Do You Support A Constitutional Amendment to Ban

[ieatcrayonz]

I was going to do a poll on who believes Ed has really gotten laid. But who are we kidden, Ed couldn't get laid at a Madonna convention

 

But on a more serious note. What do people think about flag desecration? Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

[Alaska Darin]

My $.02 on the subject:

 

Freedom doesn't cover the majority. It truly is the place where the minority flourishes and truly show their worth (right or wrong). At the end of the day, the ability to consider the alternative argument is more important than disagreeing wholeheartedly with it. There is no greater statement of Freedom than the allowance to burn the symbol of same.

[KRT88]

I'd don't support one. Though I would never burn my own flag in protest I do feel you have the right to as part of your freedom of speech.

 

I also don't support a new constitutional amendment that would allow foreign born individuals to run for President. Therefore no Arnold in the White House!

[KRC]

I'd don't support one.  Though I would never burn my own flag in protest I do feel you have the right to as part of your freedom of speech.

 

I also don't support a new constitutional amendment that would allow foreign born individuals to run for President.  Therefore no Arnold in the White House!

358927[/snapback]

 

So, you believe in freedom of speech, but only for the people born here?

 

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S. Sorry, can't do it.

[Cugalabanza]

1. I'm against the ammendment because it would unnecessarily restrict freedom.

 

2. It would be ridiculous because it would actually CAUSE many people to burn the flag in protest.

 

 

Absolutely no need for this. I don't see flag burning as a serious problem in my life (or anybody's) right now.

[ch19079]

at first i thaught, any mother fu*ker who doesnt like america can get the fu*k out!.

 

but then i realized that that view was absolutly asinine.

 

the who "free speach" idea is one of the most basic rights of americans. getting to say what i want about our government and such, means i have to also hear about other peoples views and beliefs.

 

 

civil wars are faught over free speach.

[ch19079]

So, you believe in freedom of speech, but only for the people born here? 

 

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S.  Sorry, can't do it.

358935[/snapback]

i dont know about that. if, when you were born, your parents (or parent) were (was) a US citizen, than you are automatically a citizen of the US. even if you are technically born "out side of the US". (i think).

 

but say a soldier, stationed out side of the US, had a child with his wife (or even girl friend) say in india or something. that child is a US citizen and can be president.

 

and if 1 parent is a citizen while the other is not, i think that kid would have a citizenship in 2 countries. and i think he can even pick which one hes wants. (or the parents can).

 

i think the "foreign born" part means that you had to be born a citizen of the US. and not simply move here and then get citizenship.

 

i DEFIANTLY do NOT believe you shoudl change a LAW for 1 man, no matter how popular he may be.

[Fezmid]

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S.  Sorry, can't do it.

 

Except that those service people are on US bases, which are considered US territory and thus the children would be US citizens.

 

CW

[KRC]

Except that those service people are on US bases, which are considered US territory and thus the children would be US citizens.

 

CW

358955[/snapback]

 

I stand corrected.

 

Title 18 Section 1401:

* Anyone born inside the United States

* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

[Beerball]

So, you believe in freedom of speech, but only for the people born here? 

 

IMO, an American citizen is an American citizen. To exclude foreign born people would eliminate children of our service people born outside of the U.S.  Sorry, can't do it.

358935[/snapback]

Keeping those born to service people out of the mix (noted by another that they are citizens) this one has outlived its purpose. Way back when I can understand not wanting an Englishman to come over here and get elected. Today? Not an issue.

[beausox]

Some things are so basic to the community, so entwined to the culture that serious analysis is not necessary. Hume commented as much concerning marriage which he thought was so much an ingrained, obvious underpinning of society that it was beyond self-evident. I am sure david would have included ones flag, the symbol of ones land among such matters that need not reflection.

So sad today..............

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Some things are so basic to the community, so entwined to the culture that serious analysis is not necessary. Hume commented as much concerning marriage which he thought was so much an ingrained, obvious underpinning of society that it was beyond self-evident. I am sure david would have included ones flag, the symbol of ones land among such matters that need not reflection.

So sad today..............

358991[/snapback]

 

What the !@#$? Babelfish needs to get a beausox to English translator...

[Johnny Coli]

Some things are so basic to the community, so entwined to the culture that serious analysis is not necessary. Hume commented as much concerning marriage which he thought was so much an ingrained, obvious underpinning of society that it was beyond self-evident. I am sure david would have included ones flag, the symbol of ones land among such matters that need not reflection.

So sad today..............

358991[/snapback]

I believe he (beausox) is waxing poetic about David Hume, the conservative 18th century philosopher. Hume

 

In particular, he may be refering to Hume's philosophy regarding "Utilitarianism".

From the same link:

Hume's proto-utilitarianism is a peculiar one from our perspective. He doesn't think that the aggregation of cardinal units of utility provides a formula for arriving at moral truth. On the contrary, Hume was a moral sentimentalist and, as such, thought that moral principles could not be intellectually justified. Some principles simply appeal to us and others don't; and the reason why utilitarian moral principles do appeal to us is that they promote our interests and those of our fellows, with whom we sympathize. Humans are hard-wired to approve of things that help society – public utility. Hume used this insight to explain how we evaluate a wide array of phenomena, ranging from social institutions and government policies to character traits and talents.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I believe he (beausox) is waxing poetic about David Hume, the conservative 18th century philosopher.  Hume

 

In particular, he may be refering to Hume's philosophy regarding "Utilitarianism".

From the same link:

Hume's proto-utilitarianism is a peculiar one from our perspective. He doesn't think that the aggregation of cardinal units of utility provides a formula for arriving at moral truth. On the contrary, Hume was a moral sentimentalist and, as such, thought that moral principles could not be intellectually justified. Some principles simply appeal to us and others don't; and the reason why utilitarian moral principles do appeal to us is that they promote our interests and those of our fellows, with whom we sympathize. Humans are hard-wired to approve of things that help society – public utility. Hume used this insight to explain how we evaluate a wide array of phenomena, ranging from social institutions and government policies to character traits and talents.

359057[/snapback]

 

And to quote Hume's views on flag-burning:

 

 

Nothing says "Look at me, I'm !@#$ing stupid!" like taking off on an irrelevant tangent using language butchered to the point of incomprehensibility.

[KRC]

Nothing says "Look at me, I'm !@#$ing stupid!" like taking off on an irrelevant tangent using language butchered to the point of incomprehensibility.

359062[/snapback]

 

You are just jealous that you are not on the same intellectual plane as beausox.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You are just jealous that you are not on the same intellectual plane as beausox.

359067[/snapback]

 

For which I say: Thank God.

[Johnny Coli]

Nothing says "Look at me, I'm !@#$ing stupid!" like taking off on an irrelevant tangent using language butchered to the point of incomprehensibility.

359062[/snapback]

True. I was making an attempt to crack open the black box that is Beausox' mind.

 

Taking many of his posts as a whole, his MO seems to take a topic, make a loose association which not many can understand or take the time to check on, then drive the thread in a new direction to espouse his own views.

 

In this post, he used the flag-burning issue to drop the name of Hume, then mention something about marriage, which has nothing to do with the topic.

It's pretty interesting.

[IBTG81]

I was going to do a poll on who believes Ed has really gotten laid.  But who are we kidden, Ed couldn't get laid at a Madonna convention 

 

But on a more serious note.  What do people think about flag desecration?  Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

358912[/snapback]

 

Dude, if you're going to insult me, please don't be a kitty and say it under your "normal" name.

 

Even better, why don't you say it to my face. We'll see who's laughing then.

[rockpile]

But on a more serious note.  What do people think about flag desecration?  Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

358912[/snapback]

It is despicable but is it unconstitutional?

 

From Wikpedia: "Constitutionality is the status of a law, procedure, or act being in accordance with the laws or guidelines contained in a constitution.

 

When something is unconstitutional it is illegal by being a direct violation of a constitution; it is constitutional when it is in accordance with a constitution."

 

Can anyone cite where in the constitution, banning flag desecration is justified?

 

I am interested in the debate.

[KRC]

Taking many of his posts as a whole, his MO seems to take a topic, make a loose association which not many can understand or take the time to check on, then drive the thread in a new direction to espouse his own views.

359071[/snapback]

 

To me, his MO is that he is trying to sound more intelligent than he really is. I do not think that he is trying to shift the discussion, at least not intentionally.

[Alaska Darin]

Dude, if you're going to insult me, please don't be a kitty and say it under your "normal" name.

 

Even better, why don't you say it to my face. We'll see who's laughing then. 

359072[/snapback]

Lighten up, Francis.

[IBTG81]

Lighten up, Francis.

359090[/snapback]

 

I get annoyed when the same schmuck follows me around like a little lost kitten.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

This country's forefathers would have been some of the first to start burning flags in protest at the first sign of tyrannical rule (and probably would be by now). The Crown (or current authority in power) likely would have made flag burning illegal sorely for the purpose of rounding up the burners and keeping them locked up somewhere. Burning the flag IMO is much higher on the free speech list then porno or aggressive papparazzi and entertainment tabloids.

 

As to the foreign born ban on being president, I'm strongly for it. Give other nations a chance to slip in a 'Manchurian Canidate' and they'll roll the dice, let's not kid ourselves. And I I say this as one who believed until today that I couldn't be president because I was born on foriegn soil. Now I guess I could since Pops was in the Navy at the time thanks to KRC looking it up. Don't worry though...waaaaay too many skeletons in this closet...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

True.  I was making an attempt to crack open the black box that is Beausox' mind. 

 

Taking many of his posts as a whole, his MO seems to take a topic, make a loose association which not many can understand or take the time to check on, then drive the thread in a new direction to espouse his own views.

 

In this post, he used the flag-burning issue to drop the name of Hume, then mention something about marriage, which has nothing to do with the topic.

It's pretty interesting.

359071[/snapback]

 

Hmmm...interesting theory. I always figured he was simply incoherent and knew how to abuse a thesarus.

 

I believe Occam's Razor dictates my theory the more likely, in particular because you give him a LOT of credit. Still, I can't completely discount your preposition...

[Johnny Coli]

Back to the flag-burning topic. Do you root for the team, or do you root for the laundry? I burned my Bledsoe jersey after one game last year. Does that mean I'm not a true Bills fan? Absolutely not. It just means I love the team so much that I was willing to use that simple act to show how much emotion I have vested in the team. People who burn the flag may not be making the same type of statement, but I believe it still applys, somewhat.

 

However, if a Pats fan is burning a Bills jersey, I'm more than likely to drop the gloves and come over the boards.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I was going to do a poll on who believes Ed has really gotten laid.  But who are we kidden, Ed couldn't get laid at a Madonna convention 

 

But on a more serious note.  What do people think about flag desecration?  Freedom of speech, disrespectful, both...

358912[/snapback]

 

To quote Komachi

 

This night of no moon

There is no way to meet him.

I rise in longing-

My breast pounds, a leaping flame,

My heart is consumed in fire.

 

You ignorant souls who mock beaux should listen and learn. We have much to offer.

[KRC]

However, if a Pats fan is burning a Bills jersey, I'm more than likely to drop the gloves and come over the boards.

359147[/snapback]

 

I know that you are being sarcastic, but ironically you are making a case for the Amendment with this statement. See how you react to the burning of a symbol of something you care about? The same reaction could happen with burning the flag. It is a symbol of something you care about. For some, the burning of the flag could result in "dropping the gloves and coming over the boards."

 

I personally think it falls under the free speech thingy, but do you see my point? There could be negative consequences (violence) to actions like burning the flag. Does this equate to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater or am I stretching things too far?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Back to the flag-burning topic.  Do you root for the team, or do you root for the laundry?  I burned my Bledsoe jersey after one game last year.  Does that mean I'm not a true Bills fan?  Absolutely not.  It just means I love the team so much that I was willing to use that simple act to show how much emotion I have vested in the team.  People who burn the flag may not be making the same type of statement, but I believe it still applys, somewhat.

 

However, if a Pats fan is burning a Bills jersey, I'm more than likely to drop the gloves and come over the boards.

359147[/snapback]

 

Difference is, no one died trying to plant a Drew Bledsoe jersey on the top of Mount Suribachi.

 

No one died carrying a Drew Bledsoe jersey at Bull Run.

 

There's a reverence to the dead attached to the flag and burning it is a sign of HATRED for this country and the men who died for it. Why the hell do you think those arseholes in the Middle East do it? When someone in this nation does it, he or she should be promptly beaten down by his fellow citizens in the name of civic duty. HOWEVER...it should remain legal because it is a matter of free speech. but I do think the good citizens of the locality in which said "expression" takes place should feel free to show the idiot undertaking it what they think of his or her "expression".

[Johnny Coli]

I know that you are being sarcastic, but ironically you are making a case for the Amendment with this statement. See how you react to the burning of a symbol of something you care about? The same reaction could happen with burning the flag. It is a symbol of something you care about. For some, the burning of the flag could result in "dropping the gloves and coming over the boards."

 

I personally think it falls under the free speech thingy, but do you see my point? There could be negative consequences (violence) to actions like burning the flag. Does this equate to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater or am I stretching things too far?

359155[/snapback]

Yes, I was being sarcastic, and yes, I do see what you mean. I feel it (flag burning) falls under free speech. We let white supremacists march/rally, etc. And we let them march without fear of violence, and in most cases have to actually protect them while they march. Freedom means that sometimes you have to throw up in your mouth and look the other way.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yes, I was being sarcastic, and yes, I do see what you mean.  I feel it (flag burning) falls under free speech.  We let white supremacists march/rally, etc.  And we let them march without fear of violence, and in most cases have to actually protect them while they march.  Freedom means that sometimes you have to throw up in your mouth and look the other way.

359161[/snapback]

 

 

""You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

 

The American President was a pretty good performance by Michael Douglass. This was one of his best speeches.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hey, what the hell happened to my post?

 

There was nothing obscene or otherwise in there.

[Johnny Coli]

Hey, what the hell happened to my post?

 

There was nothing obscene or otherwise in there.

359183[/snapback]

Joe Six Pack got censored in a thread about free speech. That would qualify as irony, I believe.

[ieatcrayonz]

Even better, why don't you say it to my face. We'll see who's laughing then. 

359072[/snapback]

 

That would require me getting into the fetal position.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hey, what the hell happened to my post?

 

There was nothing obscene or otherwise in there.

359183[/snapback]

 

I burned it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I burned it. 

359209[/snapback]

 

*promply smacks Tom around*

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

*promply smacks Tom around*

359213[/snapback]

 

Well...this is a thread about Fag Burning, isn't it?

[sweet baboo]

like someone said above, I'd be against such an amendment is a restriction of freedom of speech

however, the liberals who are all gung ho about burning the flag should shut their faces about koran desecration

[Alaska Darin]

I get annoyed when the same schmuck follows me around like a little lost kitten. 

359091[/snapback]

I'm sure he'll stop BECAUSE you're replying...

[OnTheRocks]

i don't support a ban, but i would not burn the flag.

 

i think it would be good to not have a ban....because then all the commie liberals that do decide they want to burn it, can have their names and/or images added to the Homeland Security "Sh1t List".

[Alaska Darin]

I support a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the litany of unConstitutional laws that have been passed over the last 50 years or so.