Flag Burning Amendment is Moving Forward

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
- 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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ 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, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]