Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Well...this is a thread about Fag Burning, isn't it? 359218[/snapback] Oh, for the days of the :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smiley.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I support a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the litany of unConstitutional laws that have been passed over the last 50 years or so. 359366[/snapback] What are the chances that would even make it out of committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 like someone said above, I'd be against such an amendment is a restriction of freedom of speech however for the liberals who are all gung ho about burning our flag, they should shut their faces koran desecration 359264[/snapback] i think it would be good to not have a ban....because then all the commie liberals that do decide they want to burn it, can have their names and/or images added to the Homeland Security "Sh1t List". 359343[/snapback] Either of you lads want to point to a single post in this thread by a "commie liberal" who is advocating we burn the flag, or are "gung ho" about burning the flag? I see a ton of posts by liberals, libertarians and conservatives suggesting we uphold freedom of speech, but I don't see a single post suggesting it is an acceptable or encouraged behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Hellz no I dont' support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 No. But exercising your right to free speech in such a manner in my presence will have consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 No. But exercising your right to free speech in such a manner in my presence will have consequences. 359790[/snapback] Yep. The perp is gonna need a proctologist and I'm gonna need a podiatrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 For the eligibility of presidential candidates discussion - Article 2 of the Constitution states you must be the following: 1. A natural born Citizen (yes, foreign-born children of US citizens are US citizens) 2. 35 years old 3. A resident within the United States at least 14 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 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] Can I burn this stupid thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Personally, I am for it, although I do have some reservations about it. I do understand where the people against it are coming from- if it ever is to happen, it should be by popular vote- which is not standard procedure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Can I burn this stupid thread? 359810[/snapback] You're either with us or against us, commie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 And we need this amendment because of all the flag burning we see everyday in America? We don't need such an amendment. Even more importantly, as an American I find would find it offensive that we would need to raise the flag to a sacred or constitutional status. Any symbol is a poor substitute for the force of the ideas already in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Either of you lads want to point to a single post in this thread by a "commie liberal" who is advocating we burn the flag, or are "gung ho" about burning the flag? I see a ton of posts by liberals, libertarians and conservatives suggesting we uphold freedom of speech, but I don't see a single post suggesting it is an acceptable or encouraged behavior. 359461[/snapback] you are right, but i would add, even though i think there are "commie liberals" on this board, i wan't referring to anyone specifically. UNLESS of course, some of the Commie Liberals on this board have spent some of their free time burning flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 you are right, but i would add, even though i think there are "commie liberals" on this board, i wan't referring to anyone specifically. UNLESS of course, some of the Commie Liberals on this board have spent some of their free time burning flags. 359884[/snapback] I've burned a few commie liberals. Does that count? And no, there should NOT be an ammendment towards burning the flag. First ammendment aside, that is one very steep and greasy slippery slope. Look what happened the last time someone got a "feel good" special interest ammendment passed. It gave us organized crime (and a lot of Canadian whiskey). Had to be repealed. This country has too much of a salted peanuts mentality. Let something like this pass, and you'll have 10 more ignorant ammendments within the next decade. If it's OK to usurp the first ammendment by an end around, what's to prevent doing the same to the second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 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. 359071[/snapback] Hey! E-Coli! Should I have taken credit for Hume's thought? This is a politics board. Hume is one of the greatest Political Philosophers. The reason that you will never find Hume mentioning flag-burning is because he could not conceive discussing such a thing! However he would further believe that a rational discussion of something so second nature to our nature is an admission that the other side whether gay marriage or legal flag burning is worthy. Some things he would aver are worthy of our disregard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Hey! E-Coli! Should I have taken credit for Hume's thought? This is a politics board. Hume is one of the greatest Political Philosophers. The reason that you will never find Hume mentioning flag-burning is because he could not conceive discussing such a thing! However he would further believe that a rational discussion of something so second nature to our nature is an admission that the other side whether gay marriage or legal flag burning is worthy. Some things he would aver are worthy of our disregard. 360505[/snapback] In other words, your opinion on flag burning is "I can quote Hume, who never said anything about it, therefore it's not worthy of discussing, even though I'm discussing it..." Uhhhh...right. What the hell's wrong with you? Most people, in the absence of original thought, would borrow opinions from other people. You admit to consciously choosing to borrow from someone who you admit never expressed an opinion on it. My God, man...you're so friggin' stupid, you can't even plagirize correctly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Hey! E-Coli! Should I have taken credit for Hume's thought? This is a politics board. Hume is one of the greatest Political Philosophers. The reason that you will never find Hume mentioning flag-burning is because he could not conceive discussing such a thing! However he would further believe that a rational discussion of something so second nature to our nature is an admission that the other side whether gay marriage or legal flag burning is worthy. Some things he would aver are worthy of our disregard. 360505[/snapback] I rest my case. Your best defense was to not take the stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 rational discussion of something so second nature to our nature is an admission that the other side whether gay marriage or legal flag burning is worthy. 360505[/snapback] Anyone a mondo-tard speaker who can translate this abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Anyone a mondo-tard speaker who can translate this abortion? 360587[/snapback] Not a fuggin chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Anyone a mondo-tard speaker who can translate this abortion? 360587[/snapback] I'll take a stab at this one. I believe he is saying that discussing something that is truly absurd lends legitamacy to it. This was the tactic that the scientists down in Kansas recently took when confronted with the Intelligent Design theory. Instead of going to the hearings, they refused to go on the premise that debating something so entirely stupid as the "theory" of intelligent design would legitamize it. Notice how I took the initial statement by beausox, translated it into something that most people would recognize as a sentence, then used an actual relevant event to serve as an example. Did that help at all, AD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I'll take a stab at this one. I believe he is saying that discussing something that is truly absurd lends legitamacy to it. This was the tactic that the scientists down in Kansas recently took when confronted with the Intelligent Design theory. Instead of going to the hearings, they refused to go on the premise that debating something so entirely stupid as the "theory" of intelligent design would legitamize it. Notice how I took the initial statement by beausox, translated it into something that most people would recognize as a sentence, then used an actual relevant event to serve as an example. Did that help at all, AD? 360597[/snapback] This reminds me of the beer commercials with the lizard and the ferret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts