» Site Navigation |
|
» Online Users: 306 |
0 members and 306 guests |
No Members online |
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM. |
|
![Closed Thread](http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/images/buttons/threadclosed.gif) |
|
06-22-2005, 05:28 PM
|
#901
|
Random Syndicate (admin)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,276
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Iron Steve
thank god, that should ensure we (I'm on your side here) get her vote.
Back in 86 I voted for Dodd, I think I will call that chit in now.
|
I'm screwed. I never voted for Hutchison or Cornyn. I may have voted for Boxer once, though. I wonder if she'll take the call.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 05:29 PM
|
#902
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,050
|
And we are off.....
Quote:
Originally posted by Iron Steve
I will take that as agreement that she owes us an apology, but I won't hold my breath.
|
Your reading comprehension would improve if you picked up something besides that Regnery crap.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 05:30 PM
|
#903
|
Strong!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my office
Posts: 268
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm screwed. I never voted for Hutchison or Cornyn. I may have voted for Boxer once, though. I wonder if she'll take the call.
|
Drop Ty's name.
__________________
.....I am a cold, cruel and hard socker. You must not be sensitive when it comes to me or my socks.
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 05:31 PM
|
#904
|
Southern charmer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
|
2 million hail marys and 3 million our fathers
Quote:
Originally posted by Iron Steve
If you can find me a photoshopped picture of Helms in sheets , I would stipulate to a moral relativity between the two.
|
For these purposes, I don't give a shit about Helms or Byrd individually. Your statement was that "They [Southern Republicans] weren't doing the lynching, that the Byrds of the world were."
You think so, huh?
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 05:32 PM
|
#905
|
Strong!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my office
Posts: 268
|
And we are off.....
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your reading comprehension would improve if you picked up something besides that Regnery crap.
|
Is that a vinyard? I don't recognize the name but if it makes good wine I may have read the label.
__________________
.....I am a cold, cruel and hard socker. You must not be sensitive when it comes to me or my socks.
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 05:46 PM
|
#906
|
Strong!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my office
Posts: 268
|
2 million hail marys and 3 million our fathers
Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
For these purposes, I don't give a shit about Helms or Byrd individually. Your statement was that "They [Southern Republicans] weren't doing the lynching, that the Byrds of the world were."
You think so, huh?
|
Honestly, backtracking on the rhetoric, I think racists come in all political stripes. Neither party has the market cornered on ignorance, but if you going to argue that Helms is indicative that the Republican Party is the party of racists I counter with Kleagle Byrd every time (and remember, the Republicans have better funny phottoshoppers than the Dems.)
eta: and Byrd's "apology" is for shit and I can't figure out why anyone would try to defend it. If you are identifying him as the Conscience of your party, you may want to examine its soul.
__________________
.....I am a cold, cruel and hard socker. You must not be sensitive when it comes to me or my socks.
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 05:53 PM
|
#907
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,050
|
2 million hail marys and 3 million our fathers
Quote:
Originally posted by Iron Steve
Honestly, backtracking on the rhetoric, I think racists come in all political stripes.
|
This is true, of course. But it's also true that the Republican Party won over the South for a reason. E.g., it was no coincidence that Reagan delivered his first major address in his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:24 PM
|
#908
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,050
|
flag-burning
Here's a pretty succinct post about the problem with the amendment:
- What's particularly frustrating by the flag burning amendment is that according to the US Flag Code, the appropriate way to dispose of a flag, as all patriotic Americans know, is to burn it.
Any anti-flag burning legislation would have to be based entirely around intent - was your intent to protest the actions of your government? If so, go to jail. Was your intent to follow the US Flag code? Good for you.
Atrios
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:26 PM
|
#909
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
|
flag-burning
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here's a pretty succinct post about the problem with the amendment:
- What's particularly frustrating by the flag burning amendment is that according to the US Flag Code, the appropriate way to dispose of a flag, as all patriotic Americans know, is to burn it.
Any anti-flag burning legislation would have to be based entirely around intent - was your intent to protest the actions of your government? If so, go to jail. Was your intent to follow the US Flag code? Good for you.
Atrios
|
Succinct, yet stupid. Did you go to law school? Once there is a constitutional amendment the Code becomes unconstitutional.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:30 PM
|
#910
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
|
flag-burning
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here's a pretty succinct post about the problem with the amendment:
- What's particularly frustrating by the flag burning amendment is that according to the US Flag Code, the appropriate way to dispose of a flag, as all patriotic Americans know, is to burn it.
Any anti-flag burning legislation would have to be based entirely around intent - was your intent to protest the actions of your government? If so, go to jail. Was your intent to follow the US Flag code? Good for you.
Atrios
|
I'm pretty sure it will be easy to discern the difference between someone ceremonially burning a flag in accordance with 4 U.S.C. § 8(k) (" . . . destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.") and someone burning a flag as an act of political protest.
Not to say the act is valid as a first amendment matter, or even wise. But inconsistency with the flag code is not its greatest problem, let alone what at all.
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:30 PM
|
#911
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,050
|
flag-burning
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Succinct, yet stupid. Did you go to law school? Once there is a constitutional amendment the Code becomes unconstitutional.
|
Did you fall on your head a lot as a child? The text of the proposed amendment is:
- `The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'
Burning is not necessarily desecration.
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).
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 06-22-2005 at 06:33 PM..
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:36 PM
|
#912
|
Strong!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my office
Posts: 268
|
circling. Fully.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you fall on your head a lot as a child? The text of the proposed amendment is:
- `The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'
Burning is not necessarily desecration.
|
This is truly a slippery slope. If this succeeds I can see it now, the next one will be the Koran Desecration Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the Koran"
I'll be in deep doo doo. I'm not cut out for prison....unless, I restrict my Koran pissing to Santa Barbera County. Sneddon will never be able to make a winning case with the freaks I surround myself with.
__________________
.....I am a cold, cruel and hard socker. You must not be sensitive when it comes to me or my socks.
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:39 PM
|
#913
|
Wild Rumpus Facilitator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In a teeny, tiny, little office
Posts: 14,167
|
flag-burning
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Succinct, yet stupid. Did you go to law school? Once there is a constitutional amendment the Code becomes unconstitutional.
|
Succint, yet stupid. What were your reading comprehension scores again? The Flag Code deals with the proper means of destroying a flag. The Amendment deals with "desecration" of the flag.
In other words, it outlaws not the act itself, but the act and an intent which is not sacred. So, in addition to laying to waste a 200 plus year old tradition of freedom of speech, the proposed Amendment does so in the language of religion.
Were it not so fucking chilling, the irony would be delicious.
eta that it appears that there is a general consensus that your interpretation may have missed the boat. Nice view in that glass house, stupid?
__________________
Send in the evil clowns.
Last edited by taxwonk; 06-22-2005 at 06:42 PM..
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:45 PM
|
#914
|
Flaired.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Out with Lumbergh.
Posts: 9,954
|
flag-burning
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Succint, yet stupid. What were your reading comprehension scores again? The Flag Code deals with the proper means of destroying a flag. The Amendment deals with "desecration" of the flag.
In other words, it outlaws not the act itself, but the act and an intent which is not sacred. So, in addition to laying to waste a 200 plus year old tradition of freedom of speech, the proposed Amendment does so in the language of religion.
Were it not so fucking chilling, the irony would be delicious.
eta that it appears that there is a general consensus that your interpretation may have missed the boat. Nice view in that glass house, stupid?
|
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.
|
|
|
06-22-2005, 06:46 PM
|
#915
|
Strong!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: my office
Posts: 268
|
flag-burning
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Succint, yet stupid. What were your reading comprehension scores again?
|
Hey! Lo-berry said Shifter was the stupidest. Stand down Wonk!
__________________
.....I am a cold, cruel and hard socker. You must not be sensitive when it comes to me or my socks.
|
|
|
![Closed Thread](http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/images/buttons/threadclosed.gif) |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|