It’s baaaaaack. The proposed brand new amendment that makes a mockery out of the First One:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101. The flag stands for a nation with freedoms, including the freedom to burn the flag in protest.
I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action. So I don’t think it’s terribly effective in terms of convincing others. But the Congress…you know, the ones who shall make no law interfering with freedom of expression?…apparently didn’t get the memo.
And hey…all those articles of clothing with the flag adorning it? Notebooks? Forget it. What about decals or bumper stickers, with the image of the American flag getting spattered by mud and dirt. Pull that SUV over, fella…you with that foul bumpersticker and your girlfriend with the stars and stripes bikini top! You’re under arrest courtesy of Congress!
You can’t burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.
You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one’s reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child’s delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from “fire” falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that’s crowded.) There’s no cover here. It’s naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that’s sworn to protect it.
Plus the GOP’s gotta love it because liberals must either embrace the notion–which is antithetical to anyone who has a grasp of free speech, to say nothing of making them indistinguishable from conservatives–or else they must spend countless man hours explaining why they value free expression above cheap political opportunism…and lose the vote of every schmuck who can’t wrap his tiny mind around defending to the death one’s right to express an opinion that that same person may find personally repellant. Puts them in a nice position for the next election.
And, of course, anyone opposed to a flag burning amendment is deemed “out of touch” with the citizenry. You know what? I’d rather be out of touch with the citizenry than out of touch with the concept of free expression.
PAD
UPDATE:
‘Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,’ said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. ‘Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.’
‘If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.’ said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center. –GH
• 
“Let’s just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it’s a win, win.”
HUH?!?! It is the ACLU who PROTECTS your right to say God in public, and that has nothing to do with the actual issue. The point is, is that a an amendment prohibiting Flag-burning would be a blatent overthrow of the First amendment. (In my mind, the greatest one, maybe we should recite THAT in school instead of the Pledge.) Is the flag an important symbol? Yes. There was a story in here about a Greek guy who wrapped himself in his flag, and threw himself to his death when the Nazis took over. I think the point that should have been made there was that the flag was used as a symbol. He wasn’t dying for the FLAG he was dying for the NATION it represented. It was a convenient symbol. If he had burned his flag in protest, it would be a different use of a symbol. Only a symbol. I have heard, in the great wide world, people defending this by saying things like “Oh, (insert favorite Founding Father here) wouldn’t want people to burn flags, it isn’t what the first amendment was for.” To which I cite the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions. See, what happend, is that they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which basically gave the government the power to arrest anyone they felt was speaking against the Government. (sound familiar, gang?) Anyway, Jefferson and Madison got together and wrote the Resolutions, which said that the State could nullify any law of the Federal governments. My point is that most of the founding fathers were very Pro-free speech, up to and including direct defience of the government they had created. The whole story is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
“It is the ACLU who PROTECTS your right to say God in public.”
—————-
Hogwash!
Obviously, you know nothing about the ACLU.
They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it.
X-Ray: “They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it.”
Good heavens, how ghastly.
“Good heavens, how ghastly.”
———-
Oops .. your true colors are showing.
You think anyone who believes in God is a complete fool.
Well, you can turn away from God all you want.
But what would happen if God turned away from YOU?
Alan,
I love that story. Which may tell you a bit about where I stand.
Maltomeal,
What part of “if the amendment passes” don’t you understand? If the amendment passes, it is therefore constitutional. Do I think there is a GREAT chance it will? No. But I give it better odds than an amendment to end the electoral college or (unfortunately) one to repeal the 22nd amendment.
Jerome, the amendment passing (and I’m assuming you also mean gets ratified by the states, which is part of the process) actually isn’t the end of the story. There must still be room for a legal review to ensure that it doesn’t run afoul of other sections of the Constitution. And if it cleary violates the first amendment, you’d hope the Supreme Court would have the will to strike it down.
“They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it.”
Name three. Just three examples of the ACLU removing anything other than blatent religious refrences. Or of the ACLU preventing anyone from practicing whatever religion they want: Christianity, Islam, Wiccia, tree worship, Bokononism or anything else you can possibly imagine. All the ACLU has ever done is remove religious symbols from public places, to avoid offending people. And before you say “Wants to protect everybodies feelings: so liberal. Classic. And Funny” or something similar: tell me. What is wrong with removing religious sybolism to avoid offence? do you want people to be judged based on religion? And if so: what religion? The only one that I would remotely trust to be completely unbiased is Bhuddism. And for your info, A) I am a Christian. and B) I am middle of the road-not liberal.
Me: “Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional.”
Maltomeal: “Uh actually, it is a matter of freedom of speech. Burning a flag, not just for fun, is protected under this.”
Yes, it is a matter of free speech. It is appalling that this going on, but just because it is appalling does not make it unconstitutional (see: these week’s rulling on eminant domain) Obviously, though, you don’t understand what “unconstitutional” means. It means that it violates the constitution. Now, if the constitution is amended to say that flag burning is illegal, that means the constitution says that flag burning is illegal. Therefore, laws against flag burning are no longer unconstitutional.
Capiche?
“Just three examples of the ACLU removing anything other than blatent religious refrences.”
—————
That is just my point!
There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with “blatant religious references.”
I suppose it really depends on what you mean when you say “constitutional.” In a strict legal sense, any amendment made to the Constitution is, by definition, constitutional. However, I think that when many people use the term, they are referring more to the ideals for which the Constitution stands.
It’s not unlike the term “biblical.” If some current event is referred to as biblical, the term refers to the scope and tone rather than implying (ridiculously) that said event is literally in the Bible.
-Rex Hondo-
I suppose it really depends on what you mean when you say “constitutional.” In a strict legal sense, any amendment made to the Constitution is, by definition, constitutional. However, I think that when many people use the term, they are referring more to the ideals for which the Constitution stands.
People who use the term that way are wrong and need to educate themselves. I know it’s not popular these days to tell people that they are factually wrong because it may damage their self-esteem, but c’mon! There’s no excuse for our citizens not to understand what the Constitution actually says. Especially since we have a president that doesn’t.
Peter wrote:
“Y’know what, Joe? I hate smoking rooms in hotels. So I make sure never to stay in one. Why bother asking a question that, like a smoking room, is going to leave a stench? “
Well, you’re right, it was a very terrible question. But, since it’s difficult for a sarcastic tone to come through in written words, I wanted to ask it of this guy and see what he said.
So what X-Ray wrote was:
“Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to. “
He then went on to say,
“However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them.”
He bracketed his comments by stating that I have uncridled hatred for him.
Let’s tackle all of this:
Firstly, I don’t hate this person. Reallu I don’t. But I hate what he does behind the cloak of anonymity like the schoolyard thung who gets other people to do the dirty work for him but remains the inciter in the background. So, my recommendation is to come clean and identify yourself, X-Ray. At least then if you have an opinion, others may not agree with it, but at least they may have the option to respect it, and that’s 3/4 of the argument for credibility that you seem so eager to crave. I put my name on everything I write here, good or bad, and you ought to as well.
As to the points in your reply, you basically stood up for the very thing you’re arguing against. Read your quote again:
“Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to. “
My new question: why the heck WOULD you want to? What would possess someone to go to such extreme lengths to try to make a point? As Peter and many others said earlier, the point being attempted gets overshadowed by the sheer distastefulness of the act. YOU AGREED. Read your quote again:
“However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them.”
Now I can set you straight on something: Liberals do not hate the flag, nor do they hate the Bible. What they hate is the idea that someone else would limit their freedom of expression, no matter how repulsive that form of expression may be. I think most conservatives would take the same stand.
Both America and Canada were built on a foundation of freedom of expression. Although there are differences between the two countries, that bedrock of freedom is a shared pillar. When such a law as the one we are discussing is proposed, it is a very very serious threat to overall freedom. That’s how things started to go in Nazi Germany. I say freedom-loving people everywhere should be extremely upset by this proposal and should make lawmakers everywhere aware of it.
And I’ll say again: I personally abhor the idea of flag-burning, book-burning, Bible-burning and any such extreme protest medthodology. But I would defend anyone’s freedom to protest in that manner if they chose, as repugnant as that choice may be.
That’s a price that true freedom exacts: we have to put up with the lunatic fringe and the hate-mongers amongst us.
Just a note: typing too fast for accuracy. Sorry about the typos above. “uncridled” should be “unbridled”, etc. Sigh…..
Now I can set you straight on something: Liberals do not hate the flag, nor do they hate the Bible.”
——–
OK, now let me set YOU straight — Liberals DO hate the flag, and they hate the Bible.
Let a Koran be flushed down a toilet, and there is a deafening uproar from liberals: THIS IS WRONG! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!
But let someone try to STOP a Bible from being burned, and liberals are quick to find “reasons” that we MUST allow the burning of Bibles, or the republic will fall.
Liberals do indeed hate both flag and Bible — they just can’t say so outright, for fear of public revulsion.
Den: Or maybe you just need to realize that the English language as spoken in the US is a consistently growing and evolving thing. While not strictly gramatically true, the second potential definition of the word is no less valid, especially considering the number of people who use it in that manner, much like the words “Xerox” or “Kleenex.” While not precise in any case where a product of another brand is being used, they’ve become such a part of the language that nobody gets into a snit about it.
However, let’s look at it from another angle. The actual term used most often in relation to the bill in question is “UNconstitutional,” the definition of which is, “Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state.” So we have a minor paradox. What do you call it when a constitutional amendment is in direct opposition to the overriding principles of that constitution?
-Rex Hondo-
“And I’ll say again: I personally abhor the idea of flag-burning, book-burning, Bible-burning and any such extreme protest medthodology. But I would defend anyone’s freedom to protest in that manner if they chose, as repugnant as that choice may be.”
————–
And I’m “sure” you would fight for the right to flush a Koran down the toilet to, much as it would offend you.
Right?
Or maybe you just need to realize that the English language as spoken in the US is a consistently growing and evolving thing. While not strictly gramatically true, the second potential definition of the word is no less valid,
No, the usage is incorrect. The fact that people misuse it doesn’t make it correct. “Kleenex” and “Xerox” are brand names and any writer will tell you that these companies spend a lot of effort making sure they aren’t used genericly in print.
What do you call it when a constitutional amendment is in direct opposition to the overriding principles of that constitution?
Prohibition.
Seriously, if you’re going to take that stand, then the amendment ending slavery is “in direct opposition to the overriding principles of that constitution.” After all, slavery was considered to be perfectly in line with the principles of the men of drafted the constitution.
Ugh. Typing too fast too late at night. That should be “men who drafted the constitution.”
Yes, because prohibition worked so well, too…
Also, we’re not talking about the principles of the men who wrote the Constitution, but rather the ideals for which it stands, something bigger than a mere piece of paper with laws on it.
Whatever those corporations have done to protect their brand names, and whatever the dictionary definition of the word is, that doesn’t change the general usage of the word. I’m all for speaking precisely, but I learned long ago that expecting it of anyone else is, by and large, a lost cause. I figure if you know what they mean, just go from there, because if you try to correct them, whatever discussion there might have been gets lost in the wrestling over vocabulary.
-Rex Hondo-
X-Ray wrote:
“And I’m “sure” you would fight for the right to flush a Koran down the toilet to, much as it would offend you.
Right?”
Actually I would, even though (as you agreed earlier) burning Bibles and flushing Korans are both abhorrent acts.
Oh yes, don’t forget to identify yourself by name. Nothing to fear in doing so and it lends legitimacy to your viewpoints.
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Winston Churchill
I rest my case.
“All the ACLU has ever done is remove religious symbols from public places”
And to be clear, they fight for the removal of government-placed and supported religious symbols from government lands. They fight for the right of private citizens to have their own religious symbols in places of public access.
Keeping the government out of the religion business serves to protect the religious freedom of all. It is opposed by those who think that their religion is too weak to be accepted without government force behind it.
What is freedom? The present administration seems to think of it as their freedom to do what they want, call it what they want, and ignore the consequences for real people. They continue to increase their control over individuals, states, and non-global corporations. This is further evidence that Mr. Bush is neither a Republican nor a conservative; he is a global corporatist. See skolnicksreport.com for a long history of the control wielded by corporations and the rich and powerful. Thank God they know what is best for us. The normal average Americans can’t afford Freedom anymore anyway. Americans can’t afford to retire because the corporations are not forced to honor pension obligations. We cannot afford to stay healthy because of government supported drugopolies. We have to pay for obscene tax cuts for the rich foreign entities that ignore their obligations through offshore smoke and mirrors. We can’t afford to exercise what freedom of speech because we are working two jobs apiece and we are powerless next to the one-eyed Cyclops of the mediopoly. Evidenced by the Huffington pieces. Will we face incarceration if we write about Mr. Bush Precedent Bush instead of President Bush? Should cartoonist fear for their lives if they caricature any of our keepers? Dare we refer to Cheney as the President of vice? Perhaps he should be impeached first for far exceeding the authority of his office.
I have seen the best lives of my generation dishonored, demeaned, and marginalized by capitalistic greed and skullduggery. When it comes to Freedom, the controllers would have us believe like Wayne and his friend: we are not worthy. The flag is a symbol of Freedom not the vessel of Freedom. Current events are merely an extension of the crusade we began in the Middle East and the flag is our modern Holy Grail. Let us not kill or injure each other for a logo. Our only hope may lie in a new cottage industry: the manufacturing of flags with the Presidential Seal. Will we have the courage to burn them when appropriate?
Unlike, say, “Hate speech” laws
There are no “hate speech” laws in the US, though they exst in some countries. Here, hate speech (that doesn’t constitute “fighting words”) is protected like any other speech. There are “hate crime” laws in the US, which increase penalties for bias-MOTIVATED violent crimes. I don’t particualrly like these laws (in part because they have been used disproportionately to prosecute minorities!) but they are not limitations on speech. A person can use any sort of slur they want, but if he uses one WHILE BEATING SOMEONE UP, he may get extra time on his sentance.
Now, if you use offensive language at work, your employer may take issue, but that isn’t the same as having the government prohibit speech.
QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART ONE
Sorry to come so late to the thread, but it appears it’s still going on. Mostly, I have three or four questions for X-Ray, which I’ll present, to the best of my ability, cordially, in three or four consecutive posts.
1. X-Ray, please excuse the possibly personal question, but do you ever have a disagreement with someone without questioning their honesty or motives? From the way you interact with people here, it seems as if you honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with you politically is a liar and/or traitor. Most reasonable people — conservative, liberal, moderate (heck, even some radicals on both sides) — are able to disagree with people without calling them liars. If someone posts something with which I disagree, I might respond that “I disagree, for the following reasons …” or “I believe you’re mistaken, and here’s why …” It wouldn’t occur to me to call someone a liar just because they disagree.
But, and I admit I’m only seeing your online persona as you represent it on PAD’s blog-comments, it seems that in your world there’s no such thing as honest disagreement. PAD posts a comparison between Bush and Kerry’s grades and uses the term “exponential” incorrectly — but according to you, he couldn’t possibly just be mistaken or using a cololoquial definition of the word: He MUST be LYING! People post that they are offended by flag-burners but would not support a constitutional amendment to criminalize it — and therefore, they MUST HATE AMERICA.
It’s almost as if you believe there is only one honest way to view any issue — yours — and if anybody disagrees, they aren’t doing so out of honest disagreement, but out of malice, out of deception: They’re liars and traitors. X-Ray, people of good will have disagreed on issues since the beginning of the republic: Look at the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Adams disagreed on numerous issues, as did Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton and Adams, Adams and Franklin, etc. etc. Are you going to call any of these men liars and traitors?
Is this truly what you think: that anyone who disagrees with you, ever, is a liar and a traitor? And if so, why?
QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART TWO
Regarding the flag issue, let me preface: I’m a moderate independent who disagrees with considerable portions of both major parties’ platforms. I am also a Christian who values my faith, the Bible and Christ. And I value this country, the ideals that prompted its birth, ideals that we haven’t always lived up to, but to which we have, at our better moments, strived. And I love and value our flag, as a symbol of that country. I find it stupid and offensive for someone to burn the flag in disrespect. It’s stupid because it’s so provocative that whatever point the burner is trying to make gets lost — the message that he/she conveys, whether intending to or not, is rejection of America. And it’s genuinely offensive because — as you have said — the flag means a great deal to a great many people, including myself.
All that said, I would not support a constitutional amendement to make flag-burning illegal. I’ll explain why in my next paragraph — but X-Ray, you probably won’t pay any attention. You posted above something to the effect that no matter what rationale anyone gives, if they don’t support the amendment, they HATE AMERICA. (If I’m mischaracterizing your statement, I apologize, but that certainly seemed to be the tenor of your statements.) But anyway, here’s why:
Like I said, flag-burning is offensive. So is Bible desecration and Koran desecration and desecration of anything that means a lot to people. But simply offending people is not, can’t be a crime, or else we would ALL be in prison. My goodness, almost anything any of us do or say is offensive to someone out there. If you amend the Constitution to say, in effect, Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech EXCEPT FOR FLAG-BURNERS — what’s next? What “offensive” expression gets criminalized next? Did you ever consider that it could get turned around and used on you? Example: You’ve posted here that there is nothing wrong with public religious expression, and I agree with you — heck, I make public religious expressions. (Now, taxpayer-funded, that’s a whole ‘nother issue but beside the point here.) Some people out there are offended at any mention of faith in the public sphere. Should they be able to have THAT criminalized with a constitutional amendment — making us criminals if we ever mention God? But the fact is, if you set a precedent — that expression offending some people can be silenced by a constitutional amendment — that precedent is going to be used again and again. And pretty soon, any word our of any of our mouths — yours, mine, anyone’s — will be illegal. Is this alarmist? Maybe. I prefer to take the First Amendment as it stands.
But of course, none of that matters to you. I oppose the amendment, so I must HATE AMERICA. Furthermore, I must have just made up everything in that last paragraph as a smokescreen. But I assure you, X-Ray, that’s how I genuinely feel.
What do you think?
QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART THREE
Next question: You accuse people who oppose the amendment of “contortions of misapplied and twisted logic” — essentially saying that they’re coming up with fanciful, complicated, labyrinthine, pretzel-like reasons for their position. And of course, to you, anything anybody says is a lie, because anyone who disagrees with you hates America.
Whatever. But the basic argument doesn’t seem so contorted or twisted to me. The basic argument people are making here is best summed up by the Voltaire (I think) quote someone cited above: “I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
What’s so hard to grasp about that? What’s so “contorted”?
I’m not a big fan of Voltaire (though, according to you saying “I’m not a big fan of” means “I support wholeheartedly,” which I don’t get at all). But that quote I’ve always held as one of the wisest things ever said, and it seems a distillation of what this country — any democratic republic, but especially this one — is all about.
What do YOU think of that Voltaire quote? What’s your opinion of the basic concept expressed?
And do you TRULY beieve that people who disagree with you are liars and America-haters? Really? Honestly? Is the concept of honest disagreement really THAT foreign to you? If so, how did you get to be that way?
QUESTIONS FOR X-RAY, PART FOUR
(Last one, I promise! Sorry to take up so much space here, everyone.)
Finally, X-Ray, you often write that PAD and others treat you contemptuously, hatefully, haughtilly and disdainfully. There may be some truth to that — and I hope that I’ve been polite to you. But please think: Who started it?
Respect and cordiality is something we EARN. Here’s a question: Look back over your posts to PAD’s blog over the past couple weeks. Have you ever ONCE even made ONE post that wasn’t rude, sarcastic, insulting or accusatory? Have you made even ONE post that was polite and civil and collegial? Did you ever ONCE post, “Hey, PAD — or Glenn, or Craig, etc. — I think you’re mistaken there, and here’s why…” I may be missing one — I don’t check PAD’s blog every hour or every day — but ever since PAD’s Bush-Kerry-Yale post, I don’t recall you ever making one post that wasn’t rude, in which you didn’t insult people, or call them liars, or dismiss their arguments by saying, “You’re making that up; the real reason you feel that way is YOU HATE AMERICA.” (That’s a paraphrase.)
I would urge you to reflect: Civility works both ways.
I don’t think you’re a bad person, X-Ray. I respect your views, I probably even share some of them, and those I don’t I would defend to the death your right to express, etc. etc. But I wish you showed the same respect to others.
Again, I ask: Do you believe it’s possible for someone to honestly disagree with you without being a liar or traitor?
Do you think I’M a liar? That I hate America?
If so, you’re welcome to believe that. But I believe you’re mistaken.
At your leisure, please answer my four posts. I am genuinely interested in your responses. I’ve known many a person of many a political stripe, and have many friends who are deeply conservative — but I’ve never seen anyone who called any dissenting opinions “lies.” You puzzle me, and I want to see if you’ve truly thought that out.
With respect,
LDW
My how you do run on. There’s no way I’m going to read all that. I don’t have the time.
I’ll answer one question, “Do you believe it’s possible for someone to honestly disagree with you without being a liar or traitor?”
Funny you should ask ME that. I disagree with the liberalism espoused here, and as a result I have been called a blood-thirsty vampire, a control freak, the village idiot, etc etc, and have lately been accused of building a bomb and being dogshit.
But my answer is this: It is not possible to “disagree” with FACTS. And that’s what many of the liberals here are lacking … facts.
I’m here to wise them up.
James Carter: ‘A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.’ –Winston Churchill”
—————-
Translation: James Carter likes people who never ever change their minds for any reason, and who can’t focus on a single subject.
In other words, he likes LIBERALS!
To X-Ray:
Well, if you had bothered to read my posts — and I thought I kept them short — in one of them I said that the reason people respond so negatively to you ISN’T because of your views; it’s HOW you express them: rudely and insultingly. There ARE other conservatives who post here; they write in a polite, civil and cordial manner — and as a result, people reply in kind. May I humbly suggest: People don’t call you that stuff because you DISAGREE — they call you that stuff because you’re OBNOXIOUS, or at least come across that way. Try being civil and polite, and I think you’ll find you’ll be a lot more effective.
As far as facts go, hey, you’re right — a fact is a fact. The problem is, people can look at the same fact and come to different conclusions about it. I’m not saying they’re both right — at least one’s wrong, and maybe they’re both wrong. But that doesn’t make them LIARS; it makes them MISTAKEN.
Finally, here’s a food-for-thought question: It’s the radical-leftist politically-correct types who want to ban modes of expression just because people find them offensive. How is your stance on the flag amendment any different than the PC crowd? Doesn’t that make YOU a liberal?
Hope this was short enough.
Please don’t feed the trolls. They’ll only keep coming back to the table begging for more. (As they complain that your food isn’t to their liking.)
Karen- I know, I know. I guess I’m a sucker for lost causes — I always think that I can persuade people, through reason and logic, to be reasonable and civil. It never works, but I always keep trying. I’m a bit of a fool, I guess.
Karen,
I disagree with you on a lot, but I agree that we should not feed the trolls. The troll in question actually seems to make some valid points, but they are lost in the muck of his lapses in logic, his anger and childishness. You actually have a bunch of credibility on this, since you were equally hard on the Left-Leaning Troll Andrew who did nothing but insuly me and others a while back.
The civility level rises when you participate in these discussions.
To L. David Wheeler:
Why in the world should I be civil and polite to people who are accusing me of everything from blood drinking to bomb building? Where are your lengthy posts asking THESE people to be civil to ME? I must have missed them. Or perhaps you think anyone deemed “obnoxious” SHOULD be accused of bomb building and blood drinking etc.
By being sarcastic and brusque, I have made these dull threads explode with controversy! Far preferable to the dull drone of liberal fantasy that prevailed before I got here.
You should be thanking me for making life here more interesting! Instead, scorn is heaped upon me. (I’m quite the tragic figure, eh?)
>>dramatic lightning flash
For goodness’ sake. Yes, people shouldn’t accuse you or anyone else of blood drinking or bomb building, unless they catch ’em in the act. Happy? But my point is: YOU STARTED IT. You attacked them FIRST, accusing people of being LIARS and TRAITORS. I don’t know about you, but I think calling someone a liar and traitor is a lot more serious than calling someone a blood drinker. Maybe they should have turned the other cheek — but most people, when hit with an unprovoked attack by a stranger, will retaliate. If you had expressed your opinions politely in the first place, they would have responded politely. You chose to be rude, and they responded rudely. Their insults were serious, but you provoked them — not by your viewpoints, but by your delivery. Can’t you understand that?
As for “dull drone of liberal fantasy,” you are aware that there are several conservatives who write on this board, right? But strangely, most of them make their points politely. As a result, they are treated politely.
I tend to think life would be a little bit better if every one of us took that to heart — including senators, congressmen, presidents, etc., of both parties.
Second thing … So, wait, it seems like you’re saying you’re CAPABLE of mature argumentation and discourse about issues, but you CHOOSE to be “sarcastic and brusque?” What in the world is gained by that?
I’m sorry, to you and everyone, for harping on this — but rudeness in discourse drives me crazy.
I’ll try not to annoy people further with comments on this thread, since it’s traveled afield of the original topic anyway. Good night, all.
“YOU STARTED IT. You attacked them FIRST, accusing people of being LIARS and TRAITORS.”
————–
When people lie or are traitorous, they should be called liars and traitors. What is your problem with that? Just that I should do it “nicely”?
—————-
“You’re CAPABLE of mature argumentation and discourse about issues, but you CHOOSE to be “sarcastic and brusque?” What in the world is gained by that?”
—————–
God are you obtuse.
Not to pour water on everyone’s fire on our friend X-Ray, but don’t waste your typing time. He apparently is just someone who can’t pass a hornet nest without thinking, “Where’s my stick?” I really don’t believe he’s quite the contrarion that he appears, he just likes starting things and watching the reactions. Not quite unlike a guy I work with or my 7 year old nephew who won’t so revels in reaction that all attempts to ignore him get thrown out the window when he reaches a certain critical mass.
LDW,
The problem with arguing with logic and reason is that the one you are arguing with must be open to the possiblility that you might have a point to make. When the one you are trying to have a discourse with has closed his mind to the point that nothing else can get in and he can only spew what has entered prior to said closing, you are only knocking your head against the proverbial locked door. Perhaps, with enough time you might break the door down, but what damage are you doing to yourself in the mean time? Find someone who is still open-minded enough to listen to your words without dismissing them before reading.
Jerome,
I find people who argue from insults to be distasteful, whatever their political affiliation. Of course, for most of us, that’s like saying “The sky is blue”, so this isn’t much of a revelation. Thank-you for the kind words. Much of the reason I don’t post quite so often anymore is that I am tired of knocking my own head against the locked doors. I cite articles to have them discounted as “liberal media”, even as the facts themselves are not disputed. It seems if you knock the messenger enough, the message gets lost. Sources are attacked so we are focused on that instead of the facts. Durbin is a prime example. The attacks on his references obscured the facts that have come out of GITMO. Our military is engaged in torture. To say it is not systemic, and only a few bad low ranking enlisted, does not address that it is/has happened in 2 countries, so far that we know. The Red Cross and Amnesty International are attacked for trying to get these facts out. How many sources are we going to dismiss as unworthy before we decide this is not the America we believe we live in?
Jerome, etc.
Okay, I’ll write this plainer.
To make a flag burning amendment:
Step 1. pass amendment changing the first amendment – it must now say that some forms of free speach are no longer protected
Step 2. pass amendment saying that flag burning is not allowed
New Bottom Line: Step 1 will never happen, therefore step 2 will never happen.
The point shouldn’t be is it legal or not, ethical or not, logical or not, or even smart or not. The issue is that it was suggested. The government has never hesitated to do things that are unethical,(cutting stem cell research, Gitmo.) illogical ($17,000 toilet seat anyone?) or stupid (WMD’s? anyone see any? ooops.) The government has suggested an amendment that outlaws a form (a deplorable, stupid form, but a form nonetheless) of free speech. If it passes, it is only a matter of time before other “objectionable” forms of free speech are banned. The government has often passed laws, or taken part in actions that are against the first amendment or Constitution. (Alien and Sedition acts, Joe McCarthy, Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus, the Palmer Raids, both Red Scares) The point is is that those laws or actions could be stricken down or stopped by the first amendment. Now you propose changing that. So first goes burning flags, then maybe burning religious texts, then maybe Pørņ…..and down and down and down till we wake up one morning and the SS is knocking on the door. The first amendment should remain forever unchanged, as it is our first, last, and only line of defense against the religious right, or the wacko liberals who want to outlaw hurting peoples feelings, or anyone who wants to touch a single one of our precious freedoms. The only constitutional amendment involving the first amendment I (or any sane person who REALLY loved freedom) would support is one that said it could never, ever, ever be changed.
Maltomeal, that isn’t entirely accurate.
Since a Constitutional amendment is, itself, a part of the Constitution (by definition), it can include the idea that it is an exception to the First Amendment. As I understand it, that is exactly how you’re supposed to go about amending an amendment anyway. Otherwise, the Repeal of Prohibition would have required first amending the 18th Amendment…
Unfortunately, this also means that, should this abomination somehow pass both houses of Congress and be ratified by 39 states, it would, by definition, be Constitutional. 🙁
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tedrall;_ylt=AlomPkQ3Wi4YkHtUqrysBu5J_b4F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Ted Rall puts it nicely. Sorry about including the whole dang thing, but I don’t know how to do it with the links.
“The government has never hesitated to do things that are unethical,(cutting stem cell research, Gitmo).”
Cutting stem cell research: The Bush administration is the first to FEDERALLY FUND stem cell research.
Gitmo: A place to imprison people. No matter what they do there, it’s nowhere close to chopping off heads on TV. That’s what our enemies do.
Got any other distortions you want to try and pass off as universally accepted truth?
U.S. Government admits to torture
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html
Gitmo: A place to imprison people. No matter what they do there, it’s nowhere close to chopping off heads on TV. That’s what our enemies do.
So torturing innocent people is okay because the other guy is worse? Well, that should help us will the hearts & minds of the Iraqi people.
Support the U.S. occupiers because we’re not as bad as the other guys, who wouldn’t be here if we hadn’t invaded & plunged your country into chaos.
/scarcasm
On Sunday night, I went on-line and checked what I believe to be my schedule. Everything looks excellent, except I would like to take one more class. If it is still available I would like to take REL 100 Introduction to Biblical Literature, with Kandy M. Queen-Sutherland. The reason I want this class, with this teacher, is that it is available on Tuesdays and Thursdays, days one which I have few or no classes. Those are really the only days I can take classes at all, as all the others are very crowded. I am not sure that that is the correct teacher, but I am sure that is the correct class. If it is not available, could you please tell me so I can find something else to fill the space? I thank you very much for all your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Cary Bleasdale
So torturing innocent people is okay because the other guy is worse?
That seems to be the rationale of many Americans these days, unfortunately.
But then, when your government sanctions rendition, calls anti-torture agreements “quaint”, holds people for years on end without charges, what do you expect?
To LDW; I commend you sir for trying to reason with X-Ray in a polite manner, which I also tried but failed to do.
To Karen and Jerome: You’re right, but it seemed like a reasonable try to get some in depth discussion going without the extreme responses. Ah well…
Lastly to X-Ray: President Bush did indeed fund some stem cell research. However, there was a codicil to that funding, namely that only the existing stem cell lines could be used, and no new lines could be created. Since the existing lines had pretty much either been compromised or otherwise exhausted, that effectively put a stop to the development of the overall program.
Secondly, I’m sorry you don’t feel confident enough to reveal your true identity. This of course decreases the effectiveness of your opinions. It leads me to believe that you’re just here to “needle” folks. Therefore, I for one have given up on you and will ignore your future postings until you decide to come forward and identify yourself. Should you do so, I would be happy to continue any reasonable and reasoned discourse on any subject or subjects you choose.
“President Bush did indeed fund some stem cell research. However, there was a codicil to that funding, namely that only the existing stem cell lines could be used, and no new lines could be created. Since the existing lines had pretty much either been compromised or otherwise exhausted, that effectively put a stop to the development of the overall program.”
—————-
Wrong! The only limit was that the Federal Government would not do the funding. Private industry is free to do so. The fact that they have not tells the tale. Now, if you don’t ever want to respond to me again, then don’t! I could care less.