

but then i realized that that view was absolutly asinine.

 

the who "free speach" idea is one of the most basic rights of americans. getting to say what i want about our government and such, means i have to also hear about other peoples views and beliefs.

 

 

civil wars are faught over free speach.

[ch19079]

So, you believe in freedom of speech, but only for the people born here? 

 

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S.  Sorry, can't do it.

358935[/snapback]

i dont know about that. if, when you were born, your parents (or parent) were (was) a US citizen, than you are automatically a citizen of the US. even if you are technically born "out side of the US". (i think).

 

but say a soldier, stationed out side of the US, had a child with his wife (or even girl friend) say in india or something. that child is a US citizen and can be president.

 

and if 1 parent is a citizen while the other is not, i think that kid would have a citizenship in 2 countries. and i think he can even pick which one hes wants. (or the parents can).

 

i think the "foreign born" part means that you had to be born a citizen of the US. and not simply move here and then get citizenship.

 

i DEFIANTLY do NOT believe you shoudl change a LAW for 1 man, no matter how popular he may be.

[Fezmid]

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S.  Sorry, can't do it.

 

Except that those service people are on US bases, which are considered US territory and thus the children would be US citizens.

 

CW

[KRC]

Except that those service people are on US bases, which are considered US territory and thus the children would be US citizens.

 

CW

358955[/snapback]

 

I stand corrected.

 

Title 18 Section 1401:

* Anyone born inside the United States

* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

[Beerball]

So, you believe in freedom of speech, but only for the people born here? 

 

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S.  Sorry, can't do it.

358935[/snapback]

Keeping those born to service people out of the mix (noted by another that they are citizens) this one has outlived its purpose. Way back when I can understand not wanting an Englishman to come over here and get elected. Today? Not an issue.

[beausox]

Some things are so basic to the community, so entwined to the culture that serious analysis is not necessary. Hume commented as much concerning marriage which he thought was so much an ingrained, obvious underpinning of society that it was beyond self-evident. I am sure david would have included ones flag, the symbol of ones land among such matters that need not reflection.

So sad today..............

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Some things are so basic to the community, so entwined to the culture that serious analysis is not necessary. Hume commented as much concerning marriage which he thought was so much an ingrained, obvious underpinning of society that it was beyond self-evident. I am sure david would have included ones flag, the symbol of ones land among such matters that need not reflection.

So sad today..............

358991[/snapback]

 

What the !@#$? Babelfish needs to get a beausox to English translator...

[Johnny Coli]

Some things are so basic to the community, so entwined to the culture that serious analysis is not necessary. Hume commented as much concerning marriage which he thought was so much an ingrained, obvious underpinning of society that it was beyond self-evident. I am sure david would have included ones flag, the symbol of ones land among such matters that need not reflection.

So sad today..............

358991[/snapback]

I believe he (beausox) is waxing poetic about David Hume, the conservative 18th century philosopher. Hume

 

In particular, he may be refering to Hume's philosophy regarding "Utilitarianism".

From the same link:

Hume's proto-utilitarianism is a peculiar one from our perspective. He doesn't think that the aggregation of cardinal units of utility provides a formula for arriving at moral truth. On the contrary, Hume was a moral sentimentalist and, as such, thought that moral principles could not be intellectually justified. Some principles simply appeal to us and others don't; and the reason why utilitarian moral principles do appeal to us is that they promote our interests and those of our fellows, with whom we sympathize. Humans are hard-wired to approve of things that help society – public utility. Hume used this insight to explain how we evaluate a wide array of phenomena, ranging from social institutions and government policies to character traits and talents.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I believe he (beausox) is waxing poetic about David Hume, the conservative 18th century philosopher.  Hume

 

In particular, he may be refering to Hume's philosophy regarding "Utilitarianism".

From the same link:

Hume's proto-utilitarianism is a peculiar one from our perspective. He doesn't think that the aggregation of cardinal units of utility provides a formula for arriving at moral truth. On the contrary, Hume was a moral sentimentalist and, as such, thought that moral principles could not be intellectually justified. Some principles simply appeal to us and others don't; and the reason why utilitarian moral principles do appeal to us is that they promote our interests and those of our fellows, with whom we sympathize. Humans are hard-wired to approve of things that help society – public utility. Hume used this insight to explain how we evaluate a wide array of phenomena, ranging from social institutions and government policies to character traits and talents.

359057[/snapback]

 

And to quote Hume's views on flag-burning:

 

 

Nothing says "Look at me, I'm !@#$ing stupid!" like taking off on an irrelevant tangent using language butchered to the point of incomprehensibility.

[KRC]

Nothing says "Look at me, I'm !@#$ing stupid!" like taking off on an irrelevant tangent using language butchered to the point of incomprehensibility.

359062[/snapback]

 

You are just jealous that you are not on the same intellectual plane as beausox.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You are just jealous that you are not on the same intellectual plane as beausox.

359067[/snapback]

 

For which I say: Thank God.

[Johnny Coli]

Nothing says "Look at me, I'm !@#$ing stupid!" like taking off on an irrelevant tangent using language butchered to the point of incomprehensibility.

359062[/snapback]

True. I was making an attempt to crack open the black box that is Beausox' mind.

 

Taking many of his posts as a whole, his MO seems to take a topic, make a loose association which not many can understand or take the time to check on, then drive the thread in a new direction to espouse his own views.

 

In this post, he used the flag-burning issue to drop the name of Hume, then mention something about marriage, which has nothing to do with the topic.

It's pretty interesting.

[IBTG81]

I was going to do a poll on who believes Ed has really gotten laid.  But who are we kidden, Ed couldn't get laid at a Madonna convention 

 

But on a more serious note.  What do people think about flag desecration?  Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

358912[/snapback]

 

Dude, if you're going to insult me, please don't be a kitty and say it under your "normal" name.

 

Even better, why don't you say it to my face. We'll see who's laughing then.

[rockpile]

But on a more serious note.  What do people think about flag desecration?  Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

358912[/snapback]

It is despicable but is it unconstitutional?

 

From Wikpedia: "Constitutionality is the status of a law, procedure, or act being in accordance with the laws or guidelines contained in a constitution.

 

When something is unconstitutional it is illegal by being a direct violation of a constitution; it is constitutional when it is in accordance with a constitution."

 

Can anyone cite where in the constitution, banning flag desecration is justified?

 

I am interested in the debate.

[KRC]

Taking many of his posts as a whole, his MO seems to take a topic, make a loose association which not many can understand or take the time to check on, then drive the thread in a new direction to espouse his own views.

359071[/snapback]

 

To me, his MO is that he is trying to sound more intelligent than he really is. I do not think that he is trying to shift the discussion, at least not intentionally.