Flag Burning Amendment is Moving Forward

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning

I'm against the flag burning amendment. I do consider burning the flag to be 'free speech'. And as long as the flag is burned in a way that does endanger other people's property, I think it should continue to be legal. On a Machivellian note, I am secretly glad when I see self-hating Americans burn the flag because political 'moderates' can good look at the kooks that make up the Democrat party.

[kurto]

"self hating Americans" lol

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
On a Machivellian note, I am secretly glad when I see self-hating Americans burn the flag because political 'moderates' can good look at the kooks that make up the Democrat party.

[/ QUOTE ]

*rolls eyes*

you can do better thsan this stupid post felix.

[ptmusic]

LOL. You should get a job as a pollster and political analyst for Fox News. I'd watch that segment!

-ptmusic

[MaxPower]

This amendment is a solution in search of a problem.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
This amendment is a solution in search of a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Even if there were thousands of flag burnings a day, I would still oppose this amendment. It makes it look even worse considering that this is something that rarely takes place to begin with.

[lastchance]

Ditto. No one should support this pile of crap.

[mosta]

I've never seen a flag burned in this country. If this amendment passes, I will be glad to burn one myself. Fascism offends me. But maybe I'm self-hating. Where did you find all those flag burners that you find so self-gratifying.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen a flag burned in this country. If this amendment passes, I will be glad to burn one myself. Fascism offends me. But maybe I'm self-hating. Where did you find all those flag burners that you find so self-gratifying.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is that not only does he see people burn flags, but he is convinced that they are the "kooks that make up the Democratic Party."

And oh yeah, political moderates (like me) will get a good look at them, presumably see them for the kooks they are, and come running into the sanity of the Republican Party.

-ptmusic

[lastchance]

I think that'd be a particularly ironic and effective method of protest.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Methinks I see a pattern here. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Methinks I see a pattern here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Its pretty clear. Most people agree its an unnecessary bill that violates our rights to free speech.

I'd guess most of us have never seen anyone burn a flag or even thought about doing it.

[andyfox]

The anti-flag burners remind me of the Islamic anti-Koran flushing crowd. Being upset over the treatment of a piece of paper or a piece of fabric. It's what the flag stands for that's important, not the flag. And an anti-flag buring amendment make a mockery of what the flag stands for.

I agree with you on this issue.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The pattern is:

1. Republicans/Independents/3rd Party Voters identify the flag burners with the DEMOCRAT party.

2. While the Democrat voters don't associate the flag burners with either party.

Since many people associate flag burning with Democrat voters, each US flag that gets burned at an anti-Bush/anti-war protest, adds to the image that the Democrats love their country less (less patriotic) than Republicans. As this unscientific poll shows, the Democrats are in a state of denial about their kook-wing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

Trying using logic once in awhile:
[ QUOTE ]
1. Republicans/Independents/3rd Party Voters identify the flag burners with the DEMOCRAT party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since no one has testified to seeing a flag burner, you can't identify people that don't seem to exist with ANY party.

Second, I haven't read the entire thread a second time, but I don't recall seeing anyone agree with you on that. So, the pattern appears to be in your head.

[ QUOTE ]
Since many people associate flag burning with Democrat voters

[/ QUOTE ] Who are these many people? Furthermore, even if every RW rube thought as much, it would be meaningless. If 60% of people believe they've been abducted by UFOs, it wouldnt mean they were right or that flying saucers exist.

[ QUOTE ]
each US flag that gets burned at an anti-Bush/anti-war protest

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not aware that any flags have been burned in this country at an anti-bush protest.

[ QUOTE ]
adds to the image that the Democrats love their country less (less patriotic) than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, meaningless. Because someone thinks someone interprets something to mean what they want it to, doesn't mean that the interpretation is valid. Flag burners may love their country more then the Republicans. Just because you think a woman may dress slutty doesn't mean she is a slut. (learn from poker that what you think something appears to be is not necessarily the reality.)

A person burns a flag as a political statement. That person likely wants to better their country.

[ QUOTE ]
As this unscientific poll shows

[/ QUOTE ] Not just unscientific... its also illogical and nonsensical.

On another note, why do Republicans seem so insecure? They seem to constantly need to assert that they are more patriotic then others. Meantime, so many of them seem to not understand things like one way to love your country is to protest when you think your country is erring. Or they propose things like amendments that curb one of the great American principles like freedom of speech.

[MuckJagger]

ONE flag-burning incident this year. One.

How many times have you seen self-hating Americans burn flags? If it's *often*, you might want to see a doctor about that.

I will concede that 100% of the flags that were burned this year were likely burned by Democrats.

Article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=3&u=/usatoday/20050615/ts_usatoday/voteonflagdesecrationmaybecliffhanger)

[kurto]

and again... just because one burns a flag doesn't make them "self hating americans."

Some people seem unable to grasp the concept that one can angry about something their country does, protest it loudly and not hate their country.

Perhaps one could look at it the other way; are there any republicans who care enough about their country, that if they thought their country was doing something appalling, they could have the strength to protest it by bravely making a strong symbolic gesture like burning a flag.

On a related note: I find burning a flag as a political statement far more acceptable then the way we degrade our flag now. I could go to a store and buy underpants branded with the american flag. I can buy shoes with the American flag branded on it. People buy mudflaps with the American flag. In all of these cases, (the first being the worst), people willingly soil the flag simply for fashion.

At least the flag burners have a political reason behind their actions.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people seem unable to grasp the concept that one can angry about something their country does, protest it loudly and not hate their country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Well said.

[kurto]

Thanks. Based on Felix's post, I think in his eyes my post will give the appearance of being a self-hating American.

I'll just have to live with that shame. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[imported_The Vibesman]

"Since many people associate flag burning with Democrat voters, each US flag that gets burned at an anti-Bush/anti-war protest, adds to the image that the Democrats love their country less (less patriotic) than Republicans. As this unscientific poll shows, the Democrats are in a state of denial about their kook-wing."

Yes, but it's not the Democrats fault that many people associate them with the flag-burning fringe. If I told you that every murder of an abortion doctor drove people away from the Republicans because they are associated with being against abortion and the murders add to their image as right-wing lunatics, would you agree with that?
I think it should be legal to burn the flag, so I can see the jackasses that are doing it and stay away from them. And I am proud to be a Democrat and a Massachusetts liberal. We can't control Michael Moore and Sister Souljah and the like.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'm not aware that any flags have been burned in this country at an anti-bush protest.
************************************************** *****
Then you are in effort conceding that you're UNINORMED on this topic and there UNQUALIFIED to comment. Why should I give weight to any of your comments on a topic that you admit you nothing about? Watch some videos and educate yourself.
www.protestwarrior.com (http://www.protestwarrior.com)


Flag burners may love their country more then the Republicans.
************************************************** ***
Mmmmmmm......So when a man beats his wife it may be because he loves TOO much. OK, you just persuaded me. You are right. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Just because you think a woman may dress slutty doesn't mean she is a slut.
************************************************** *
As for your poker analogy, poker teaches you to play the odds and make ASSUMPTIONS based on the odds. You don't get laid much do you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif


A person burns a flag as a political statement. That person likely wants to better their country.
************************************************** *
Ahhhhhhh!!! Here we agree! The person that burns the US flag is bettering the USA. He is alienating voters in the middle who find that behavior appalling so these voters look to vote for people opposed to these flag burners.


Not just unscientific... its also illogical and nonsensical.
************************************************** ***
I thought it was a fun poll. Did you notice that people were more likely to identified flag burners with Democrat voters. LOL....just as I suspected. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


On another note, why do Republicans seem so insecure? They seem to constantly need to assert that they are more patriotic then others.
************************************************** **
I have not once asserted that I am more patriotic. But I have question the patriotism of flag burners and certain Democratic political leaders. Patriotism (love of country) is an essential trait of a political leader. To run for political office you must be a US citizen. To run for president, you must have been born in the USA. Why? People who love their country are more likely to do what is their country's best interest.


Meantime, so many of them seem to not understand things like one way to love your country is to protest when you think your country is erring.
************************************************** *
No one that I know of is against PEACEFUL protesting. BUT...people are against protesters who burn flags, commit vandalism, and physical assault counter protestors. Like I said, check out these videos.
www.protestwarrior.com (http://www.protestwarrior.com)
The Dutch chapter of protest warriors had to go underground because of threats of violence.


Or they propose things like amendments that curb one of the great American principles like freedom of speech.
************************************************** *******
I'm against the flag burning amendment. Let these flag burners (who are mostly Democrat voters /images/graemlins/smile.gif) make jackasses of themselves. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Yes, but it's not the Democrats fault that many people associate them with the flag-burning fringe. If I told you that every murder of an abortion doctor drove people away from the Republicans because they are associated with being against abortion and the murders add to their image as right-wing lunatics, would you agree with that?
************************************************** *******
Excellent!!! This is a very intelligent response!!!
Please make more posts (even though we probably agree on nothing /images/graemlins/smile.gif)
I think the Democrats have a 'love of country'(patriotism) problem. Not only because of these fringe protestors but mainly of the people that the Democrats elect. Dick Durbin comparing turning an air conditioner off and on to mass genocide smears US troops, emboldens the islamic fascists, and I would argue....gives aid and comfort to the enemy. His actions are less about love of country and more about scoring political points by smearing the Bush admin.

After returning from Vietnam, John F Kerry testimony to a house sub committee were a collection of gossip, lies, and half-truths. As a military officer he was obligated to report any attrocities and not to report an atttrocity was to commit a military crime himself. He lied. His lies fed the propaganda mills in Hanoi giving aid and comfort to the enemy. His funniest lie was in his autobiography claiming that he was listening to Nixon on the radio claiming there were no troops in Cambodia while he was in Cambodia. What made it funny was Nixon was not even president yet. /images/graemlins/smile.gif An example of a half-truth was the 'attrocity' of firing .50cal machine guns at troops. When I was in the military, I was told it was against the Geneva convention to fire a .50cal at enemy troops. This was a stupid rule and it was common knowledge that you were to ignore tis rule. It is analogous to the adultry laws in NewYork (technically it is against the law to commit adultry in NewYork but no DA is going to enforce it).
His picture is in Hanoi War Crimes Museum as a hero. Kerry did not act like a person who loved his country.


I think it should be legal to burn the flag,
************************************************** *
We agree...


And I am proud to be a Democrat and a Massachusetts liberal.
************************************************** **
Good. It is nice to have people who are honest and proud of their politcal beliefs on this forum. I sometimes like listening to Alan Colmes on the radio because he is an admitted liberal who expresses his positions intelligently.
Several posters on the political forum (who are liberal) object to being called 'liberals' claiming it is equivalent to calling people n*ggers (please don't ask me to dig up these old posts, the search functions sucks!).


We can't control Michael Moore and Sister Souljah and the like.
**************************************************
True.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you are in effort conceding that you're UNINORMED on this topic and there UNQUALIFIED to comment.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, no. In several of the news articles about the amendment they have stated that flag burning incidents have been rare (or at least rarely observed/reported).

If you have some hard figures on the number of flags burned a year in the US and by which party please print them. Or if you're just making up stupid stuff, then admit as much. I said I haven't seen any, seen any stories on it and in this whole thread, only one person had and he linked to a story on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Mmmmmmm......So when a man beats his wife it may be because he loves TOO much.

[/ QUOTE ] See, this is where you look stupid. (and I'm not trying to just sling insults, it really is illogical and dumb.) Burning a flag is not burning your country. Get it in your head that a flag is nothing more then a symbol. Burning a flag can be a criticism of the country. Don't be so ignorant to think that criticizing your nation and attacking its policies when they're wrong means you hate your country.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your poker analogy, poker teaches you to play the odds and make ASSUMPTIONS based on the odds. You don't get laid much do you?

[/ QUOTE ] But you don't make assumptions based on odds. You make assumptions based on your political prejudice. And I've been married for a few years now... so I don't laid much. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhhhhhh!!! Here we agree! The person that burns the US flag is bettering the USA. He is alienating voters in the middle who find that behavior appalling so these voters look to vote for people opposed to these flag burners.


[/ QUOTE ] Clearly the concept goes over your head. Why do you assume that the flag burner can't come from the middle (I know the answer, I'm being rhetorical)? Second, they may initially be offended by his act but agree with his cause (which he may bring attention to.) Others may not be as sensitive as you to get so offended by a symbolic act. A lot of people are bright enough to realize that's its nothing more then speech.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was a fun poll. Did you notice that people were more likely to identified flag burners with Democrat voters.

[/ QUOTE ] Yet, as you said its unscientific and meaningless. Couple that with your tendency to make erroneous illogical conclusions... what are you left with? I could argue that Democrats are more likely to be flag burners because they understand true patriotism more then the morons on the right who think real patriotism means never questioning your government and attacking anyone who ever does.

[ QUOTE ]
I have not once asserted that I am more patriotic.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you have. You do when you assert that Republicans are more patriotic then Democrats. (as does the website you posted.)

[ QUOTE ]
But I have question the patriotism of flag burners and certain Democratic political leaders.

[/ QUOTE ] Yet nothing you have said has shown any understanding of patriotism nor have you show that any of these people don't love their country. You're just making baseless accusations and then patting yourself on the back.

[ QUOTE ]
No one that I know of is against PEACEFUL protesting. BUT...people are against protesters who burn flags..

[/ QUOTE ] Burning a flag is peaceful.

[ QUOTE ]
commit vandalism,

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank God you weren't around when the Boston Tea Party happened, you would have rallying against the protestors.

[ QUOTE ]
Let these flag burners (who are mostly Democrat voters ) make jackasses of themselves

[/ QUOTE ] You're welcome to make all the assumptions you want. Youre welcome to think of them as jackasses. But that doesn't mean you don't show a piss poor understanding of patriotism and how our forefathers knew that free speech was specifically so that people could speak out against our country when it went off course. They thought it was the duty of the people to protest and protest loudly when the govt did wrong. They would have been the first people to burn a flag.

I would argue your very argument shows you lack a real understanding of why this country is great and therefore, you're a false patriot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

"I think the Democrats have a 'love of country'(patriotism) problem."

This is precisely the attitude that, if prevalent, will undermine the Republicans' electoral victories and eventually put them back in the minority. Dick Durbin is a nobody. I venture to say that 90% of Americans had not heard of him until his recent speech.

Republicans worry about what Durbin said and what Kerry said, not the underlying policies. That our elected leaders who took us into Vietnam lied continuously from day one and were murderers is unimportant; but that guy Kerry, his testimony was beyond the pale. He said something about listening to Nixon; isn't it more important that Nixon jeopardized our country's defenses by going illegally and secretly in Cambodia? That Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were pathological liars who lied and cheated and stole their way into office repeatedly throughout their political careers and then disregarded the basics or our democracy by prosecuting an immoral, illegal law based on lies and murdering?

The truth is that the flack about Senator Durbin is completely politically motivated, no different than the flack about Senator Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond or Lott's current troubles. The Republicans didn't make such a stink when one of their own said he understood why people are shooting judges, thus condoning the shootings by implication.

Criticism of certain foreign policies of a country does not equal not loving one's country. Blind acceptance of illegal and immoral policies does not equal loving one's country, and, in fact, may betray a lack of sympathy and a disdain for our country's ideals which have made it great.

[Felix_Nietsche]

This is precisely the attitude that, if prevalent, will undermine the Republicans' electoral victories and eventually put them back in the minority.
*********************************************
We shall see won't we. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Dick Durbin is a nobody.
*******************************************
Senate whip is 2nd in Command for the Democtats in the senate.


I venture to say that 90% of Americans had not heard of him (Durbin) until his recent speech.
************************************************
This is probably true. The Shawn Hannity radio program has a "man on the street Thursday" segment where they go on the streets of New York City asking people questions like:
*Who is the president
*Who is the vice-president
*etc...
The responses are both funny and alarming. Some people just should not be voting. In Brazil you are required by law to vote and you must prove you voted to even get a job. The result is every knucking-dragging-drooling-neanderthal votes. Brazil now has a socialist president. LOL! Could it be possible the Brazillian president does not know the cold war is over and that Adam Smith won and Karl Marx lost? /images/graemlins/smile.gif
I believe the WSJ recently publish an article that Brazil's finance secretary has a free economy mentality so Brazil may have a chance financially.


Republicans worry about what Durbin said and what Kerry said, not the underlying policies. That our elected leaders who took us into Vietnam lied continuously from day one and were murderers is unimportant;
********************************************
Mmmmmmm.......Was it not the DEMOCRAT John F. Kennedy that got the USA into Vietnam. Was it not the DEMOCRAT LBJ that use the Gulf on Tonkin incident as an excuse to flood US troops into Vietnam? Was it not the REPUBLICAN, Richard Nixon that withdrew US troops from Vietnam?

You are correct that Nixon lied about missions in Cambodia but in war I am forgiving of leaders that bend the rules to win wars. During the cold war we used to paint bombers black and fly them into USSR territory on spying missions. This was against the 'rules' but cie la vie. Besides, the Viet Cong were using Cambodia as a sanctuary/supply base so Cambodia was hardly 'neutral'. Nixon was responding to illegal activity by the Viet Cong. He did not intiate the illegal activity, the Viet Cong did.


but that guy Kerry, his testimony was beyond the pale. He said something about listening to Nixon; isn't it more important that Nixon jeopardized our country's defenses by going illegally and secretly in Cambodia? That Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were pathological liars who lied and cheated and stole their way into office repeatedly throughout their political careers and then disregarded the basics or our democracy by prosecuting an immoral, illegal law based on lies and murdering?
**************************************************
You giving me the bait-and-switch play.
I spoke of Kerry's lies and his less-than-patriotic (love of country) actions and you try to change the topic to Nixon. Also you pulled the "moral equilvalism" tactic that since Nixon lied about Cambodia then Kerry's lies are excused. Nice try. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
By the way, LBJ was a democrat. You know this...right?


The truth is that the flack about Senator Durbin is completely politically motivated, no different than the flack about Senator Lott's remarks about Strom Thurmond or Lott's current troubles.
************************************************** *****
Not all 'politics' are bad. Durbin ticked a lot of people off with his comments. He is reaping what he sowed. As for Trent Lott, I'm not a big fan of him so when he stuck his foot in his mouth and lost his post, it didn't bother me.


The Republicans didn't make such a stink when one of their own said he understood why people are shooting judges, thus condoning the shootings by implication.
*********************************************
I vaguely remember some story about this. Who was it? Just one Republican? Right? Unlike the Republicans there are a slew of Democrats making Durbin-like comments.


Criticism of certain foreign policies of a country does not equal not loving one's country. Blind acceptance of illegal and immoral policies does not equal loving one's country, and, in fact, may betray a lack of sympathy and a disdain for our country's ideals which have made it great.
************************************************** *
Freedom of speech is an American value.
But what you fail to understand is people like ME have freedom of speech as well. So I am free to criticize Democratic leaders. I am free to say Democrats like Durbin care more about scoring political points against Bush than care about saying things that will embolden the Islamic-fascists. In another post you called me a "false patriot". I feel no need to defend myself. I find the allegation rather silly. On the other hand, the defensesiveness that the Democrats display when their patriotism questioned is revealing.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike the Republicans there are a slew of Democrats making Durbin-like comments.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you make statements like this? What do you mean "Durbin-like"? Name this "slew" of Democrats and their respective Durbin-like quotes, please.

Democrats say outrageous things, and some of them are kooks.
Republicans say outrageous things, and some of them are kooks.

You say outrageous things, and....

ptmusic

[Felix_Nietsche]

Name this "slew" of Democrats and their respective Durbin-like quotes, please.
************************************************** **
Wow....This will take a while.
If I thought you were open minded and would look at the quotes in an objective way I might consider spending the time doing it.

Quotes would include Kennedy's Abu Gharib comments, move-on.org posts, Bush/Hitler comparisons, etc...
People making the cut would include Pelosis, Reid, Dascle, and my favorite HOWARD DEAN!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[imported_The Vibesman]

I'm not going to pretend that I am familiar with Durbin.

As for Kerry, it's hard to ascertain what was true in his testimony and what was not. The lines have been blurred over the years, and honestly, I'm not sure that anyone involved in that whole debacle was telling the truth. I will say this though, I believe that Kerry was acting more in his own self-interest than out of some sort of hatred for America. Same with Moore, Pelosi, Durbin, and a lot of political hacks on both sides of the fence.

As for Dean, he's a psycho. I would hope he's a lightning rod for Republican criticism while the Dems try to move some candidates closer to the center so we may have a fighting chance against Jeb in '08. Dean may have been the only choice in 2004 that would have been worse than Kerry. The Dems seem to be shooting themselves in the foot over and over again...I'd switch to Libertarian if they weren't a bunch of psychos for the most part too.

It's hard to defend a lot of these people, on either side, which is why I think so many play the bait and switch, as we just saw...instead of defending yours, attack theirs. Attacks are easy.

I probably won't agree w/ Felix on much, but it seems people are debating him on whether flag burning should be illegal...he knows it shouldn't. I'm debating this whole Democrats Hate America thing. If Democrats hate America, why is it the Rebuplicans are the ones trying to take away conservative American institutions like states' rights (gay marriage, marijuana), freedom of speech (flag-burning), and the sanctity of marriage vows (Schiavo)?
Now I don't believe Repubs hate america either. But do you see how easy that was???

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to pretend that I am familiar with Durbin.

As for Kerry, it's hard to ascertain what was true in his testimony and what was not. The lines have been blurred over the years, and honestly, I'm not sure that anyone involved in that whole debacle was telling the truth. I will say this though, I believe that Kerry was acting more in his own self-interest than out of some sort of hatred for America. Same with Moore, Pelosi, Durbin, and a lot of political hacks on both sides of the fence.

As for Dean, he's a psycho. I would hope he's a lightning rod for Republican criticism while the Dems try to move some candidates closer to the center so we may have a fighting chance against Jeb in '08. Dean may have been the only choice in 2004 that would have been worse than Kerry. The Dems seem to be shooting themselves in the foot over and over again...I'd switch to Libertarian if they weren't a bunch of psychos for the most part too.

It's hard to defend a lot of these people, on either side, which is why I think so many play the bait and switch, as we just saw...instead of defending yours, attack theirs. Attacks are easy.

I probably won't agree w/ Felix on much, but it seems people are debating him on whether flag burning should be illegal...he knows it shouldn't. I'm debating this whole Democrats Hate America thing. If Democrats hate America, why is it the Rebuplicans are the ones trying to take away conservative American institutions like states' rights (gay marriage, marijuana), freedom of speech (flag-burning), and the sanctity of marriage vows (Schiavo)?
Now I don't believe Repubs hate america either. But do you see how easy that was???

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Name this "slew" of Democrats and their respective Durbin-like quotes, please.
************************************************** **
Wow....This will take a while.
If I thought you were open minded and would look at the quotes in an objective way I might consider spending the time doing it.

Quotes would include Kennedy's Abu Gharib comments, move-on.org posts, Bush/Hitler comparisons, etc...
People making the cut would include Pelosis, Reid, Dascle, and my favorite HOWARD DEAN!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you named some names, but no quotes. I'd like to hear what you equate with Durbin's statements.

And why do you have the impression that I'm not open-minded? I said in my last post that some Democrats say outrageous things and are kooks. I've said in many posts that I have voted Republican. I used to be a registered Republican for that matter. And one conservative 2+2'er commended me on my open-mindedness and willingness to listen, which he called a breath of fresh air.

Are you so far to the right that even moderates seem close-minded to you?

-ptmusic

[bholdr]

Felix, please stop making posts that have no purpose other than to attack opposing political parties based purely on the actions of the lunitic firnge.

If i were to make a post asking people which party they thought that the Klan votes for, what do you think thhey would say? would they be right?

yes; but the post would still be unfair, dishonest, rude, and far beneath the great majority of the rational posters on this forum (not YOU, of course, you're crawling in the gutters of political discourse, and handily dragging everyone else down to the pits with you with asinine, pointless, hopeless, jerkoff posts like this one).

get a life.

[andyfox]

"Was it not the DEMOCRAT John F. Kennedy that got the USA into Vietnam. Was it not the DEMOCRAT LBJ that use the Gulf on Tonkin incident as an excuse to flood US troops into Vietnam? Was it not the REPUBLICAN, Richard Nixon that withdrew US troops from Vietnam?'

-We've been over this ground before, but: No, it was Truman who initially got us into Vietnam, Eisenhower who contributed to the mess-up by allowing the Geneva accords to be sabotaged, Kennedy who balled things up further by committing us to the thugs who were running South Vietnam, Johnson who, as I pointed out, lied and killed, and Nixon who prolonged the war for no reason and then accepted the same peace terms that were on the table in 1968 when he sabotaged the peace talks.

But I think we're probably in agreement, there's more than enough blame to go around for the Vietnam fiasco in both political parties.

"I spoke of Kerry's lies and his less-than-patriotic (love of country) actions and you try to change the topic to Nixon."

-I'm not changing the argument to Nixon. I'm saying if Kerry did something wrong, it pales besides the massive crimes of Johnson and Nixon.

"By the way, LBJ was a democrat. You know this...right?"

If you mean a Democrat, yes I know this. In fact, in many ways he was the Democrat of his time. Senate majority leader, vice president (without whom Kennedy does not win), president.

"I vaguely remember some story about this. Who was it?"

-Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). He said, "I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that’s been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

Yes, only one Republican senator.

"But what you fail to understand is people like ME have freedom of speech as well. So I am free to criticize Democratic leaders. I am free to say Democrats like Durbin care more about scoring political points against Bush than care about saying things that will embolden the Islamic-fascists. In another post you called me a "false patriot". I feel no need to defend myself. I find the allegation rather silly. On the other hand, the defensesiveness that the Democrats display when their patriotism questioned is revealing."

-Of course you have freedom of speech. I never called you a "false patriot." Where did I do that? It is you who are questioning the patriotism of the Democrats. Karl Rove did it today too. It is your right to do so. I'm making an argument that you're wrong.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you so far to the right that even moderates seem close-minded to you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you been reading his posts? He's been talking about Democrats are Self Hating Americans, how Republicans are more patriotic then Democrats, etc.

He's another "100% biased platitudes" poster. The world is black and white/good vs bad/Republicans Good vs Democrats bad kind of guy.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you so far to the right that even moderates seem close-minded to you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Have you been reading his posts? He's been talking about Democrats are Self Hating Americans, how Republicans are more patriotic then Democrats, etc.

He's another "100% biased platitudes" poster. The world is black and white/good vs bad/Republicans Good vs Democrats bad kind of guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've been reading his posts. I'm new to this political forum, but I've already read a bunch of his posts, and he nearly always manages to shock me into laughter.

Sometimes I think he MUST be f'ing with us!

-ptmusic

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I think he MUST be f'ing with us!


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. There's a lot of people like that. There are people who have totally different views then I do, but who don't seem like they're way out there. Natedogg and I seem to disagree a lot but I've never found myself thinking he's just some partisan nut. He has strong views that he has a philosophy that at least has a basis for them.

Then there are people like the dude who labeled all democrats as lazy, 'faggots', nambla members, aethists (ie- bad), socialists, etc... then gets uppity when people dismiss him.

I can never tell for sure how many of those people are sincere or if they're just trying to elicit a reaction.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
Flag burners may love their country more then the Republicans.

Mmmmmmm......So when a man beats his wife it may be because he loves TOO much. OK, you just persuaded me. You are right. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad analogy. By your analogy, the flag=the country.

[Zoelef]

So if I burn the Confederate flag, does that mean I hate America?

[ QUOTE ]
So if I burn the Confederate flag, does that mean I hate America?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means you hate South Carolina.

Or grits.

[Cyrus]

If the American flag is to be protected by the United States Constitution as a sacred symbol, then why should the Coca Cola symbol or the Nike symbol be left unprotected ?

[slamdunkpro]

They already are - unfair or distorted display can be remided by a copywrite or trademark lawsuit brought be the owner Coke has done this over and over. If I burn the Coke logo in public they can sue me for unauthorized public use of a trademark.

But the Constitution should not be amended for this.(burning the Flag)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
What you fail to understand is people like ME have freedom of speech as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you making such a big issue out of this ? Of course freedom of speech means essentially freedom for speech one disagrees with.

You could have saved a lot of bandwidth by just writing one word:

Voltaire

[Daliman]

Reminds me of an old Bill Hicks routine

"Hey, you can't burn that flag! My father died for that flag."

"Wow, really? Damn, I got mine for $3.99....'Made in Taiwan'"

[Felix_Nietsche]

If Democrats hate America,
************************************************** ******
I don't think the rank-and-file Democrats hate American.
I *DO* think the Democratic party has a significant "kook" wing which is made of self-hating Americans. Furthermore the kook-wing of the Democratic party weilds a lot more influence than average Democrat voters wish to admit.


why is it the Rebuplicans are the ones trying to take away conservative American institutions like states' rights (gay marriage, marijuana), freedom of speech (flag-burning), and the sanctity of marriage vows (Schiavo)?
************************************************** *
1. Medical Marijuana:
You are mistaken. It was REPUBLICAN appointed judges that form the dissent to give the state of California the right to regulate INTRA-state commerce. It was LIBERAL judges that voted against state's right in this case. Surprisingly, one conservative judge strayed in this ruling which was Scalia. Clarence Thomas led the charge to let California determine their medical marijuana destiny. As for Congressman/Senators they are afraid they will lose elections if they speak openly about supporting medical marijuana. As a result, they typically tell their base what they want to hear but their actions are to appoint more judges like Clarence Thomas. Actions are more importent to me than words.

2. Flag Burning
I don't know which judges voted to support flag burning as free speech. I do know the majority of the supreme court ruled it was free speech. As for politicians talking about creating an amendment, this is just a gimic to appeal to the base that won't go anywhere. Sit back and drink a beer and it will go away.

3. Schiavo
It was COMPLETLY wrong for the DeLay/Bush to interfere in this matter. This was a mater for the state of Florida.

4. Gay Marriage
I think the inter-state commerce clause can be used here. The traditional DEFINTION of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. Some people are trying to 'expand' this defintion to include a union between a man/man and woman/woman. Personally I think if gays want to be married then they should petition their state representatives to legally expand the defintion of marriage. If this measure becomes a STATE law, then legally they will be married in their state but NOT in the eyes of the federal govt (refer to my reference of the inter-state commerce clause). Next, the gays would need to petition Congress to expand the Federal defintion of marriage. I'd like to see law-makers throw gays a bone and give them something which allows a legal union (but NOT calling it marriage). I will say the average "gay pride" parade sets back the gay cause about 100 years. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

5. Seizing private property to give to private individuals.
It was CONSERVATIVE judges which voted to protect the rights of the average Joe-Six-Pack American. It was liberal judges giving more power to BIG BROTHER.

****The sterotype is that conservative judges reduce personal freedom and liberal judges do the opposite. I argue it is the other way around. You can find individual cases where conservative judges make poor rulings but if you want more personal freedom then PLAY THE ODDS and lobby for conservative/originalist judges to be appointed to federal courts.


Now I don't believe Repubs hate america either. But do you see how easy that was???
************************************************
If anyone wants to claim Repubs hate America, then let them try. The power and influence of the kook wing of the Democrat party is hurting the Democrat party and alienating voters in the middle. Don't shoot me....I'm just the messenger. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If I burn the Coke logo in public they can sue me for unauthorized public use of a trademark.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can sue for anything, but they wouldn't win. (this is the area I work in.)

[imported_The Vibesman]

1. Medical Marijuana:
You are mistaken. It was REPUBLICAN appointed judges that form the dissent to give the state of California the right to regulate INTRA-state commerce.

- cut off part of your quote, sorry. But I ask, who APPOINTED the "liberal" judges, mmmm??? Also, whose attorney general is pushing the issue in CA as we speak?

2. Flag Burning
I don't know which judges voted to support flag burning as free speech. I do know the majority of the supreme court ruled it was free speech. As for politicians talking about creating an amendment, this is just a gimic to appeal to the base that won't go anywhere.
- does that make it OK for Republican politicians to introduce legislation curtailing free speech? That it's just a lark? A gimmick? A "gothca!", something to rag Democrats about come election time if they oppose it? That the Senate (hopefully) isn't stupid enough to pass it? That makes it even more reprehensible in my book. Bad enough to spit blind rhetoric and step on the rights of the people, worse when what you are doing flies in the face of your own stated beliefs and is not even genuine in intent.

It was COMPLETLY wrong for the DeLay/Bush to interfere in this matter. This was a mater for the state of Florida.
- actually I thought it was a matter for immediate family. I know if this happened to me I wouldn't want any government intruding on my spouse's ability to make a decision for me. But we do agree, it seems, that Frist/Bush/Delay should have stayed out of it.
4. Gay Marriage
I think the inter-state commerce clause can be used here. The traditional DEFINTION of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. Some people are trying to 'expand' this defintion to include a union between a man/man and woman/woman. Personally I think if gays want to be married then they should petition their state representatives to legally expand the defintion of marriage. If this measure becomes a STATE law, then legally they will be married in their state but NOT in the eyes of the federal govt (refer to my reference of the inter-state commerce clause). Next, the gays would need to petition Congress to expand the Federal defintion of marriage.
- but you see, they Republicans are pushing for the "protection of marriage" bill on a Federal level, trying to take away state's rights in the matter (a clear contractidiction to traditional conservatism; the founders believed in states rights over federal in most matters.)

I'd like to see law-makers throw gays a bone [how nice of you] and give them something which allows a legal union (but NOT calling it marriage).

- why? What's the difference besides the words you use to describe it? I would like the government to pay me enough to live every month without my working but not call it welfare, they could call it "Vibesman Assistance." But if I get Vibesman Assistance I'm still on welfare.
I will say the average "gay pride" parade sets back the gay cause about 100 years. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
- why, because it makes you feel "icky'?

5. Seizing private property to give to private individuals.
It was CONSERVATIVE judges which voted to protect the rights of the average Joe-Six-Pack American. It was liberal judges giving more power to BIG BROTHER.
- again, who appointed those liberal judges?
****The sterotype is that conservative judges reduce personal freedom and liberal judges do the opposite. I argue it is the other way around. You can find individual cases where conservative judges make poor rulings but if you want more personal freedom then PLAY THE ODDS and lobby for conservative/originalist judges to be appointed to federal courts.
- I agree, I would rather have conservative judges who stick to a strict interpretation of the constitution. I don't think it's that easily definable by the terms you are using tho.


Now I don't believe Repubs hate america either. But do you see how easy that was???
************************************************
If anyone wants to claim Repubs hate America, then let them try. The power and influence of the kook wing of the Democrat party is hurting the Democrat party and alienating voters in the middle. Don't shoot me....I'm just the messenger. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is basically the same sentence you said at the beginning of this thread. It didn't mean a damn thing then and it doesn't now, it's just words and empty rhetoric. The 'kook wing' hurts both parties, all organized religions, the image of most sports fans, the Roman Catholic church, some poker players, so forth and so on...every organization of some sort has its kook wing. Whether or not the Dems can distance themselves from their 'kooks', well, you've got a point and I'd like to see them do it. But we're not the only people with such a wing.

[Felix_Nietsche]

But I ask, who APPOINTED the "liberal" judges, mmmm???
**********************************************
I would have to research this. If you know then post the info or are you just asking the question?
Ginsburg (liberal) = Clinton
I do know that 100% of the judges who voted to support the rights of California were appointed by REPUBLICANS..


I will say the average "gay pride" parade sets back the gay cause about 100 years.
- why, because it makes you feel "icky'?
************************************************** *****
If a str8 couple walked in a parade wearing only leather chaps, leather thong underwear, and tongue kissing; most people would this behavior to be strange. Furthermore many people would find this behavior unworthy of respect....
SOOOOOOOOOO......when homosexual couples do this, why should they expect different results?


This is basically the same sentence you said at the beginning of this thread. It didn't mean a damn thing then and it doesn't now, it's just words and empty rhetoric. The 'kook wing' hurts both parties, all organized religions, the image of most sports fans, the Roman Catholic church, some poker players, so forth and so on...every organization of some sort has its kook wing
************************************************** *
The differences between the kooks in the Democrat party and kooks in the Republican party are...the Kooks in the Democrat party are:
1. VASTLY more numerous
2. Wield considerable power and influence within the Democrat party.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

The differences between the kooks in the Democrat party and kooks in the Republican party are...the Kooks in the Democrat party are:
1. VASTLY more numerous
2. Wield considerable power and influence within the Democrat party.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. How would you know?
2. You are implying that the so-called "kooks" of the Republican Party wield little power and influence within that party, which is a kooky thought. And if you are calling Kennedy a "kook", then I'm calling Rumsfeld a "kook", so nananananaaaaaana.

-ptmusic

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
...the Kooks in the Democrat party are:
1. VASTLY more numerous

[/ QUOTE ]

The great thing about statements like this is they're entirely subjective. Those no way he can qualify it, but he will believe it and act as if its a fact.

We can say and believe there are more kooks on the right.

And we all get nowhere.

[Felix_Nietsche]

then I'm calling Rumsfeld a "kook", so nananananaaaaaana.
************************************************
This is by FAR....your intelligent post, /images/graemlins/smile.gif