Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
This is truly a slippery slope. If this succeeds I can see it now, the next one will be the Koran Desecration Amendment:

Indeed, there's a real danger that the GOP-controlled Congress will pass that next, preventing the brave and hard-working men and women of our armed forces from doing everything in their power to thwart the next terrorist attack on our homeland.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Hey! Lo-berry said Shifter was the stupidest. Stand down Wonk!

Dumbest. Not stupidest, dumbest.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I think when you posted, you failed to realize that the poster to whom you replied was not being serious or literal about the substantive content of his or her post, and by treating the post seriously, you have made yourself to appear the fool.

I was misinformed.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Hey! Lo-berry said Shifter was the stupidest. Stand down Wonk!

Never speak out against the family, Fredo.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Hey! Lo-berry said Shifter was the stupidest. Stand down Wonk!

No slippery slope of stupidity in lo-berry's world?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Indeed, there's a real danger that the GOP-controlled Congress will pass that next, preventing the brave and hard-working men and women of our armed forces from doing everything in their power to thwart the next terrorist attack on our homeland.

Word.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Dumbest. Not stupidest, dumbest.

I was retired, what do I know.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Never speak out against the family, Fredo.

How do you say "banana daiquiri" (en espanol)?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


eta, in response to Burger:

I thought Atrios was pretty clear. He's not complaining about a potential conflict between the Constitution and the U.S. Code. He's pointing out that the purpose of the amendment is not to punish certain actions (e.g., burning), but to punish certain ideas (e.g., burning a flag in protest against the government, as opposed to burning it pursuant to the code).

I apparently misunderstood that he was making an interesting point. Of course it goes to punishing ideas, or at least statutes that would punish ideas. That's a novel take on it?

There's nothing facially objectionable about the amendment itself, I suppose. The problem comes when Congress passes another flag desecration law, which will be in immediate tension with the first amendment. Which trumps?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I apparently misunderstood that he was making an interesting point. Of course it goes to punishing ideas, or at least statutes that would punish ideas. That's a novel take on it?

There's nothing facially objectionable about the amendment itself, I suppose. The problem comes when Congress passes another flag desecration law, which will be in immediate tension with the first amendment. Which trumps?

I wondered this myself when I saw a Rob Courdry bit on The Daily Show where he "accidentally" lit a little American flag on fire with a sparkler.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's a novel take on it?

I thought it pleasantly succinct.

And I figured the Daily Show bit was filmed in Canada. Congress is just sending more jobs overseas.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I apparently misunderstood that he was making an interesting point. Of course it goes to punishing ideas, or at least statutes that would punish ideas. That's a novel take on it?

There's nothing facially objectionable about the amendment itself, I suppose. The problem comes when Congress passes another flag desecration law, which will be in immediate tension with the first amendment. Which trumps?

Dunno, but apparently the proponents are communing with the dead:

“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Nice to know that 9/11 can still be used for cheap political points.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Dunno, but apparently the proponents are communing with the dead:



Nice to know that 9/11 can still be used for cheap political points.

They probably advised him on his recent real estate deals as well.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And I figured the Daily Show bit was filmed in Canada. Congress is just sending more jobs overseas.

Is he an american citizen?

[eta: Yes. Samantha Bee is Canadian, though. -- t.s.]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Dunno, but apparently the proponents are communing with the dead:



Nice to know that 9/11 can still be used for cheap political points.

Didn't the guy standing on top "surf" down on the debris?