Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
I don't know shit about this dude but I really like this answer
Comments
-
-
My opinions on the topic:
1. I agree with Beto O'Rourke's position.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
-
Yeah, but what does the Notorious RBG have to say, man?Squirt said:My opinions on the topic:
1. I agree with Beto O'Rourke's position.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
FWIW, while I detest flag burning, I do not think it should be illegal. -
The Nazi march in Skokie Illinois is about as clear an indication as you can get on how much value the Supremes place on freedom of speech and expression
Now I am going to thank God for making me retarded or something
Again to my main point - do you want to get people on your side in regards to BLM or do you want to piss them off and mess with their sacred Sunday ritual?
Do you want the discussion to be on the issue? The media prefers to keep a scorecard because the issue is uncomfortable for the broadcasters as well. And their advertisers who control the content anyway
81% of our enlightened public thinks this is about protesting the national anthem and they wonder why the guys they want to be would do such a thing.
From day 1 I said Kaep was within his rights but also saw where this was headed. -
“protection from unnecessary desecration”Squirt said:My opinions on the topic:
1. I agree with Beto O'Rourke's position.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it. -
Considering his first point was he agreed with Beto, I don’t think he’s arguing that it does.allpurpleallgold said:
“protection from unnecessary desecration”Squirt said:My opinions on the topic:
1. I agree with Beto O'Rourke's position.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it. -
I'm not saying or implying that it is. Obviously burning is one thing, and kneeling is another.allpurpleallgold said:“protection from unnecessary desecration”
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
Still, it's illuminating to read how a patriotic, liberal, brilliant American conceives of the flag. That's the point of the quotes: to show an example of how many Americans view the flag. -
Makes sense. "Liberal." Seeing things in the Constitution that don't actually exist...like the right of the government to criminalize flag burning based on first amendment. Why don't you fucks drop the whole 'liberal' charade already, you aren't liberals. Not anymore. That word has been hijacked.Squirt said:
I'm not saying or implying that it is. Obviously burning is one thing, and kneeling is another.allpurpleallgold said:“protection from unnecessary desecration”
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
Still, it's illuminating to read how a patriotic, liberal, brilliant American conceives of the flag. That's the point of the quotes: to show an example of how many Americans view the flag. -
Virtue signalers gonna virtue signal.
-
Stop virtue signaling with your labels, manMikeDamone said:Virtue signalers gonna virtue signal.
-
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?UWhuskytskeet said:
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.salemcoog said:
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?UWhuskytskeet said:
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.salemcoog said:
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.dflea said:
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.salemcoog said:
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a fucking song you pussy.salemcoog said:Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so. -
No worries buddy. This is an open invite. When you’re ready drop me a line. He’ll get ya dialed in.dflea said:
So your homo buddy was on the verge of suicide until you sucked his cock, and then he lived a happy life?salemcoog said:
Noted BBC craver trys to talk tuff. Pretty common for frustrated dudes who have yet to come out of the closet. I’ve known a couple. One was to the point of suicide but then He was brave enough to follow through and lives a happy life.
If you need someone to talk to about this, DM me and I can hook you up with him. Or don’t and run your drift boat into the boulder again and pretend it was an accident.
Cool story, bro. -
This is my rifle this is my gun, this is for fighting this is for fun.salemcoog said:
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?UWhuskytskeet said:
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.salemcoog said:
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?UWhuskytskeet said:
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.salemcoog said:
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.dflea said:
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.salemcoog said:
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a fucking song you pussy.salemcoog said:Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so. -
Fuck off Tommy. Go back to sucking Harvey’s dick on Twitter. Men are speaking. At least 4 of us are here anyway.ThomasFremont said:
Stop virtue signaling with your labels, manMikeDamone said:Virtue signalers gonna virtue signal.
-
Justice Stevens didn't argue that the First Amendment gives power to the federal or state governments to criminalize flag burning. I don't argue that either. I'm not sure what you're talking about.oregonblitzkrieg said:Makes sense. "Liberal." Seeing things in the Constitution that don't actually exist...like the right of the government to criminalize flag burning based on first amendment. Why don't you fucks drop the whole 'liberal' charade already, you aren't liberals. Not anymore. That word has been hijacked.
-
Squirt said:
Justice Stevens didn't argue that the First Amendment gives power to the federal or state governments to criminalize flag burning. I don't argue that either. I'm not sure what you're talking about.oregonblitzkrieg said:Makes sense. "Liberal." Seeing things in the Constitution that don't actually exist...like the right of the government to criminalize flag burning based on first amendment. Why don't you fucks drop the whole 'liberal' charade already, you aren't liberals. Not anymore. That word has been hijacked.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.allpurpleallgold said:“protection from unnecessary desecration”
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it. -
Ugh. The density of the liberal faction never ceases to amaze here. It’s about the flag. It represents our freedoms which the military is sworn to defend. Both of them.BennyBeaver said:
TYDFHSdnc said:
And this is where I will have to break with you on this. Yes, some of the "disrespect" side are coming at this because of race. I agree with that wholeheartedly.allpurpleallgold said:
The reasonable people disagreeing was a nice thing to say and very smart for a politician. The problem with the (not) anthem protests is the arguments for it being disrespectful sometimes came out like this “THEY are disrespecting MY country”. That’s racism. So yeah really nice but racism is deserving of being condemned.GrundleStiltzkin said:
He articulated a view in opposition to the constituent without condemning that person. That seems to be in short supply in the SJW ranks right now.dnc said:
Yep. Haven't seen any poles but that clip alone is enough to think he can unseat the Zodiak Killer rather easilyGrundleStiltzkin said:
You should watch it. If Democrats can find more like that, we? might be in trouble.salemcoog said:Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
This is where it gets problematic for me. I haven’t heard a good argument for it being disrespectful. If you hold a position that you can’t make a good argument for and there are people making arguments for your position that are blatantly racist, how is anyone on the other side supposed to tell the difference?
It would nice if the “SJW”s wouldn’t condemn everyone but it would also be nice if the other side stopped coming down on the same side as racists every single time.
But my dad was a Marine and raised me my entire life to respect the flag/anthem/pledge etc because of all the men and women who gave their lives to protect it and what it stands for. He has of course stopped watching the NFL over this issue and I can 100% guarantee his stance would be the same if the players taking a knee were white people protesting Obama and affirmative action.
There is a (fairly large) segment of the population where you don't fuck with the flag, period. Considering they put their lives on the line to protect the flag and what it represents, and lost plenty of fellow soldiers who were doing the same, I think it's reasonable for them to be heated about this and take it as disrespectful to those who have fallen. And I don't think it necessarily makes them racist to feel that way, even though racists definitely do feel the same way.
Does the flag represent freedom or blind patriotism?
This debate is so fucking tired. If the kneelers actually gave a shit about why they are being told to kneel by their overlords, they would do something other than attempt to make a spectacle during the National Anthem. They would engage community leaders to make them accountable for whatever injustices they fell are occurring in their community.
But guess what, most of them don’t do that. They just showboat for their Twitter followers to show how #woke they are.
To me this “protest” is akin to a teenage Kid waiting to pitch a fit about not getting their way once the whole neighborhood, friends and family are at the BBQ. It’s not going to gain you any ground with anyone. It’s just an attempt to embarrass their parents. Where as if they had a mature conversation with their parents before anybody came over, they might gain some ground for their cause.
I don’t disrespect the kneelers just because of the issues I’ve covered in earlier posts. I also disrespect them because they don’t have the intelligence nor balls to try to gain ground for their cause productively. -
Found a pic of your tommy gun.ThomasFremont said:
This is my rifle this is my gun, this is for fighting this is for fun.salemcoog said:
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?UWhuskytskeet said:
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.salemcoog said:
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?UWhuskytskeet said:
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.salemcoog said:
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.dflea said:
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.salemcoog said:
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's a fucking song you pussy.salemcoog said:Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so.
-
You sound mad. And jealous.salemcoog said:
Fuck off Tommy. Go back to sucking Harvey’s dick on Twitter. Men are speaking. At least 4 of us are here anyway.ThomasFremont said:
Stop virtue signaling with your labels, manMikeDamone said:Virtue signalers gonna virtue signal.
-
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
-
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
-
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.ThomasFremont said:
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
Answer the question.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.ThomasFremont said:
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.ThomasFremont said:
Answer the question.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.ThomasFremont said:
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
Sounds legit.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.ThomasFremont said:
Answer the question.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.ThomasFremont said:
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
Your obsession with Russia is just weird, man. Take Babushka’s dick out of your mouth.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Why axe a question you already know the answer to? Obviously people don't value their privacy enough to take up arms. Try taking their speech and gun rights away and the sleeping bear will get woke. Like the great Russian bear, it will plow through everything and everyone in its path to reach the capitol city of the enemy and obliterate it like 1940's Berlin.ThomasFremont said:
Answer the question.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.ThomasFremont said:
Where were all the gun toting freedom lovers when privacy rights went *poof*??? Just admit that your little armed revolution fantasy is bullshit. Go play Call of Duty, boy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Yeah, I'm aware of your side's fetish with these little 'fun facts.' I've been reading your shit philosophy on the DSA website, your side is using the same tactics to attack the 2nd amendment by trying to make the argument that the amendments don't apply to the states. I don't know if there's a legal way to attack this argument, I never claimed to be a constitutional lawyer. Here's what you should keep in mind though.Squirt said:
Um, yes, that's my opinion too, although you seem to have comprehended differently.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.Squirt said:
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.oregonblitzkrieg said:
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.Squirt said:In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a fun little test of OBK's constitutional knowledge. Notice that the First Amendment explicitly applies to "Congress," but not the states. How could it be that the states are subject to the First Amendment's protections of free speech?
The 2nd amendment backs up the first amendment. Millions of Americans own guns, will refuse to ever turn them in, and are willing, if need be, to use them to depose any government or checkmate any fascist movement that attempts to infringe on these basic pillars of American freedom. You should consider that unspoken but settled law. -
