• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Flag Burning, Cross Burning, And Pornography

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Should flag burning be protected as a form of free speech?

Under our current hallucinatory liberal interpretation, the founding fathers supposedly meant the 1st Amendment to protect Howard Stern from having to use private airwaves to discuss rim jobs; it was apparently also meant to protect Larry Flynt from decency laws.

Surely if THESE things are protected by it, then flag burning would be.

But only in the delusional world of a liberal's mind does it make sense to think that all our deeply religious Judeo-Christian founders meant this. They came from a background of religious and political persecution, and, as their writings UNMISTAKABLY clarify, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL speech, not pornography and vulgarity.

But IS flag burning POLITICAL speech? I don't think it qualifies. It is mindlessly setting a symbol on fire. If that is speech, then picking your nose is also a form of Constitutionally protected speech. It is just a symbol. I don't think burning flags should be illegal, but I sure as hell don't think it is CONSTITUTIONALLY protected. Who is hurt by flag burning? No one. People may choose to be offended and go nuts over it, but being offended is something free societies of people (not to mention adults in general) have to get over.

On that same token though, I don't think cross burning should be illegal. Professional black victims can drudge up the same lame excuses for their lack of self-control as veterans who are offended by flag burning, but that doesn't give them the right to force some degenerate who is too stupid to form verbal arguments to stop burning symbols to compensate for not having an intelect.

Burning things doesn't communicate anything decipherable. It is just something angry retards do when they are upset. Punching a wall is not POLITICAL speech. None of this stuff is an example of POLITICAL speech. Speaking, writing, protesting, etc. are examples of POLITICAL speech.

When a Hollywood jackass starts trashing the consumer society that made him/her rich, that is barely political speech, so habitual liar-half-wits like Michael Moore SHOULD be protected. (but not from consumer boycotts. ;))

The biggest stretch of POLITICAL speech I can accept as valid is contributing money to causes and candidates you support. It is important that people be able to express their opinions in this manner. But even that is somewhat pushing it.

But even things that ARE political speech are still not protected by the Constitution the way people think they are.

Virginia and New York originally refused to sign the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (including the 1st Amendment) was added to assure them that the federal government would not trample the rights of the states.

So when a federal judge tells a local shool district that they are violating a child's 1st Amendment rights in some way and orders them to change, he/she is usurping his/her authority and doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what was intended. Judges AREN'T supposed to have this kind of authority over state and local matters.

The states were supposed to be largely free of federal interference. But the document that was drafted to ensure that-the Constitution-has been used to justify micro-managing every area of our lives and to legislate from the bench.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But only in the delusional world of a liberal's mind does it make sense to think that all our deeply religious Judeo-Christian founders meant this. They came from a background of religious and political persecution, and, as their writings UNMISTAKABLY clarify, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL speech, not pornography and vulgarity.
One could also argue that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant to cover automatic weapons with that same rationale.

Sheesh. Keep your nose out of other people's business. Enjoy a smaller government that isn't telling you what to do, how to think, and all that jazz. Offensive radio? Change the station. Dirty magazine? Don't subscribe. Flag burning protest? Don't attend.

Sorry if the America isn't sanitized enough for you. It's a tough world. :roll:
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So what is wrong about talking about sex. If you don't like it listen to something else.

I don't think that sex is vulgar, or even talking about sex. SO why should your values be imposed on others.

Freedom of speech means, freedom of speech. It's that simple.

THe issue of flag burning seems to be more a freedom of expression thing than freedom of speech.

As for pornography, as long as it is between consenting adults, I really have no interest in government controlling people's sexual needs.

Lastly American's founding fathers may have been religious, some where just theists, but all this founding father worship misses the point. Societies change over time, therefore it is inherently stupid to constantly try to work out what the founding fathers would do in todays world.

Constitutions are designed to have some flexibility, and room for intrepretation, and have clauses on ammendments. All of these designs allow constitutions to change as society changes.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by shuamort
One could also argue that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant to cover automatic weapons with that same rationale.

Sheesh. Keep your nose out of other people's business. Enjoy a smaller government that isn't telling you what to do, how to think, and all that jazz. Offensive radio? Change the station. Dirty magazine? Don't subscribe. Flag burning protest? Don't attend.

Sorry if the America isn't sanitized enough for you. It's a tough world
You might not be such a bad guy after all.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
The states were supposed to be largely free of federal interference. But the document that was drafted to ensure that-the Constitution-has been used to justify micro-managing every area of our lives and to legislate from the bench.
So wait...now I am confused...out of one side of your mouth you say that the government should be restricting rights to do what you want with your own property on the grounds that it is of religious or national significance...and out of the other side, you are complaining about being micro-managed? In one part of your post, you advocate the restriction of published materials on the grounds that you find the material objectionable, but then you make an assertion that we should not have judges acting to ensure that 1st amendment rights are maintained by the highest court?

I make no apologies for what I am about to say. That was the single most retarded post I have read since I joined this forum.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
shuamort said:
One could also argue that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant to cover automatic weapons with that same rationale.

Sheesh. Keep your nose out of other people's business. Enjoy a smaller government that isn't telling you what to do, how to think, and all that jazz. Offensive radio? Change the station. Dirty magazine? Don't subscribe. Flag burning protest? Don't attend.

Sorry if the America isn't sanitized enough for you. It's a tough world. :roll:

Left to right, top to bottom. It is called reading. I wrote that I think flag burning, cross burning and pornography should all be legal, but that they are CLEARLY not Constitutionally protected.

You need to knock your emotions down a few pegs and introduce some thought to your reading. You will avoid such egregious misinterpretations as this that way.

And yes, I am very pro-gun and I find it highly unlikely that the founding fathers would have apporved of civilians armed with automatic assault rifles. You CAN make that argument under my rationale, what about it?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
Left to right, top to bottom. It is called reading. I wrote that I think flag burning, cross burning and pornography should all be legal, but that they are CLEARLY not Constitutionally protected.

You need to knock your emotions down a few pegs and introduce some thought to your reading. You will avoid such egregious misinterpretations as this that way.

And yes, I am very pro-gun and I find it highly unlikely that the founding fathers would have apporved of civilians armed with automatic assault rifles. You CAN make that argument under my rationale, what about it?
Wait, now I am totally confused. I know this was to shuamort, but I want some clarification...it seemed like you were totally against all these expressions, but you say you arent? And just out of curiosity, what makes you think that the mentioned expressions are not constitutionally protected?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Australianlibertarian said:
1) So what is wrong about talking about sex. If you don't like it listen to something else.

I don't think that sex is vulgar, or even talking about sex. SO why should your values be imposed on others.

2) Freedom of speech means, freedom of speech. It's that simple.

THe issue of flag burning seems to be more a freedom of expression thing than freedom of speech.

As for pornography, as long as it is between consenting adults, I really have no interest in government controlling people's sexual needs.

3) Lastly American's founding fathers may have been religious, some where just theists, but all this founding father worship misses the point. Societies change over time, therefore it is inherently stupid to constantly try to work out what the founding fathers would do in todays world.

Constitutions are designed to have some flexibility, and room for intrepretation, and have clauses on ammendments. All of these designs allow constitutions to change as society changes.
1) There are many things you can't do in public because they are vulgar. No one is trying to stop Stern from saying whatever the hell he wants on private airwaves. All people are generally concerned with is being able to EVER turn on a radio with kids in the car, without being bombarded with vulgarity.

Even if this was protected speech under the 1st Amendment, no one is keeping him from doing what he wants, just in public-this is just like a hundred other legitimate local ludeness ordinances.

2) Clearly, you didn't read the whole intro. The points you are making here are irrelevant to the points I made.

3) This isn't founding father worship, it is called constitutional government. Maybe you've heard of it.

It is not stupid to consider what is Constitutionally protected when people are trying to use the Constitution to protect things it has nothing to do with.
The Constitution protects POLITICAL and RELIGIOUS speech, period. Grasp it.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
You might not be such a bad guy after all.

I would expect you to agree with him. He is responding to arguments no one made. Conversations would be much shorter in this country if liberals could correctly interpret the written word.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
1) So wait...now I am confused...out of one side of your mouth you say that the government should be restricting rights to do what you want with your own property on the grounds that it is of religious or national significance...

2) and out of the other side, you are complaining about being micro-managed?

3) you advocate the restriction of published materials on the grounds that you find the material objectionable


I make no apologies for what I am about to say. That was the single most retarded post I have read since I joined this forum.
Illiteracy strikes again.


1) I never made that argument. Nothing I said even resembles that point. Try thinking when you read. As I said, I support these things being legal, but it is total bull to say they are Constitutionally protected.

2) I will spell it out in as simple terms as I can for you, oh quick one...The federal courts are supposed to hear federal cases. The Bill of Rights was created SPECIFICALLY to assure states that the new federal government would not interfere in local affairs and trample their rights.

3) Again, I never once made the point you are talking about. Not once have I advocated the restriction of porn. Not once. I think STATE and LOCAL governments should be in charge of it, but that doesn't mean I think it should be restricted.

Your entire "analysis" here is based on assumption, emotion, and an utter failure to grasp the English language.

None of this is contradictory, it just requires an attention span greater than a fly. Jesus. :roll:
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
Illiteracy strikes again.
And so does being an asshole....

1) I never made that argument. Nothing I said even resembles that point. Try thinking when you read. As I said, I support these things being legal, but it is total bull to say they are Constitutionally protected.
Try being more clear about your point when you discuss it. I have a degree in English Lit, I am quite positive my reading comprehension is on an acceptable level. However, your immediate attacking toning gave the impression to multiple people that you were against the things you mentioned...so now, rather than being an aggressive prick, perhaps you would like to clarify your tone and approach the conversation with a modicum of civility.

2) I will spell it out in as simple terms as I can for you, oh quick one...The federal courts are supposed to hear federal cases. The Bill of Rights was created SPECIFICALLY to assure states that the new federal government would not interfere in local affairs and trample their rights.
Well allow me to correct you, brainchild...the Federal Courts are in place to determine the constitutionality of state laws. I guess 6th grade civics escaped you while you were learning how to unclearly make your point.

3) Again, I never once made the point you are talking about. Not once have I advocated the restriction of porn. Not once. I think STATE and LOCAL governments should be in charge of it, but that doesn't mean I think it should be restricted.
And if those states are violating constitutional rights with their restrictions, then the federal courts supercede them as per the constitution...which wouldnt be a bad idea for you to read sometime, oh clueless wonder.

Your entire "analysis" here is based on assumption, emotion, and an utter failure to grasp the English language.
I suppose that was brought on by your lib bashing, hateful toned, neocon rhetoric and dissemination of erroneous information about our constitution. Of course it could just be the fact that your communications skills are limited to attack and badgering techniques one expects from neocon slime.

None of this is contradictory, it just requires an attention span greater than a fly. Jesus. :roll:
Then let me politely suggest that you offer your opinions with less venom and a clearer presentation and you may not find yourself looking as ignorant and stupid as you currently do.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by aquapub
I would expect you to agree with him. He is responding to arguments no one made. Conversations would be much shorter in this country if liberals could correctly interpret the written word.
He responded exactly to what the person was saying. Keep you nose out of other peoples business. You get in mine, I guarantee you, I will not be kind, but I will be certain. Your playing word games. The poster was making a judgement call on morality. This is something you cannot force on others. What is moral to someone (ie, pornography and vulgarity) might not be moral to others. Either way, its a judgement call. Keep a separation between church and state.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
The Federal Courts are in place to determine the constitutionality of state laws.

And if those states are violating constitutional rights with their restrictions, then the federal courts supercede them as per the constitution.



I only quoted the actual on-topic points you made. Striking how much smaller your post is now isn't it? And I am uncivil? Right.

You called my post retarded. I responded by explaining who the actual retard here is. You called me uncivil and then a hundred other things, I guess to prove how civil YOU are. :roll:

You attack without thinking just like every other spineless whiner I have met with your major.

If you can't take the crap you dish out, don't start it.


As to your nose-pickingly shallow misperceptions of the Constitution. let me re-educate you, and try to listen this time....

The federal courts exist to resolve matters that can't be resolved by the states. If you read the section of the Constitution that creates the federal courts, it clarifies that.

Furthermore, the fact that the Bill of Rights was created to assure New York and Virginia that the federal government wouldn't interfere with their sovereignty (as you are asserting is their DUTY) should tell you that the role the federal courts have taken on is a usurpation, not what was intended.

Read, think, then argue. You will argue more substantive points that way, you will be more accurate, and you won't look like such an ignorant sissy throwing a tantrum because your feelings got hurt. ;)
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
I only quoted the actual on-topic points you made. Striking how much smaller your post is now isn't it? And I am uncivil? Right.

You called my post retarded. I responded by explaining who the actual retard here is. You called me uncivil and then a hundred other things, I guess to prove how civil YOU are. :roll:
If you would look at the continuation of the thread from there, you would see that I tried to pursue clarification when you began to make your point more clearly. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, you lost all sense and took up your attack and insult mantra again. Your post was retarded, but not for the reasons I first thought.

Further, when the gloves come off, there is no requirement for me to continue being civil. If a dog gets out of line, you turn the hose on it as I did with you, cur.

You attack without thinking just like every other spineless whiner I have met with your major.

If you can't take the crap you dish out, don't start it.
So lets take it to the basement big boy...we can finish this where neither of us gets banned.


As to your nose-pickingly shallow misperceptions of the Constitution. let me re-educate you, and try to listen this time....
Oh oh oh...I'm sorry...I didnt realize that your erroneous opinions were more important than what the constitution actually says. Further, I didnt realize your legal credentials were so shining that your whinings and sophistic attacks had any bearing on how our government actually works. Let me make sure to send out a memo...here, I am waiting for your dictations with bated breath...:roll:

The federal courts exist to resolve matters that can't be resolved by the states. If you read the section of the Constitution that creates the federal courts, it clarifies that.
And to ensure that the rights of the individual cannot be trampled upon by any facet of the government...state or federal. Please refer me to this special information you are privy to or shut the **** up.

Furthermore, the fact that the Bill of Rights was created to assure New York and Virginia that the federal government wouldn't interfere with their sovereignty (as you are asserting is their DUTY) should tell you that the role the federal courts have taken on is a usurpation, not what was intended.
Hmm...funny how after New York and Virginia were part of the Union that the Bill of Rights continued to be added to. I didnt realize that the word United in USA was simply a suggestion and not a fact. Totally undermines my ideas about the Civil War and why it was fought. You are just full of special insights, arent you Corky?

Read, think, then argue. You will argue more substantive points that way, you will be more accurate, and you won't look like such an ignorant sissy throwing a tantrum because your feelings got hurt. ;)
Hmmm, here we go again. You make a dee dee dee post and then assume my feelings got hurt over your personal short-comings. Whatever it takes to get you through the night, aquapube. When you have some references and real debating points, come back and play again. Until then, I will be happy to fart when I want to hear an asshole talk.
 
Last edited:

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Just so you have it for your reference, since seem not to have ever read this part of the constitution, let me put it here.

Article 3 Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In the end, application of the law, even state law, is subject to constitutional interpretation and the highest interpreter of the constitution is the Supreme Court as indicated by section one of Article 3.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Try it out sometime.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
He responded exactly to what the person was saying. Keep you nose out of other peoples business. You get in mine, I guarantee you, I will not be kind, but I will be certain. Your playing word games. The poster was making a judgement call on morality. This is something you cannot force on others. What is moral to someone (ie, pornography and vulgarity) might not be moral to others. Either way, its a judgement call. Keep a separation between church and state.
Example of why this post is wrong:

I said that I support flag burning being legal. He criticized me for wanting to ban flag burning. He clearly didn't read the post.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by aquapub
Example of why this post is wrong:

I said that I support flag burning being illegal. He criticized me for wanting to ban flag burning. He clearly didn't read the post.
I don't why anyone would want to burn a flag that was made in China.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
Just so you have it for your reference, since seem not to have ever read this part of the constitution, let me put it here.



In the end, application of the law, even state law, is subject to constitutional interpretation and the highest interpreter of the constitution is the Supreme Court as indicated by section one of Article 3.

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Try it out sometime.

WOW! What genius! :lol:

You just helped me prove my point! Real sharp there sparky! :lol:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..."

THIS CONSTITUTION only contains federal law. If the jurisdiction of the courts extends only to things arising from this constitution, which only contains, by definition, federal laws, then....follow me here....the only jurisdiction the federal courts have are over FEDERAL cases.

So, as I was saying in the intro, the federal courts are supposed to hear federal cases.

The only other powers given to the federal courts were treaties, ambassadors, the military and other FEDERAL bodies. The history of the Constitution and the writings of its founders PROVE that the states were not meant to be interfered with by the federal courts like they are.


All this B.S. aside, what's really going on here is that you went off half-cocked, calling me retarded for wanting flag-burning, cross burning, etc. banned and such, and I clarified that, in PLAIN ENGLISH, I had originally said that I wanted it LEGAL.

You clearly went off on a first impression and didn't read the whole thing. Now you are embarrassed that you made an ass of yourself and you're trying to blame me for being "unclear."

The only problem is that the original post you MISREAD is still there for all to read. You screwed up and you are embarrassed. DEAL WITH IT. You only make matters worse by trying to lie your way out of it and by challenging me to one of your Neanderthal non-thought fests in the basement.

You go have fun in the basement. It is apparently the only place you are intellectually equipped for. ;)
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aquapub said:
Should flag burning be protected as a form of free speech?

Under our current hallucinatory liberal interpretation, the founding fathers supposedly meant the 1st Amendment to protect Howard Stern from having to use private airwaves to discuss rim jobs; it was apparently also meant to protect Larry Flynt from decency laws.

Surely if THESE things are protected by it, then flag burning would be.

But only in the delusional world of a liberal's mind does it make sense to think that all our deeply religious Judeo-Christian founders meant this. They came from a background of religious and political persecution, and, as their writings UNMISTAKABLY clarify, the 1st Amendment was meant to protect RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL speech, not pornography and vulgarity.

But IS flag burning POLITICAL speech? I don't think it qualifies. It is mindlessly setting a symbol on fire. If that is speech, then picking your nose is also a form of Constitutionally protected speech. It is just a symbol. I don't think burning flags should be illegal, but I sure as hell don't think it is CONSTITUTIONALLY protected. Who is hurt by flag burning? No one. People may choose to be offended and go nuts over it, but being offended is something free societies of people (not to mention adults in general) have to get over.

On that same token though, I don't think cross burning should be illegal. Professional black victims can drudge up the same lame excuses for their lack of self-control as veterans who are offended by flag burning, but that doesn't give them the right to force some degenerate who is too stupid to form verbal arguments to stop burning symbols to compensate for not having an intelect.

Burning things doesn't communicate anything decipherable. It is just something angry retards do when they are upset. Punching a wall is not POLITICAL speech. None of this stuff is an example of POLITICAL speech. Speaking, writing, protesting, etc. are examples of POLITICAL speech.

When a Hollywood jackass starts trashing the consumer society that made him/her rich, that is barely political speech, so habitual liar-half-wits like Michael Moore SHOULD be protected. (but not from consumer boycotts. ;))

The biggest stretch of POLITICAL speech I can accept as valid is contributing money to causes and candidates you support. It is important that people be able to express their opinions in this manner. But even that is somewhat pushing it.

But even things that ARE political speech are still not protected by the Constitution the way people think they are.

Virginia and New York originally refused to sign the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (including the 1st Amendment) was added to assure them that the federal government would not trample the rights of the states.

So when a federal judge tells a local shool district that they are violating a child's 1st Amendment rights in some way and orders them to change, he/she is usurping his/her authority and doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what was intended. Judges AREN'T supposed to have this kind of authority over state and local matters.

The states were supposed to be largely free of federal interference. But the document that was drafted to ensure that-the Constitution-has been used to justify micro-managing every area of our lives and to legislate from the bench.
Let me ask a question here. If flag burning, which is a form of defacing the flag, is to become a crime, shouldnt the law also apply to all those who put flags on their cars to show how American they are? After all, these flags stayed out in the rain and the elements, and became very tattered, due to the negligence their owners displayed. And when the flags became tattered enough, they were just thrown into the garbage, and new flags were put on those cars, which were then subjected to the same treatment. Was that respecting our flag? If you believe so, then you need to go back and read how a flag is supposed to be cared for.

Some who would critisize those who burn our flag need to take a good look in the mirror, because they treat our flag not as a flag, but as a mere logo to be flown without reverence to the principles behind which the flag stands. I say send those people to jail too. If this is really about the principle of protecting the flag, then you would have to agree with me. Or would you say that it is violating the first amendment rights of those who put the flags on their cars while not respecting those flags?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
WOW! What genius! :lol:

You just helped me prove my point! Real sharp there sparky! :lol:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..."

THIS CONSTITUTION only contains federal law. If the jurisdiction of the courts extends only to things arising from this constitution, which only contains, by definition, federal laws, then....follow me here....the only jurisdiction the federal courts have are over FEDERAL cases.

So, as I was saying in the intro, the federal courts are supposed to hear federal cases.

The only other powers given to the federal courts were treaties, ambassadors, the military and other FEDERAL bodies. The history of the Constitution and the writings of its founders PROVE that the states were not meant to be interfered with by the federal courts like they are.


All this B.S. aside, what's really going on here is that you went off half-cocked, calling me retarded for wanting flag-burning, cross burning, etc. banned and such, and I clarified that, in PLAIN ENGLISH, I had originally said that I wanted it LEGAL.

You clearly went off on a first impression and didn't read the whole thing. Now you are embarrassed that you made an ass of yourself and you're trying to blame me for being "unclear."

The only problem is that the original post you MISREAD is still there for all to read. You screwed up and you are embarrassed. DEAL WITH IT. You only make matters worse by trying to lie your way out of it and by challenging me to one of your Neanderthal non-thought fests in the basement.

You go have fun in the basement. It is apparently the only place you are intellectually equipped for. ;)
There is clearly nothing to say to you anymore you illiterate, whining, thumb-sucking sissy. You cant understand the very reference you called on, when I highlighted it blatantly for you. Even heavily sedated on morphine, it is easy for me to see that the wind-tunnel between your ears is the most interesting trait about you. I find your attacks on my intellect both hysterical and very telling about your personality. Sorry, but I dont have time to scrape the bottom of the social and intellectual barrel around here...there are far more engaging discussions to have with people who actually know how to read the constitution. Later aquapube.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mod Note

This thread is a mess. I'm tempted to lock it, but will send it down to the basement instead. Feel free to get your ya-yas out down there.

/Mod Note
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
shuamort said:
Mod Note

This thread is a mess. I'm tempted to lock it, but will send it down to the basement instead. Feel free to get your ya-yas out down there.

/Mod Note
You're right, my apologies. I knew better than to engage the uncivil. I should have known from the initial post that this was going to be ugly. Again my apologies.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
You're right, my apologies. I knew better than to engage the uncivil. I should have known from the initial post that this was going to be ugly. Again my apologies.

Yeah, take the high road now that you have started an irreversible ego-war by going off without reading the full introduction. What a joke. :roll:

I know you're obssessed now with redeeming yourself after repeatedly embarrassing yourself, but get over it. Stop trying to blame me for your half-assed reading habits.

This adolescent smear fest you've started just draws more attention to your embarrassing misinterpretation of my plain English intro.

Congratulations though. You have successfully brought a complicated intellectual thread down into your intellectual domain-the basement. I hate it when provocative threads get hijacked by halfwit morons.

But it's yours now. I generally don't debate in here, being that I have more than an animal level intelligence and am not reduced to degenerate rage like you. So have fun with it.

And you might want to read something on the Constitution before you make another such feeble attempt at thought while armed with nothing but common fallacies.

Thanks for the amusement though, ass. :lol:
 
Last edited:

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aquapub said:
Yeah, take the high road now that you have started an irreversible ego-war by going off without reading the full introduction. What a joke. :roll:

I know you're obssessed now with redeeming yourself after repeatedly embarrassing yourself, but get over it. Stop trying to blame me for your half-assed reading habits.

This adolescent smear fest you've started just draws more attention to your embarrassing misinterpretation of my plain English intro.

Congratulations though. You have successfully brought a complicated intellectual thread down into your intellectual domain-the basement. I hate it when provocative threads get hijacked by halfwit morons.

But it's yours now. I generally don't debate in here, being that I have more than an animal level intelligence and am not reduced to degenerate rage like you. So have fun with it.

And you might want to read something on the Constitution before you make another such feeble attempt at thought while armed with nothing but common fallacies.

Thanks for the amusement though, ass. :lol:
You still have not answered my post. What about those whose disgregard for the flag shows the same respect as those who burn the flag? Read my post above again, then give me the kind of creative answer I know you are capable of giving. :)
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
aquapub said:
Yeah, take the high road now that you have started an irreversible ego-war by going off without reading the full introduction. What a joke. :roll:

I know you're obssessed now with redeeming yourself after repeatedly embarrassing yourself, but get over it. Stop trying to blame me for your half-assed reading habits.

This adolescent smear fest you've started just draws more attention to your embarrassing misinterpretation of my plain English intro.

Congratulations though. You have successfully brought a complicated intellectual thread down into your intellectual domain-the basement. I hate it when provocative threads get hijacked by halfwit morons.

But it's yours now. I generally don't debate in here, being that I have more than an animal level intelligence and am not reduced to degenerate rage like you. So have fun with it.

And you might want to read something on the Constitution before you make another such feeble attempt at thought while armed with nothing but common fallacies.

Thanks for the amusement though, ass. :lol:
A petty dick to the end.
 
Top Bottom