 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The treasonous US Constitution
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Donuel Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:43 AM A free press* is now an enemy to the USA and is being called upon to face explicit charges of treason by members of Congress following a Bush plea, "can anyone rid me of these traitors?". *the New York Times...not FOX. Monitoring money transfers after 9-11 was not unknown to me. A simple wire tranfer of $20,000 outside the US normally took 2 - 48 hours. After 9-11 it took me 2 weeks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: freda underhill Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:53 AM Censorship – The American Version |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:44 AM How about we move to, say, Cambodia, North Korea or even China in order to get away from all these problems? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:53 AM The NYT will be stabbed in Canterbury Cathedral, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Susu's Hubby Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:00 AM Oh...so if somebody from the administration leaks classified information then it's "Let's find the SOB and indict him and send him to prison." But since the NYT did the same thing, after being asked not to by the administration because of security concerns, then it's ok? You know, I don't need ceiling fans in my house. The breeze off of all of your spinning moral compass' is keeping me cool enough. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: mack/misophist Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:03 AM Jefferson once said something along the lines of "Given the choice between a free press and a government, give me a free press." The man was almost never wrong! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: artbrooks Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:04 AM To me, at least, a statement loses all validity and becomes a meaningless rant as soon as it becomes factually inaccurate. This is true regardless of whether it is coming from the right left or center. In the statement Freda linked to, the author says that the US Supreme Court ruled to dismantle the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech to those whistle-blowers who are public employees and who expose corruption and injustices discovered during the course of their official duties. It fact, in this decision (Garvetti v. Cebellos) the Court carefully distinguishes between Constitutionally-protected speech by government employees and internal memos which are subject to review and criticism by one's supervisors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:07 AM How about GUEST and Susu's Hubby try a new trick. The old one is getting tiresome. When a substantive question is raised, unimaginative drones of the conservatives always come up with something like, "try living in North Korea". Or they pull Hubby's "you guys are inconsistent". Shows a lack of intellectual depth. So here goes. How about you deal with the question? How do you justify violating our most sacred document, and one of the defining principles of our Republic (a free press)? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Susu's Hubby Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:14 AM Mick, The same argument goes both ways. Why not address the inconsistencies being shown in order to try and influence someone? Otherwise, you're making yourselves out to be complete morons. (Which I know is not the case.) Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:22 AM The term Free Press is worth investigating. At one time the press was delivered by very independent newspapers, served by reporters and columnists that reported the news, and allowed people to make up their own minds on issues. Although some were controlled the very independent nature of the media made it easily available and varied. Today's press can be very politically biased, and generally includes corporate political agenda attached to their content. Electronic media is no different. Trying to find a source that gives factual news reporting without the addition of emotional based commentary in the delivery is very rare. Unfortunately, the media of today is not free, and rarely follows the dictates of good sense and human decency. The one great exception in modern communications is the internet, which could prove to be the best source of international freedom of information ever produced. I pray that it proves to be what Jefferson alluded to. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:45 AM I'd like to think so Dave but I fear we will move further and further away from any notions of a "free Internet" over time. I suspect those of us who do live in countries where content is not already heavily censored have seen its best days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 27 Jun 06 - 11:21 AM The one saving grace of the internet is the ability to communicate directly and freely with other people in those countries. The controls may apply to information sites, but individual communication between friends is a great leveller. I have seen the days when I got one or two phone calls home in three months, and letters take weeks to be delivered, but now I can communicate same day/hour/minute with my brother in South Africa, my neice in Wisconsin, and friends in England. Despite attempts to control people, the fast flow of information worldwide tends to beat the systems so far. we live in hope Jon. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Paul Burke Date: 27 Jun 06 - 11:46 AM I don't think there was ever a time in the USA, the UK or anywhere else when newspapers followed "the dictates of good sense and human decency". All the accounts I have read (mostly concerning the 25 years or so before the Civil War) describe the American press of the 19th century as highly bigoted and partisan. In the later 19th century, they were the playthings of a powerful oligarchy. The same was largely true of Britain. I suspect those who wish to restrict the press do not do so in the interests of human decency, but in order to impose their own bias and restrict reporting of opposing views or inconvenient facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Amos Date: 27 Jun 06 - 12:28 PM Trampling the spirit and principle of the Constitution is second nature to the Gang in the House. To decry the publication of information that reflects poorly on the government as "shameful" is about as meretricious and self-serving a statement as Bush could have come up with. What is shameful is resorting to desperate ways and means to bypass civil protections and the process of law, suspend habeas corpus, and indulge in varieties of barbarian extremism that make the loudlyu promoted "values" of our "blessed life-style" appear hollow and hypocritical. This is not something Mister Bush and his cadre can be expected to be sensitive to. Which is why voting for him was a deep mistake. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: CarolC Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:20 PM How about we move to, say, Cambodia, North Korea or even China in order to get away from all these problems? Pretty soon we won't need to because the US will have become essentially the same as them. Unless, of course, we do something to prevent it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:23 PM Hear! Hear! Revolution Now! Bring the war home! Kill a Connie for Christ! A la Guillotine! Or we could just go work for the candidate of our choice and vote this November. Nah, not exciting enough, the elections are crooked, everyone has sold out, maybe we should demonstrate and try to find out why but demonstrations are a drag and besides.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:11 PM I cried when they shot Medgar Evers Tears ran down my spine I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy As though I'd lost a father of mine But Malcolm X got what was coming He got what he asked for this time So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal I go to civil rights rallies And I put down the old D.A.R. I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy I hope every colored boy becomes a star But don't talk about revolution That's going a little too far So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal I cheered when Humphrey was chosen My faith in the system restored I'm glad the commies were thrown out Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board I love Puerto Ricans and Negros As long as they don't move next door So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal The people of old Mississippi Should all hang their heads in shame I can't understand how their minds work What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane? But if you ask me to bus my children I hope the cops take down your name So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal I read New Republic and Nation I take every conceivable every view You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden I feel like I'm almost a Jew But when it comes to times like Korea There's no one more red, white and blue So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal I vote for the democtratic party They want the U.N. to be strong I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts He sure gets me singing those songs I'll send all the money you ask for But don't ask me to come on along So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal Once I was young and impulsive I wore every conceivable pin Even went to the socialist meetings Learned all the old union hymns But I've grown older and wiser And that's why I'm turning you in So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:28 PM You could at least credit Phil. Also, "Here's To The State of Richard Nixon", "I Ain't Marching Anymore" "I Kill Therefore I Am" and particularly "Cops of The World" might be more to the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:44 PM Hubby - your analogy is just dumb. When someone in The Administration (whose **job** involves knowing and keeping-secret classified information) reveals state secrets that is treason. When someone in the press (whose **job** it is to find information and disseminate it) learns of possible illegal activity by the government and writes of it, that is the US Constitution at work. Now lets pretend yours was not a stupid analogy. Are you saying then that whoever leaked Ms. Wilson's identity is (in the words of Dick Cheyney today) "disgraceful"? Remeber, the hypocrisy police are listening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:53 PM Query 1: is it Bubby or his analogy that is dumb and stupid? Query 2: Has Bubby ever read the United States Constitution? Query 3: Does Bubby ever actually realize what he is saying? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jun 06 - 12:11 AM Sorry about that. I thought I'd credited Phil. He deserves A LOT of credit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: kendall Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:07 AM I see that the vote to ban flag burning failed in the Senate. Does it strike anyone else that banning the burning of the flag is a violation of our first amendment right? Which is more important, the constitution or a symbol? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:12 AM Agreed, Kendall. Passing the amendment would have increased the burning. I heard there were maybe 8 in the past 5 years? It's no fun when it's not illegal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:53 AM I believe that the essence of our country is our right to freedom of expression. The fact that we can burn our flag in protest, or fly it upside down in protest, is what differentiates us from others. It is a founding principle of our country. To be against the right to burn the flag is, in the opinion of this veteran, is to be unpatriotic. It disgusts me to see people desecrate our flag. It disgusts me more to see people who are in trouble politically try to use the right to free expression as a political red herring. To my brothers and sisters in arms, can't you see that we served to preserve the right to this??? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jun 06 - 12:56 PM Shucks, Mick, I don't care if they burn the flag. I just think it should be a) treated as any other outdoor burning (permit, etc.), and b) limited to where it can be done: I suggest outside the offices of military recruiters, outside police and fire stations, outside Union Halls, and outside the buildings of the local veterans' organizations. If you're going to do it, at least have the courage of your convictions.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Amos Date: 28 Jun 06 - 01:04 PM It is absolutely typical of the current Administration's yen to be moral dictators from a small worldview in ignorance or spite of the broader values the Constitution requires of them. That Bush, and probably others, swore an oath to uphold the Constitution implies a pre-requisite that they have read and understood the doucment, and it is patently obvious they have done neither. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 28 Jun 06 - 03:28 PM I am sure that there are some people who would like to express their freedom of expression by urinating on Hillary Clinton, but such an activity is socially unnacceptable, as well as illegal. Burning a flag is very similar to this in my opinion. To veterans who fought for the flag, died for it and were buried under it, they reserve the right to protect it, and if passing a law banning such activity is passed I agree with it. Burning a flag is arson, and a careless, dangerous activity. The flames can destroy and injur more than the physical body. The flames of disgust and anger it produces cannot be extiguished easily either. Burning a flag should only be done with reverence, as a means to destroy an old flag that has been worn out. Use other means of expression, flag burning is not socially acceptable to a large number of your fellow human beings. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Jun 06 - 03:45 PM People don't die for a flag, they die for what that flag represents. That's what's "sacred", not the bit of cloth. When a country goes along with an administration that betrays the principles that the flag represents, that surely is an act of desecration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jun 06 - 03:59 PM Flag Etiquette "The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property." Such as protesting that our nation is in grave danger(my thoughts) "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." Whe the nation is no longer fit to fly the flag then it should be burned in protest (my thoughts) Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Amos Date: 28 Jun 06 - 04:06 PM Well, it's important to be polite about the symbols people use, usually. But that's a cultural matter and should have NO place in the Constitution which was built on a much grander perspective and a deeper understanding of how things work. At what point should an individual speak out about travesty or degradation of national ideals -- which are represented by the flag and which when corrupted, betray what it presumably stands for? Barry, are you suggesting we should burn the nation? :>) Seems a bit extreme!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: kendall Date: 28 Jun 06 - 04:18 PM I served under that banner, I did not serve IT! I served the nation it represents and the constitution of a great nation. It is so obvious that the republicans are in dire need of something to help them continue the ruination of this country, and you can bet your ass they will be wrapping themselves in the flag in a desperate appeal to the rednecks and the knuckledragger's votes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 28 Jun 06 - 04:43 PM Anyone who desecrates a flag (of any nation) by burning, pissing on them or otherwise loses my respect and my support for their position. They are a symbol of the country and people, not the elected government. I repeat, it serves little purpose, but can inflame ordinary people who respect that symbol and might otherwise support your position. There are better ways of expressing your freedom of speech. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jun 06 - 04:50 PM Hi Kendall, you old cutie. You well know that them wrapping themselves in the flag goes against "flag etiquette" & they've been trying to do that for some time now. Bush was pretty SUCKsessfull on with this a few years back. Now if they could just take a dive off a high building wrapped in the flag that would be exceptable etiquette. Hey Amos, I'm not preaching armed or firery revolution, just whatever type of fire it takes to get the word across & the job done. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Susu's Hubby Date: 28 Jun 06 - 06:14 PM Dave, I respect your opinion on the issue but I think you're a little misguided. Not wrong but maybe just not seeing all sides. There was a thread on this very subject here last year. Here's the link. Flag burning........yes or no? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 28 Jun 06 - 06:23 PM Dave, following your logic then, it would be wrong to have burned the Nazi flag? It is the principle we fought, got wounded for, and died for. I resent folks using patriotism as the litmus test on this issue. You don't know me, but I assure you that I have sacrifice much in service to my country. I resent the hell out of folks impugning my patriotism because I disagree on the subject. As has been stated already, I didn't fight and risk my life for that flag. It is a bit a cloth. I risked my life, served my country, for what I believed that flag represented. I am angry at these people who act as though they have the only view that matters. They are fond of telling us what the founding fathers would be angry about. IMO, they would be very angry at this proposed amendment. They would say, IMO, that it flies in the face of the very principles they sought to enshrine. I repeat. If you are for this amendment, you are unpatriotic. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jun 06 - 07:33 PM Obviously it needs to be said again, for the eleventy-umpteenth time. People like Susu's Hubby and George W. Bush need to tattoo it backwards on their foreheads so that every time they look in a mirror they can read it yet again until eventually they get it—if, indeed, they would ever get it. There is an essential difference between the Constitution and the Law. The difference—which they would be fully aware of had they managed to stay awake in their high school civics classes—is this: The Constitution places constraints upon the government, not the citizenry. The Law covers both the government and the citizenry. 1. The government is free to do only that which is specifically permitted by the Constitution. 2. A citizen is free to do anything he or she wishes, unless it is specifically forbidden by the Law. And if a member of the government breaks a law, he or she is just as liable as any other citizen. Although the Constitution applies only to the actions of the government, the Law applies to all citizens, including government officials, elected or appointed. That includes Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. The Constitution is not to be used for legislation. Amendments aimed at restricting the actions of citizens, such as the ones proposed having to do with flag burning and gay marriage, do not belong in the Constitution. Obviously those who wish to use the Constitution for that purpose—including the current president—do not understand what the Constitution is all about and are amply demonstrating that fact. George W. Bush and other members of the Bush administration took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. And look at the pig's breakfast they're trying to make of it! The Constitution is an impediment to tyrants. That's why we have it. And that's why there are those who want to get rid of it, or water it down until it ceases to have meaning. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: frogprince Date: 28 Jun 06 - 07:54 PM Almost everyone says something I agree with sometime, and Susu's Hubby did so at 6:14. As I read Dave the Ancient Mariner's post, I also don't agree with it fully; but I think I get what is in his heart, and if I thought Bush was speaking from similar honest feelings I would at least respect his intentions. But, so far as the appropriateness of the proposed amendment, Don Firth has it nailed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST,mrdux (at the office) Date: 28 Jun 06 - 08:03 PM Don -- I agree completely, but I fear that, in this particular instance, Susu's Hubby may have been tarred with the wrong brush. I went back to his comments of last year, about this same time (see link above), and he wrote: "I believe in the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Even those who I do not agree with have a right and a duty to speak up for what they do not agree with. If they feel that burning the flag is what they need to do in order to express how they feel, then by all means, burn two of them if it makes them feel better and to help to get their message across." michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 28 Jun 06 - 09:30 PM I, too, am a veteran (11B40, no less). I did not swear allegiance to cloth, but to the Country for which it stands. And burning the flag of the US or any other nation bothers me greatly. But burn away, if it makes you feel better. But remember that each right has responsibilities and if you take an action you also must accept the consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Jun 06 - 09:33 PM Of course with most national flags you can't fly them upside down as a distress signal, because they look just the same either way up. The countries concerned seem to get by without having that facility. I was reading a stiry about how most flags these days are made in China, and they have to step up the production line when countries do something that makes people inclined to burn them. Stars and Stripes and Union Jacks are big sellers in that respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Jun 06 - 09:47 PM "if a member of the government breaks a law, he or she is just as liable as any other citizen" Ha! the Queensland Parliament now has just 'amemded' things so that it is no longer an offence for an elected member to lie to the Parliament... Way ahead of you silly Yankees! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:05 PM You raise an interesting point Big Mick. The Nazi flag symbolized the government of Germany during a short period. My father and mother buried dead Germans under it, and never pissed on it or burned it in public to my knowledge. The flags that flew over the Bismarck, and Graf Spee, were made in Birmingham England prior to 1939. What does it serve to desecrate them now in front of a conquered people? Such actions serve small purpose, and only anger and inflame passions and extremists. Such actions do not sway public opinion in favour of your cause, they can and do turn people away from hearing your message. I do not question anyone's patriotism on this site, but my comments stand unchanged, there are much more appropriate ways of expressing yourself. Mick, I assure you I'm no stranger to sacrifice myself, and I have served under many flags. I have hauled them up, and hauled them down all my life, taking great care to never let them drag in the dirt whilst doing so. I know you understand why I do that Mick, and when asked by some, why I do it? merely reply "sheer ignorance Sir/Ma'am" Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 28 Jun 06 - 11:39 PM Yeah, Dave, I do understand. But in America, let us say that a group of folks who had lost family and friends in the Nazi Death Camps decided to express their displeasure with the German Nazi's in power by burning a Nazi flag. That would be considered a simple expression of anger over the policies of that government. One of the beauties of the American experiment is that we can also do that with something as sacred to us as our own flag and as a protest against our own government. It is one of the things that makes us unique. Courts have always upheld such acts as an expression of free speech. Strange as it may seem, it lends vibrancy to our form of government. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Slag Date: 29 Jun 06 - 02:21 AM Treasonous US Constitution? It was the Declaration of Independence that was treasonous. Today's news media more resembles Himmler's propaganda machine than a "free press". It's where all the little leftist parrots pick up their word for the day. The current theme is "We hate Bush so much that we'd rather see our country become a totalitarian Muslim state than tolerate one more second of George W. Bush. So much for intellectual honesty. I know my bias and I freely admit it. I try to stick close to the Founders' concepts and motivations for creating this country and I guess that makes me a conservative. They tried to be as broad and inclusive as possible to represent a broad and diverse population. So what is wrong with the media, the print media in particular that they will only tolerate one view or at best, they create a straw man out of an opposing view? What happened to the concept of a market place of ideas? I see only the "left" in print. What happened to the ideal that "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Instead its, ridicule, hatred, "shout 'em down", exclusion, etc., all tactics that work against the ideals of freedom and democracy. That said, the thing here is that we are at war. We are engaged in a war for our very survival against an indsidious enemy that hates our very existence, be we Democrat, Republican or Undecided. To the radical Islamo-fascists we are less than human and they believe they are doing you a favor to deign to kill you. To them you are filthy unclean pig-eaters. Now the NY Times feels that it needs to expose or at least highlight our counter-terrorism methods just to make sure our sworn enemies know our methods of defense. Ok, maybe it's not treason. Maybe its just insanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:23 AM "I see only the "left" in print" Well we overseas guys are rolling on the floor laughing! Americans usual idea of 'left politics' is about 10,000 miles to the right of 'centre' in the rest of the world! Indeed the attitude of those declaiming 'the left' and disassociating themselves from it, is hysterically suggestive of someone so far 'right wing' (& fascist), that they have already fallen off the aeroplane. There IS no 'US left wing politics' because most attempts at real 'worker's rights' have been shut down. "Instead it's ridicule, hatred, "shout 'em down", exclusion, etc., all tactics that work against the ideals of freedom and democracy." That's just what we see from outside - shut up 'the REAL left', or 'the centre' or 'the moderates' or 'the liberals' at any cost... But I do agree (mostly) with "Today's news media more resembles Himmler's propaganda machine than a "free press"." He was left wing? Hahahahahahaha! Then he must have been a 'left wing fascist'!!!! ROFL!!! And historically speaking, silly me, I thought Goebbels ran the Nazi Propaganda Machine - wasn't he Propaganda Minister'??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Bobert Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:53 AM Ahhhhh, what am I missin' here??? If Congress is so intereted in making flag burnin' illegal, they have the votes to make it illegal... They could pass it this mornin' and have Bush sign it before dinner if they wanted to do it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST Date: 29 Jun 06 - 08:19 AM Rapaire, agree with both of your last two posts. While I think the Amendment would increase burning, "it's not fun when it's not illegal", and I respect the 'right' for one to burn it, I would simply request that it be securely wrapped around their body prior to igniting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 29 Jun 06 - 08:33 AM Hey Slag, you might want to temper your comments. Your boys are trying to shift the discussion and focus away from this ill begotten war and over to flag burning. Stay on topic, willya? Otherwise Rumsfeldt's boys might consider you a threat to national security, and you could end up in some gulag somewhere. This is simply a free speech issue that disgraceful and unpatriotic right wing politicians are using as an election year red herring. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jun 06 - 08:51 AM the thing here is that we are at war... Sorry, but no. Your basic premise is wrong- the BuShites propaganda notwithstanding: Not until Congress passes a declaration of war, we're not. Does the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" recall anything to your mind? Same convoluted bullshit, & see where that one got us.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 29 Jun 06 - 11:06 AM Well Mick if arson in a public place is illegal in the US I would submit that your freedom of expression is reckless endangerment of human life, destruction of public property, and behaviour contrary to the public peace. That would make it illegal and therefore unnaceptable as a means of freedom of expression would it not? Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 29 Jun 06 - 11:59 AM Dave, you are using phoney arguments here to try and make your point. Buring a flag that one has purchased is hardly arson. You cannot equate it with deliberately burning a building. There is no danger of loss of life. The loss is merely the cost of the flag, and because the burner purchased it, it is not public property. Behaviour contrary to the public peace?????????? Imagine if we had held that standard to the founding fathers. Or the Chicago Seven. Or the protestors against McCarthy. Protest is a part of our heritage. It is our right. It is what I shed blood for. Having the ability to protest our own governments actions is a right I find worth dying for. It appears to me that you are using ridiculous arguments to try and uphold your position. I have great respect for your comments in this forum, you are a long term respected member. But I think you are way off the mark on this one. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:33 PM I am not arguing your right to protest, or use your freedom of expression. Nor am I against your arguments to prevent an abuse of your constitution. The point I choose to illustrate is that: a: State and Municipal laws adequately can adequately cover the issue of flag burning if needed so why pass an ammendment? (thus supporting your argument indirectly) b: There is a perceived threat to safety in any act of arson, and freedom expression is curtailed by law only to prevent injury, indecency or loss. c: If someone commits an act of violence during a flag burning protest are they merely exercising expression of free speech too? There has to be some limitations on freedom of expression, my comments about urinating on Hillary Clinton as a perfect example. I have seen a young man get shot for hoisting a flag in a country that just had a military coup overnight (without his knowledge) I have seen people lose their tempers and turn to acts of violence over a flag desecration. I have watched a couple of people get burned by lighter fluid during a flag burning incident. I have even witnessed people getting stoned for wearing a particular flag. I have also been attacked for wearing a flag once. Do you think I am using illogical arguments now, or perhaps just acting under the voice of experience and reason? Calling my arguments phoney, belies your own comments on freedom of expression. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:47 PM At the risk of seeming pedantic here is another prime example of my arguments. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGINIA, PETITIONER v. BARRY ELTON BLACK ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA April 7, 2003 Justice O'Connor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Stevens, and Justice Breyer join. In this case we consider whether the Commonwealth of Virginia's statute banning cross burning with "an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons" violates the First Amendment. We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form. Respondent Barry Black [was] convicted of violating Virginia's cross-burning statute, §18.2—423. That statute provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Big Mick Date: 29 Jun 06 - 01:38 PM Once again, you miss any elemental distinction. Urinating on Hillary Clinton as an act of protest involves an act against her person. Not permitted. Burning a cross is a close call, but it is an act against a group of people with the intent to intimidate them, a hate crime. Burning a flag is a statement of disagreement with governmental policy, it involves no act on anothers person, and it isn't designed to intimidate people of color, sexual orientation, whatever. It is simply an act of protest against the government. I hope you get my meaning. Protest is a protected form of freedom of expression. It is an act designed to say you disagree with an entity or a policy. Both of your examples, Dave, deal with acts of aggression against a person, or a group of people. Apples and oranges. It is the protected principle we are talking about here. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Jun 06 - 02:09 PM Arson NOUN: The crime of maliciously, voluntarily, and willfully setting fire to the building, buildings, or other property of another or of burning one's own property for an improper purpose, as to collect insurance. ETYMOLOGY: Anglo-Norman, from Late Latin rsi , rsin-, from Latin rsus, past participle of rdre, to burn; see as- in Indo-European roots Cross burning, like you've shown, is done "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place." That defination does not describe flag burning. And if it's a danger to someone that it may be a crime of Reckless indangerment (not flag burning) but if it isn't then there's not crime. If the act actually hurts some one then there are civil courts that would handle that senario, unless intentional, then it would be an case of "Battery", again, not flag burning. There is no, nor should there be a law to prohibit flag burning, Even it there are laws elsewhere in the world (since when do we care what the world does). In this country it has been found to be a form of FREE SPEACH. An amendment, as Don stated above (thank you Don) "There is an essential difference between the Constitution and the Law. The difference—which they would be fully aware of had they managed to stay awake in their high school civics classes—is this: The Constitution places constraints upon the government, not the citizenry. The Law covers both the government and the citizenry. 1. The government is free to do only that which is specifically permitted by the Constitution. 2. A citizen is free to do anything he or she wishes, unless it is specifically forbidden by the Law." Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Amos Date: 29 Jun 06 - 03:23 PM Slag: Consider the possibility that it is neither, but the best principles of democratic society at work -- enabling an informed populace to exercise their combined intelligence rather than allowing an individual or a clique of vested power-mongers to exercise ti for them. If the Executive wants the authority to spy on American citizens through the banks, they can go get it from Congress. Taking it illegally is a violation of their oath and the law, as well as being arrogant and underhanded. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 29 Jun 06 - 04:41 PM So burning a flag is not intimidating people? Try burning the British or Irish flag in Northern Ireland. Try burning an Israeli flag in public and see how jews react. Try burning an American flag in front of some US marines. Try burning it in front of WW2 veterans. Try burning a Scottish flag in the middle of Glasgow. Use common sense and you will see that such actions will intimidate and anger many groups of people. Nobody is saying you cannot express yourelves, but the way you express yourselves is always subject to good taste and decency. Nuff said I am not a US citizen, nor does your constitution apply to me. My comments were solely based on a personal code of honour and respect. In my view the intent behind this law is at least an honourable one. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Jun 06 - 05:49 PM We are not in Northern Ireland nor England. Nor do I care if there are US Marines around (as of late they are the ones who are doing the burning). We are not in Glasgow. Good taste & deceny is not a consideration of law. You are not a US citzen but if & while you are here you are subjet to having the same rights & you need to abide by the same laws as any US citzen does. If someone is slighted by the action of another & it's not against the law then it is not forbidden. Your personal code of honour, respect, decency or morals has nothing to do with the law or our constitution. So now this boils down to what you personnaly would like the way things should be. Then get yourself elected & try & change what you don't like, but don't expect others to agree with you. "Nuff said" your honourable intent has nothing o do with what is & isn't law. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Metchosin Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:23 PM Actually Barry, I believe as of last year, the US government passed an act, whereby any person within the United States who is not a US citizen, while they have to obey US law, are granted no constitutional rights while they are within the country. They can be dealt with as seen fit by the US government and have no legal civil rights. This is one reason why some of us here in Canada will no longer travel in the US. The US government also will not recognize a legal pardon by our government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:30 PM But it had everything to do with a discussion about the passing (or not) of a law Barry. Obviously you just don't like my arguments thats tough mate. The day decency,morals, honour and respect has nothing to do with the rule of law I will prefer to be dead. Checkout the recent Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:37 PM Hi Metchosin, thanks for the correction. I hope that at the very least, as of today, you'll be covered by the Geneva Conventions. It sounds like that law maybe illegale (what's new), if it goes against international law. International law does afford basic rights to non citzens. I would hope so. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: 282RA Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:09 PM I have to believe that Americans still have enough mettle in them to balk at the ideas being expressed by GOP congressmen (other than Specter who at least seems to have some degree of integrity as long as you don't think about the Magic Bullet Theory). Surely most Americans realize that the Times is not to blame. Surely they know if the Bush administration has a leaker, it goes on them to root that person or those people out. Bush is top dog, he's the man in charge, it is his responsibility to find the leaker. Instead, they'd rather destroy yet another amendment from the Bill of Rights. I wonder if this leak in the administration might not be intentional. Surely the people will not stand for this. Surely they now see the GOP for what it truly is. Surely they are scared and concerned by this openly fascistic attitude being expressed from the House floor. Surely...surely...surely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:56 PM Naaah! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Jun 06 - 08:17 PM All leaks are intentional. Just a matter of where the pot is that you want to piss in is. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Jun 06 - 08:27 PM ... or the pocket, Barry... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jun 06 - 09:16 PM Methinks Slag, up there at 29 Jun 06 - 02:21 AM, has got the wrong end of a couple of sticks here. First of all, the tired right-wing shibboleth about the "liberal press." When the vast majority of news outlets are owned by five—count 'em, five—major corporations, that should make you suspicious right from the start. And when the vast majority of other countries regard the Democrats as being a conservative party and the Republicans so far to the right that they've gone completely around the bend, and that our news services have followed right along with them in the same direction. . . . Well, draw your own conclusions. If I want to find out what's really going on in the world, I can get some of it from NPR and PBS, but mainly I have to go onto the internet and check news stories from non-U. S. sources. Once you start doing that, not only do you learn many things that the American press is not telling you, you begin to realize just how far to the right the so-called "liberal press" that people like Slag complain about really is. The purpose of a free press is to be critical of the government when it deserves criticism. It is not to be a cheering section, or a drooling puppy rolling over to have its tummy rubbed, and that's pretty much what most of the American press has been lately. The most extreme case is Fox News Service, which may as well be a propaganda arm for the White House. It is the job of journalist to watch the government carefully, and inform the citizenry of what it is up to, even when it makes government officials uncomfortable. Especially when it makes government official uncomfortable! A British comic actor once remarked, "The purpose of the Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets. It's to protect officials!" It's the job of the press to expose those "official secrets." Second, Slag claims, in highly inflammatory terms, that liberals ". . .hate Bush so much that we'd rather see our country become a totalitarian Muslim state than tolerate one more second of George W. Bush." Then he attacks the intellectual honesty of liberals, apparently without regard to his own. I don't know of any liberal who holds that position. If liberals criticize Bush's leadership, it's not because they hate him, but because they fear for the country. Bush and his cohorts have turned out to be a whole arsenal full of loose cannons right from the start. They have promulgated economic policies that, under the best of circumstances, will take this country decades to recover from, and have lied us into an unnecessary and illegal war that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, both American and Iraqi. American prestige has tanked abroad, and much of the rest of the world is now afraid of us—and quite possibly with good reason. Do I hate George W. Bush? No, I don't hate him. I pity him. He's going to go down in the history books as the worst president this country has ever had. And it's not all his fault. He was picked because he has name recognition (a legacy from his father), he is not a great intellect, he generally agrees with his handlers, and he's malleable. He's being manipulated by unethical people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, and others even deeper in the murk) who are a whole lot smarter than he is. No, I don't hate him. I feel sorry for the pathetic little sod. When it finally hits the fan, he's going to get the blame. And the choice is not between George W. Bush and a totalitarian Muslim state. The more probable chance is the United States under Bush—or future presidents who share his goals—will soon become a totalitarian fundamentalist Christian state. Second, if we are at war, it is a war that the Bush administration started. The attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was not an act of war, it was a criminal act. Terrorism to be sure. But wars are duels between nations. And no nation in particular, not Afghanistan and not Iraq, were behind these attacks as national entities. The acts were committed by a group that amounts to little more than a gang. What we are now doing is creating more terrorists. By charging into the Middle East with all guns blazing, Bush lends support to Osama bin Laden's contention, and the contention of other radical Islamist leaders, that the United States, dominated by fundamentalist Christians and sympathetic to the Israelis, is out to destroy Islam and take over Middle Eastern oil reserves. George W. Bush is the greatest recruiting officer for al Qaeda that bin Laden could have wished for! The smart thing would have been to turn the matter over to the intelligence agencies, both our own, and those of other countries. Remember, in the aftermath of 9?11, the United States had the sympathy of the world, and other countries, fearing that they could be next—see Spain and England, who were next—were eager to assist us in tracking down and destroying the terrorist group of groups responsible. A "coalition of willing" intelligence agencies, along with special strike forces from several countries would have been far more effective in reducing the number of actual terrorists and potential terrorists. Doing what we did, and are still doing, is like trying to deal with a wasps' nest by hitting it repeatedly with a baseball bat. I figure that Slag has either swallowed the Bush propaganda line right up to the gills, crawled hand over hand up that line, and jumped into the boat himself—or he works for Donald Rumsfeld. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Jun 06 - 07:23 AM Well Said, Don! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Jun 06 - 07:27 AM "other countries regard the Democrats as being a conservative party and the Republicans so far to the right " No Don, only ONE Political party with 2 branches, The nutty conservatives and the really conservative nutters (which is which though?)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Rapparee Date: 30 Jun 06 - 11:00 AM The last TRULY EFFECTIVE protest that I know of toppled the government of what was then South Vietnam when a bunch of Buddhist monks burned themselves to death. That's having the courage of your convictions. I wonder how many of us have the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Slag Date: 30 Jun 06 - 11:08 AM Ok It was Goebbles, not Himmler. It was late. What can I say? Does thaqt mean you won the debate? That's the great thing about the internet. An actual "debate", a dialog rather than a monologue takes place---UNLIKE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PRINT MEDIA--- in America today. Which was/is my point!!! You've got to have more than one side, one view to have a dialogue and keep a democracy healthy. Far to the Right? That statement reveals YOUR perspective and shows me how far to the left you stand. It a "Relativity" sort of thing, you know. Does that sound fascist? If so then I must be a fascist. (Watch some Honest Democrat take that out of context and purport that I admitted to being a fascist!!) And by the way I agree that the US Constitution does serve to specifically limit the powers of the government but that doesn't mean that it is not law. It remains THE law of the land. And it also ESTABLISHES the form of our government and it also ENUMERATES the inheirent and inalienalbe rights of the people who are both the governed and the governing. It's the LAW. More later. I'm busy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jun 06 - 12:14 PM Yes, the Constitution is the Law, but it's law that applies to the what the government can and cannot do. It is not for the purpose of prescribing or proscribing the activities of private citizens. Learn your civics. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jun 06 - 01:46 PM And, Slag, I used to be a conservative. It is the country that shifted to the Right, not me. This contention, which I agree has some merit, that the Democrats and the Republicans are just two faces of the same crypto-fascist government strikes me as pure defeatism. If this were totally the case, then there would be no point in even bothering to vote. Just stay home. Let George do it! But there are Democrats who do not fit this picture. I know of at least four who come from Washington State—or as some folks used to (and may still) say, "the Soviet of Washington:" Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and Congressional Representatives Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee. There may be others from Washington as well, and I'm quite sure that there are others like these from other states as well. In fact, listening to what some Democratic Senators and Representatives say on C-SPAN assures me that there are many others. Jim McDermott in particular has long been a strong advocate for progressive issues and an outspoken and severe critic of the Bush administration and the Iraq war. He has taken a lot of flak for it, but he persists unflinchingly. And on the eve of the vote to give Bush war powers, Patty Murray delivered an impassioned speech to Congress as to why they should vote against it. Right-wingers dubbed her "Taliban Patty" for this, but she's not letting that kind of slander slow her down. Maria Cantwell disappointed me when she voted to give Bush war powers, but since then, she has come on strong on environmental issues with considerable success and has drawn the animosity of companies that want to move in and exploit the few remaining wilderness areas. So far, Jay Inslee has accumulated a respectable progressive voting record, and he, also, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. If, instead of just accepting the anti-Democratic Party propaganda without question and actually root around in the Democratic Party to see what's really going on, you'll note that the idea that the Dems are controlled by the same folks that control the Republicans is not entirely true. Some Democrats are under their thumb, but most definitely not all. I've observed that the allegation that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans comes mainly from third parties. Some of these third parties, such as the Green Party, have admirable platforms, but unfortunately, as we have seen, they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of actually winning a national election. Now some people may wish to throw up throw up their hands and surrender to the crypto-fascists if they want (a "what's the use?" attitude stikes me as an excuse for simple laziness), but not me. This is not a perfect world. If you can't completely cure the problem, you can at least try to improve things a bit. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Greg F. Date: 30 Jun 06 - 02:44 PM They don't teach civics any longer in the U.S., Don - one part Reagan cuts & 2 parts No Child's Left Behind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Don Firth Date: 30 Jun 06 - 02:55 PM Hmm! Why am I not surprised? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Jun 06 - 08:23 PM "used to be a conservative. It is the country that shifted to the Right, not me. " Don, We have something called 'The Liberal Party' in Australia. Funny that, really, it actually was the home of Conservatism (Big Business and all that...), but... There was a big kerfuffle, and Johnny Howard and his mates danced several large steps to the Right and said, "We're going over here now, and there's more of us than you, so we're taking the name 'Liberal' with us". Those left(!!!), and now called 'on the Left!' by the 'Liberals' (confused yet? - gets better!) behind formed 'The Australian Democrats' - basically a very Conservative Political organisation, that tries to project a 'Liberal' viewpont... The 'Liberal Party' is actually traditionally well to the 'Left' of what was called 'The Country Party', and now called 'The National Party', which used to be based in the country, but what with the drift of jobs, etc to 'The City', now holds many seats in the suburbs. Their 'traditional' country seats are now being gradually taken over by 'Independents' (and funnily enough garnering a lot of support for the 'Labour Party' - see below!), because 'The National Party', is now seen to have deserted 'the country electorate'... :-) so there is much talk, especially in Queensland, of merging 'The Coalition' (as it is called) of National & Liberal Parties into a single Party - name not fully agreed on, but working title was 'The New Liberal Party'!!! Meanwhile, back at the ranch... the 'Labour Party' (funnily enough, it started in the country areas, when there was no mechanisation in rural areas!) - traditionally home of 'The Left' - and having eventually shed itself of most of the opprobrium of being tarred with the brush of 'associating with Communism' (believed to be the 'Hard Left'), realising that the number of 'blue collar' workers in the country was decreasing, and rapidly being swamped by 'white collar' workers - themselves now being replaced by 'upwardly mobile aspirational contractors', started to shuffle over to the Right, not wanting to be left behind (pardon the pun!)... The Communist Party disbanded decades ago - not a lot of fun anyway when you can count the Australian members of your party on the fingers of one hand... I have not really covered the saga of the 'Pauline Hanson Extreme Right Wing Nutter Party' that became so popular that Johnny Howard charged even harder to the Extreme Right to grab back voters disillusioned with The Liberal Party's 'lack of progressiveness' (isn't that supposed to be a concept from 'the Left' - I think I'm getting a bit confused here!)... And I won't even mention much about 'The Green Party' - based on 'ecological sanity', and alternatively accused by both 'Left' & 'Right', of being on 'the other side'... We have traditionally a lot of genuine 'Independents' too... Ah! the delights of a voting system that is not just a 'bipartisan' 'first past the post' simple bunfight like the USA... But we Aussies are always amazed at just how far to the 'Left' so many 'Right Wing 'Conservative' Americans' think we are... :-) But Don, I'm not making any of this up... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Donuel Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:18 PM hubby's old fashioned right wing slur, "love it or leave it" is polite compared to today's right wing sentiment of ; "Shut up or we'll kill you" or "Get a bran you morans" or "Legal is what I say it is" So lets just let comments like his roll down your back like trolls on a duck. Please realize how hard it is for duped patriots like hubby and his wife (hussy?) to defend Temporary Emergency Powers now in their 5th year and growing * bigger every day. Afterall we were told that this could be an endless war. It looks to me like an endless temporary suspension of the Constitution. * both temporary emergency powers and hubby & hussy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Jun 06 - 09:28 PM Donuel so you can see why some of us 'alleged panic merchants' see echoes of history... "we were told that this could be an endless war." ... as prophesied by George Orwell... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Bobert Date: 30 Jun 06 - 11:09 PM Hey, can we just get friggin' real here for just one minute, folks???? I asked a very simple question a while back which no one seemed to be to interested in answering and that simple question went like this: If Congress is so danged concerned aboput flag burning, hy not make it a federal crime???? Duhhhhhhhh!!!! Like why all this constitutional ammendin'???? Jus'ake it a danged federal cime and get the heck on with life... This is so juvinilistic of the GOP'ers... Just pass a friggin bill, gol dang it... What??? Is a constitutional ammendment gonna make it any more serious an offense??? Come on, folks, get friggin' real... Pass the law and have King George sign it in the mornin'.... And be done with the stupif thing, once and for all.... But, no, that wouldn't rile up redneck America enough so that's why we're having this discussion... Well, here's what I say... The Dems oughtta put forth a bill aking flag burnin' a federal ofrfense and make the Repubs explain why they are voting against it... Yeah, wanta play politics, do ya'???.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: mrdux Date: 01 Jul 06 - 12:40 AM Bobert - Their problem -- if you want to call it that -- is the First Amendment. Says that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which strongly suggests that a Congressional enactment prohibiting the destruction of the flag in the spirit of protest -- whether by fire, acid or really sharp scissors -- simply can't survive a First Amendment challenge. So in order to pass that kind of law, they'd have to circumvent the First Amendment with an amendment of their own, which, so far, they have thankfully been unable to do. Although a one vote margin doesn't provide much comfort. This of course doesn't take into account the possibility that the New Supreme Court might do just the job for them, but, given the present make-up of the court, that seems to be a long shot even for a cynic like myself. michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 01 Jul 06 - 01:14 AM I think Bobert has found the perfect solution to the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Amos Date: 01 Jul 06 - 02:19 AM Solving asininity with more asininity is signing on with the enemy of us all- rampant stupdhead immorality. Bobert's idea is pretty funny, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Jul 06 - 07:30 AM But extremists have no sense of humour... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST Date: 01 Jul 06 - 11:56 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 01 Jul 06 - 12:03 PM The flag-burning issue is a red herring to keep the American public from facing the real issues of the stealing of the vote (democracy) and an illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. The US Constitution is most certainly treasonous to facists, dictators and out-of-control corporations. The "Free press" is no longer free (if it ever really was). It can be bought and sold today. For this reason, I no longer accept the validity of the newspapers or standard media newscasts any more. The New York Times issue is a trumped-up deal by Bush. It's the magician attempting to avert the attention of the crowd by a political sleight-of-hand. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Jul 06 - 08:44 PM "New York Times issue" most especially if the same content has been run by other papers who are not being pursued... oh! ooops! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Bobert Date: 01 Jul 06 - 09:05 PM Hey, murdux, lots of 1st ammendment rights have been trampled over the years... In most work places you can't say nuthin' abouty yer boss cheatin' with his secretary or the books 'er you can end up fired, balckballed from the universe, banished to a planet many light years from Earth and maybe loose yer house and wife... This i9s the most rediculous little game that the Repubs play every two years to rile up their redneck base so, hey, I'm perfectly serious when I suggest that the Dems oughtta propose a bill making flag burning a federal offense... Who cares???... Nobody really burns flags anymore in this country... That's all history... BTW, does anyone know the proper way to dispose of a tattered US flag??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Jul 06 - 09:16 PM Burn it? (couldn't resist!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jul 06 - 09:57 PM Yup. Federal Flag Code, Section 4, k. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: mrdux Date: 01 Jul 06 - 10:49 PM Bobert -- Perhaps I'm getting unduly cheerful in my dotage. But I do have two reasons for my -- perhaps unrealistic -- optimism. The first is that if all it took were a Congressional majority to pass a law recriminalizing flag burning (there was a Federal Flag Protection Act of 1989), they would have done it by now. I mean, 66 senators just voted for a freakin constitutional amendment, more than enough to simply amend the Federal Criminal Code. The House is even less of a bastion of free expression. The second is, believe it or not, the present composition of the Supreme Court. Last time the subject cam up, in 1990 (US v. Eichman), only three of the current court were there: Scalia, Kennedy and Stevens. Scalia and Kennedy found the federal anti-flag-burning statute unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Stevens dissented. Scalia reaffirmed his position as recently as 1999. So my optimistic guess is that even the R leadership figures they couldn't get a statute like that past the court, even as it's presently skewed. On the other hand, I'm a third generation Cubs fan, so what do I know? michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Bobert Date: 01 Jul 06 - 10:57 PM LOL, michael... I'm a Senators fan myself so my sympathies... But all the more for the Dems to take this dumbass issue and shove it right back in the R's thoats... Hey, I gotta little Karl Rove in me, too... 'Cept for the other side... I'm gonna sent Pelosi and Hyde a letter tomorrow 'er Monday... Scalia??? Danged, wouldn' that be something fir the darling of the right having to reaffirm his position that if ya' wanta burn a flag that's it yer own danged business??? Shoot, just the thought of it makes me wanta burn a flag... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: mrdux Date: 02 Jul 06 - 02:12 AM Although he's usually predictably oppressive, sometimes Scalia can be surprising. In a dissenting opinion in 1995 he wrote: "As we said in [Texas v.] Johnson [(1989)], 'if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.' Prohibition of expression of contempt for the flag, whether by contemptuous words, or by burning the flag, came, we said, within that 'bedrock principle.'" (citations omitted). Go figure. michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:18 AM So, let me get this - the only correct honourable way to dispose of an old flag is to burn it... it will be made illegal to burn the flag.... what do you do then, eat it? stick it up someone's ...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:23 AM ... jumper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST,Woody Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:28 AM http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law. Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling. Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:14 AM So George has legal precedent for acting unconstitutionally... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: GUEST,Woody Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:40 AM Thomas Jefferson 1790: "The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:13 PM Wordy, what the fu$k are you rabiting on about now? Do you think AT ALL before you C&P or is is simply an autonomic response? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: CarolC Date: 02 Jul 06 - 12:48 PM So what is wrong with the media, the print media in particular that they will only tolerate one view or at best, they create a straw man out of an opposing view? What happened to the concept of a market place of ideas? I see only the "left" in print. What happened to the ideal that "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Instead its, ridicule, hatred, "shout 'em down", exclusion, etc., all tactics that work against the ideals of freedom and democracy. I agree with this completely. People like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (and the rest of the mainstream media in the US) are radical America-haters who won't be happy until they have turned this once-great nation into a totalitarian dictatorship. And it looks like they're getting their way, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:03 PM "People like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh" These are on "The LEFT"????!!!!! Bloody Hell! somebody is facing the tail of the plane... "mainstream media in the US" The plane must be banking - cause the 'main' 'stream' is DEFINITELY NOT flowing in the middle, but far to the Right... "won't be happy until they have turned this once-great nation into a totalitarian dictatorship. And it looks like they're getting their way, too." Not going to argue there, though... "Psychosis consists of insisting on furioously working to turn the Outside Reality into a reflection of the Internal Delusion, believing this is really Normality" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: CarolC Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:15 PM There is no "left" or "right" in the US media, Foolestroupe. They're all corporate shills and they all work for the same people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:26 PM I know that, and YOU know that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 06 - 08:32 PM Left??? Right??? Heck, F-Troupe, it's hard to tell where folks like Limbaugh and the likes are coming from... I agree with Carol... These folks hate America and want to turn it into something that it plainly isn't: a totalitarian government that has no tolerance for anyone's opinions but their own... And I also agree with Carol that unless something very drastic occurs, the US is ona collision course with that scenerio... The country is badly broken right now... Yes, even the C & P that GUEST,Woody posted talk s a little about just how messed up things can get and other than now, those times were the most that things can can messed up... (But, Bobert, are you suggesting that the country could end up in some kinda civil war???) No, I'm stating it as fact... The United States is very much in a civil war right now... Yeah, we're just not to the shooting stage yet but there are plenty of very pissed off folks who are working real danged hard to pay taxes that end up getting squandered by rednecks... The level of graft and corruption by the Republican Party makes what the Dems do and have done look like snitchin' a cookie form grannie's cookie jar... And it seems that the folks who are producing the most and paying the lions share of the taxes are in the blues states and the folks doing the stealing are from the red states... Like I said, ther country is in a low grade civil war and unless the thievery ends it's gonna get warm, then red hot... And, oh, lets hope that the NASCAR dadas don't figure out the pea-under-the-shell game that the party in power is playing on them 'er it's gonna get very ugly... These are the same folks who fired on Ft. Sumpter... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The treasonous US Constitution From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 06 - 09:52 PM From a poet who is arguably the greatest Candain singer-songwriter of modern times: Patriots shout promises, And fools salute a flag, While the country that it represents Is torn apart like rags. It's not just done in fact -- it's done in deeds. My country 'tis of thee. Rich man left you helpless, With his bank account intact. Poor folks never had it -- Can't ask us to put it back. It hurts me deep inside to see you bleed; Country, 'tis of thee. (Excerpted from "Country 'Tis of Thee", by B. Murdoch). A |
