No, instead what we should do is tell a Marine, who served in any war, where a flag burner lives and let the healing begin!
[/quote]
US Marines have done enough and have been through enough bullshit in their life and career already. Dont bother them with this shit, they’re home with their families as free men. These Flag burners arent worth the penalties of whatever crime they may do to them.
Besides, every redneck agrees: “If you want something done right - you gotta do it yourself.”
What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long. – Thomas Sowell
This quote is apropos to the discussion, I think. I love my country, and I love the symbol of our liberty which was paid for by the blood of the great men who came before us, and is maintained by those who would stand against tyranny, but making flag desecration an unlawful act is ridiculous. It is a symbol, nothing more. If someone wants to make a statement (no matter how retarded that statement might be) by burning our symbol of freedom, then so be it.
There is nothing unpatriotic about giving your fellow man the right to make an error. And that is what we must do. It would be an ironic violation of what the flag represents to make an act of desecrating it forbidden. Our freedom is not eroded when a flag burns, our freedom is eroded every time we make a new law.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe the constitution is a good place to enforce political correctness. Everything that offends someone can be banned via an amendment…
Yeah, wouldn’t that be nice!
Maybe the constitution should be amended to require the politicians demonstrate an understanding of their country and some political history.
Yes, amend the constitution to require that politicians demonstrate having a brain before they are allowed to have their name put on the ballot.
Let’s make dumb politicians illegal![/quote]
Criticising politicians, their policies and especially their stupidity is unpatriotic! yawn
Besides, where would the current politicians work if they had to be intelligent/educated? Most other jobs actually require qualifications.
Someone who truly believed in freedom probably wouldn’t become a politician because doing so almost indicates that you think you know better than everyone else how they should live their own lives.
In Australia we are compelled to vote for politicians or vote informally. Mostly what anyone can legally do perpetuates the current system where both major parties pretty much have the same idea/agendas regarding flag burning, supplements, censorship, etc.
The problem isn’t with politicians or their quibbling about issues, it’s with our inability to legally change the way we are represented. Thread hijack!
In theory, politicians are supposed to represent the will of the people in their region.
Part of requiring them to have a brain would be to have them understand the original ideas behind such representation – which nowadays seems to be pork barrels and special interest group pandering.
When John Kerry says he is morally against abortion but would not vote against it BECAUSE he believes in seperation of church and state, I HAVE NOT RESPECT FOR HIM whatsoever.
When a conservative proposes a law to prevent the “DESICRATION” of the flag, FOR POLITICAL REASONS, HE shits on the flag.
How did these messed up SOBs come to represent us?[/quote]
I agree it seems being a messed up SOB is a pre-requisite to becoming a politician these days, but what exactly is wrong with the first statement?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
but is then either vetoed by Bush or not ratified.[/quote]
hahaha, that was pretty funny, actually.
And larryb, yeah you totally missed the point earlier.
The actual quote is: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” - Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
[quote]vroom wrote:
In theory, politicians are supposed to represent the will of the people in their region.
Part of requiring them to have a brain would be to have them understand the original ideas behind such representation – which nowadays seems to be pork barrels and special interest group pandering.[/quote]
To agree with my own thread hijack, I think you’re absolutely correct, our politicians have strayed from the path of the principles of representation.
I don’t think that this is an individual issue amongst those who are politicians but rather societally conditioned behaviour.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
but is then either vetoed by Bush or not ratified.
hahaha, that was pretty funny, actually.
And larryb, yeah you totally missed the point earlier.
The actual quote is: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” - Benjamin Franklin, 1759.[/quote]
Yeah, my bad. Don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote the part you bolded – part of the problem with trying to do too many things at once. Amendments are passed by veto-proof super-majorities, and I actually don’t think Article V even specifies the President needs to sign it at all in order for it to pass on to the state legislatures for ratification.
– Nope – it doesn’t need a Presidential signature. Here’s Article V:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
[quote]Orbitalboner wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
OK, put simply
When John Kerry says he is morally against abortion but would not vote against it BECAUSE he believes in seperation of church and state, I HAVE NOT RESPECT FOR HIM whatsoever.
When a conservative proposes a law to prevent the “DESICRATION” of the flag, FOR POLITICAL REASONS, HE shits on the flag.
How did these messed up SOBs come to represent us?
I agree it seems being a messed up SOB is a pre-requisite to becoming a politician these days, but what exactly is wrong with the first statement?[/quote]
Not to make this about Kerry, it applies to most politicians. If he says he is against abortion he should not support it. He is compromising his core beliefs because his party tells him too.
While many religions do have a position on abortion, it is quite a stretch to claim “seperation of church and state” on this issue.
He could also say he is against theft, but since the ten commandments say thou shalt not steal, that due to separation of church and state he cannot enact laws against stealing.
Once again, this is not about Kerry, most politicians find ways to justify actions they feel are wrong.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
And larryb, yeah you totally missed the point earlier.
The actual quote is: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” - Benjamin Franklin, 1759.[/quote]
That’s a nice quote, but you totally missed the point. Go back and read the original post again. “When you sacrifice liberty for safety you get neither.” was posted in direct response to “But do you want Billy Bob down the street playing with flame throwers and rocked launchers?” How many ways are there to interpret that response? Clearly Marmadogg was suggesting that there should be no “weapons control” laws at all, for the sake of liberty. Would you agree with that?
[quote]vroom wrote:
In theory, politicians are supposed to represent the will of the people in their region.
Part of requiring them to have a brain would be to have them understand the original ideas behind such representation – which nowadays seems to be pork barrels and special interest group pandering.
Vyapada wrote:
To agree with my own thread hijack, I think you’re absolutely correct, our politicians have strayed from the path of the principles of representation.
I don’t think that this is an individual issue amongst those who are politicians but rather societally conditioned behaviour.[/quote]
The main part of holding them accountable is to quit letting them get away with fobbing off their decision-making responsibilities on unelected bureaucrats (i.e. “expert” agencies and departments such as the FDA, IRS, etc.) and unelected judges.
That and getting rid of gerrymandered districts so that politicians actually have to fight for “their” seats and listen to their constituents.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Wake up America! You are traveling a dark and lonely road and I’m afraid you are losing your way…[/quote]
Would this be the road that leads us to severely restricting criticism of certain groups under sweeping anti-bias laws? To criminalizing those who report information about government scandals? To actually passing a Speech Code into law? To banning scores of books and allowing our border agents to seize books and magazines that either prove “biased” or that do not promote “social harmony?” To banning TV stations because they have offensive guests? To prosecuting Marxist professors for criticizing America? To criminalizing those whose speech might “indicate” discrimination or might be “possibly” be used to further discriminatory goals?
You’ll have to tell us if that free speech road is as dark as banning flag burning (which, unlike the above in a certain northerly part of N America, won’t happen). I’d say the sun is still shining down here.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The main part of holding them accountable is to quit letting them get away with fobbing off their decision-making responsibilities on unelected bureaucrats (i.e. “expert” agencies and departments such as the FDA, IRS, etc.) and unelected judges.
That and getting rid of gerrymandered districts so that politicians actually have to fight for “their” seats and listen to their constituents.[/quote]
Not to make this about Kerry, it applies to most politicians. If he says he is against abortion he should not support it. He is compromising his core beliefs because his party tells him too.
While many religions do have a position on abortion, it is quite a stretch to claim “seperation of church and state” on this issue.
He could also say he is against theft, but since the ten commandments say thou shalt not steal, that due to separation of church and state he cannot enact laws against stealing.
Once again, this is not about Kerry, most politicians find ways to justify actions they feel are wrong.[/quote]
You’re right about the statement compromising Kerry’s integrity, but I think you are mistaken in using stealing as a comparison to abortion.
Whether someone should be allowed to steal or have an abortion are two completely separate issues. While I don’t support free for all abortions, I do think that in certain circumstances prohibiting an abortion would be an impingement on someone’s basic rights. As laws against drug use already are…yes, I realize this is a little off topic…
I think you’re absolutely correct, our politicians have strayed from the path of the principles of representation.