Grant Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 The whole POINT of freedom of speech is to allow UNPOPULAR SPEECH. Read that again for effect. Meaning, JimBob, that the fact they offend you is GOOD FOR AMERICA. Just because you disagree doesn't make it "treason". Jeez, what grade did you drop out of? I'm sure the Patriot Act is a great idea, in your opinion, too. Let me ask you.. Is flag burning treason? SHOULD it be? Because in a country supposedly built on revolution, freedom of speech, and letting everyone have a say - even if it's unpopular - that would mean that the ultimate show of "patriotism" is NOT waving your flag; but rather, burning it in protest. THAT would be true American patriotism. Unfortunately, for the blind flag-waving knee-jerk "patriots", they often forget that the most important part of America is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Luckily for them, the current administration seems to be rectifying that as quick as they can! YAY FOR LESS FREEDOM.
JimBob2232 Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 US Constitution (Article III, Section 3): Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort... There is a fine line between a dissenting opinion and treason, I fully understand this distinction. However, once free speech goes so far as to give "Aid and comfort" to our enemies it is BY DEFINITION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, treason. Acts depicted in many of these photos are sedition at best and treason at worst, and might I say, the reason the democratic party is a national party no more.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 US Constitution (Article III, Section 3): Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort... There is a fine line between a dissenting opinion and treason, I fully understand this distinction. However, once free speech goes so far as to give "Aid and comfort" to our enemies it is BY DEFINITION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, treason. Acts depicted in many of these photos are sedition at best and treason at worst, and might I say, the reason the democratic party is a national party no more. 102904[/snapback] Sig heil!
Grant Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 How were those photos giving aid to our enemies at ALL? All they were doing was protesting the current administration. They weren't chanting for Osama bin Laden to bomb the White House; they were just protesting Bush. That isn't treason in the slightest, JimBob.
justnzane Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 I agree with grant here. these people are expressing their feelings about the government. one thing that it should be doing is unifying the people and this administration has failed to do so. Now these protests have been occuring for some time (ones i remember learning in school: black civil rights protests, and anti-Vietnam protests). To generalize, these people as anything other than liberal americans that feel wronged by the national gov't, is KzooMike. Just wait until Bush installs a draft, you'll see a lot more protests then.
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 I agree with grant here. these people are expressing their feelings about the government. one thing that it should be doing is unifying the people and this administration has failed to do so. Now these protests have been occuring for some time (ones i remember learning in school: black civil rights protests, and anti-Vietnam protests). To generalize, these people as anything other than liberal americans that feel wronged by the national gov't, is KzooMike. Just wait until Bush installs a draft, you'll see a lot more protests then. 102926[/snapback] OOH, how I just love the soundbytes. Let's go back to the last Congressional vote on a draft. You know, the one introduced less than 2 months ago. BY DEMOCRATS. The one that failed with only 2 yes votes (both Democrats). Let's keep wondering why the President doesn't reach out to the other side of the aisle. It can't be because they're idiots? Nah.
Buftex Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 OOH, how I just love the soundbytes. Let's go back to the last Congressional vote on a draft. You know, the one introduced less than 2 months ago. BY DEMOCRATS. The one that failed with only 2 yes votes (both Democrats). Let's keep wondering why the President doesn't reach out to the other side of the aisle. It can't be because they're idiots? Nah. 102931[/snapback] AD, you know that Rangel wrote up the draft proposal (and voted against his own bill) to force administrations' hand. It had been rumoured for a few months, that Bush was going to pull a January surprise, by reinstating the draft, should he be re-elected. It put the Republicans (or moreover the president) in the position of having to claim that there would be no draft. He came just short of saying "read my lips, no draft!" Now, I hope to god this is true, but the way things are going over there, and given the presidents' stuborness (which 58 million Americans see as morality), the numbers are not adding up. I doubt there will be a draft, seriously, but this was just an example of political gamesmenship. It was an attempt to place a "wedge issue" into the campaign, not unlike Bush's sudden obsession with gay marriage, and the need to ammend the constitution. It is all gamesmeship, the Republicans won this particular round....idiocy is a non-partisan affliction!
Wacka Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 It's assault on the police and destruction of property. They should be locked up for that.
Campy Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 US Constitution (Article III, Section 3): Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort... There is a fine line between a dissenting opinion and treason, I fully understand this distinction. However, once free speech goes so far as to give "Aid and comfort" to our enemies it is BY DEFINITION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, treason. Acts depicted in many of these photos are sedition at best and treason at worst, and might I say, the reason the democratic party is a national party no more. 102904[/snapback] Three potential problems I see with that interpretation: 1.- Congress has not levied, ie, declared, war. 2.- The definition of "aid and comfort" is open for debate. 3.- Are they truly "adhering" to the enemy, or merely calling for us to leave? What isn't open for debate is that American citizens have the right to speak out against their government. It went too far with that anarchy group going after a cop, but their right to protest, even if they burn the colors, must be defended as vigorously as any other right granted under the Constitution/Bill of Rights. It's where our nation truly shows her strength. We can agree to disagree, but the argument you're using was heard by the Supreme Court some 200 years ago (google Federalists Republicans Sedition Act), and the citizenry's rights were protected then, just as they should be now.
Tux of Borg Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 The American flag is something you put over an American casket, not something you burn at a frat party. It's no different from Hanoi Jane sitting in front of an anti-aircraft gun. Just because our constitution gives you the right to do it, doesn't mean its in good taste.
Campy Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Just because our constitution gives you the right to do it, doesn't mean its in good taste. 103000[/snapback] No argument there.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 The whole POINT of freedom of speech is to allow UNPOPULAR SPEECH. Read that again for effect. So how come it's not OK for a white person to call a black a ni**er? Oh, OK. Freedom of speech is only allowed when it doesn't hurt feelings. This is my problem with your statement.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 So how come it's not OK for a white person to call a black a ni**er? Oh, OK. Freedom of speech is only allowed when it doesn't hurt feelings. This is my problem with your statement. 103022[/snapback] Not to mention 'Hate Crime' legislation. What a crock that is. I go into a McD's and open fire without saying a word, I get charged with X. I go into McD's and open fire and say "I hate ____ and _____" I get charged with X + because of 'Hate Crime' legislation. Why a Supreme Court of any state or even the US Supreme Court hasn't struck down 'Hate Crime' laws as unconstitutional is beyond me and a big factor in why I don't have much faith in the courts anymore.
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 AD, you know that Rangel wrote up the draft proposal (and voted against his own bill) to force administrations' hand. It had been rumoured for a few months, that Bush was going to pull a January surprise, by reinstating the draft, should he be re-elected. It put the Republicans (or moreover the president) in the position of having to claim that there would be no draft. He came just short of saying "read my lips, no draft!" Now, I hope to god this is true, but the way things are going over there, and given the presidents' stuborness (which 58 million Americans see as morality), the numbers are not adding up. I doubt there will be a draft, seriously, but this was just an example of political gamesmenship. It was an attempt to place a "wedge issue" into the campaign, not unlike Bush's sudden obsession with gay marriage, and the need to ammend the constitution. It is all gamesmeship, the Republicans won this particular round....idiocy is a non-partisan affliction! 102935[/snapback] Rangel and a couple of other liberaltards have been openly calling for a draft for YEARS. They use the ridiculous excuse of it being the only fair way to ensure that children of the rich serve. As has been shown ad nauseum, that isn't even close to the case. Simply more political posturing from people who best know how to pander to the terminally stupid. I didn't say idiocy doesn't affect the Republicans. However, I do happen to agree with many of their campaign platforms. I just recognize that they don't practice what they preach.
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Why a Supreme Court of any state or even the US Supreme Court hasn't struck down 'Hate Crime' laws as unconstitutional is beyond me and a big factor in why I don't have much faith in the courts anymore. 103033[/snapback] Because Civil Rights are not considered unconstitutional.
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Because Civil Rights are not considered unconstitutional. 103051[/snapback] It has little to do with Civil Rights. There are more than enough laws on the books to cover crime. Adding years to someone's murder sentence for killing someone who's a different color, religion, etc plays into the hands of racists, giving credence to their bully pulpit.
DC Tom Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 It has little to do with Civil Rights. There are more than enough laws on the books to cover crime. Adding years to someone's murder sentence for killing someone who's a different color, religion, etc plays into the hands of racists, giving credence to their bully pulpit. 103060[/snapback] Don't forget that it's a one-way street, too. White man kills a !@#$, it's a hate-crime. Black man kills a cracker, it's just murder.
Gene Frenkle Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Don't forget that it's a one-way street, too. White man kills a !@#$, it's a hate-crime. Black man kills a cracker, it's just murder. 103066[/snapback] Did you reall just type that?
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Posted November 5, 2004 Did you reall just type that? 103084[/snapback] What's wrong with it? It's pretty much dead nutz. I suppose he could have used hyphenated words to make the same point, but those are the things that have sterilized the predicament and given the Dummycrats credence to push this BS.
Recommended Posts