In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
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.
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.
"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.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
In the 1960s? Yes. Today? No, those are most decidedly you guys.
If by some miracle the Democratic party has managed to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and Troomp doesn't win re-election, you will see it play out quite clearly. In fact, you actually make this point yourself all the tim. Don't back down now. You've been as excited about the prospect of chaotic revolution since the political banter started on this board. Very unmanly to walk it back now.
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
Steering back to the topic at hand. Your side's goal, you being the so called 'democratic socialists, is to repeal the 2nd amendment. Repealing the 2nd amendment gives Congress the ability to pass laws banning guns. But there are state constitutions that have their own amendments protecting the right to bear arms. Those states that don't have such protections are now free to ban guns in the event that the 2nd amendment is repealed. For the states that have gun law protections in their constitutions, those protections are now effectively voided if Congress decides to pass laws banning guns, because federal law supersedes state law.
Your end game is to ban guns.
You're a follower of an ideology that is Marxist, fascist and racist at the same time.
I'm going to uncover and expose every facet of your movement that betrays its real intentions.
You're the challenger, I'm the prize fighter.
1. Correct. 2. I invented the alt handle back on the Rivals boards bantering with titans like @RaceBannon , CastlerockRon, HuskyHusky, JJHusky, @dflea. But the @creepycoug handle became so famous, so synonymous with greatness, that I've long since loathed the practice, at least for myself. So, @Squirt is entirely his own man. And he seems to have the topic well in hand.
1. I didn't watch the video. 2. I don't know who this guy is. 3. I don't care about 1. or 2. 4. I'm brilliant, handsome and fucking successful af. 5. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes would beat the ever loving shit out of the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers; I know this now because @Mosster47 said they couldn't. 7. I put people in my inner and extended social circles into two camps: those who understand civil protest, and those who do not. 8. Categorically, and w/o exception, every single person, EVERY - SINGLE - ONE, in the second group, range from not super smart to really fucking stupid. Tribal (hi @Swaye ), yes. Smart. No. I like them, I look out for them and I want them to be ok. But I know they're stupid, and that they probably can't help it.
@salemcoog , I still love you man. We still kewg homies, now & forever. And I know we've been doing so well; but today we may have to have our first love spat in months.
Sad. Sad, really.
Ironic that in the post you talk about other people’s intelligence you show you can’t count to 6.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
In the 1960s? Yes. Today? No, those are most decidedly you guys.
If by some miracle the Democratic party has managed to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and Troomp doesn't win re-election, you will see it play out quite clearly. In fact, you actually make this point yourself all the tim. Don't back down now. You've been as excited about the prospect of chaotic revolution since the political banter started on this board. Very unmanly to walk it back now.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Yeah, about that... I'm not the one agitating for revolution, those are your guys.
In the 1960s? Yes. Today? No, those are most decidedly you guys.
If by some miracle the Democratic party has managed to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and Troomp doesn't win re-election, you will see it play out quite clearly. In fact, you actually make this point yourself all the tim. Don't back down now. You've been as excited about the prospect of chaotic revolution since the political banter started on this board. Very unmanly to walk it back now.
1. I didn't watch the video. 2. I don't know who this guy is. 3. I don't care about 1. or 2. 4. I'm brilliant, handsome and fucking successful af. 5. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes would beat the ever loving shit out of the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers; I know this now because @Mosster47 said they couldn't. 7. I put people in my inner and extended social circles into two camps: those who understand civil protest, and those who do not. 8. Categorically, and w/o exception, every single person, EVERY - SINGLE - ONE, in the second group, range from not super smart to really fucking stupid. Tribal (hi @Swaye ), yes. Smart. No. I like them, I look out for them and I want them to be ok. But I know they're stupid, and that they probably can't help it.
@salemcoog , I still love you man. We still kewg homies, now & forever. And I know we've been doing so well; but today we may have to have our first love spat in months.
Sad. Sad, really.
Ironic that in the post you talk about other people’s intelligence you show you can’t count to 6.
What's ironic is that you think the poast is ironic.
Fishstick, despite my offer for help for his condition, no doubt ran his drift boat on the rocks again.
Sincerely,
Group 2 Vice President.
Hey butthole,
The only dent in my drift boat is from the original owner.
The dent in your forehead is from banging it against the headboard while you get plowed.
The only herring I eat is the chunk of pickled herring I eat on New years Eve to comply with family tradition. I've tried to make it a habit to not eat the bait.
1. I didn't watch the video. 2. I don't know who this guy is. 3. I don't care about 1. or 2. 4. I'm brilliant, handsome and fucking successful af. 5. The 2001 Miami Hurricanes would beat the ever loving shit out of the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers; I know this now because @Mosster47 said they couldn't. 7. I put people in my inner and extended social circles into two camps: those who understand civil protest, and those who do not. 8. Categorically, and w/o exception, every single person, EVERY - SINGLE - ONE, in the second group, range from not super smart to really fucking stupid. Tribal (hi @Swaye ), yes. Smart. No. I like them, I look out for them and I want them to be ok. But I know they're stupid, and that they probably can't help it.
@salemcoog , I still love you man. We still kewg homies, now & forever. And I know we've been doing so well; but today we may have to have our first love spat in months.
Sad. Sad, really.
Ironic that in the post you talk about other people’s intelligence you show you can’t count to 6.
What's ironic is that you think the poast is ironic.
Sorry.
When everyone pretends to be stupid it’s hard to tell when someone truly is. Except hondo, he makes it pretty easy.
Comments
If by some miracle the Democratic party has managed to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and Troomp doesn't win re-election, you will see it play out quite clearly. In fact, you actually make this point yourself all the tim. Don't back down now. You've been as excited about the prospect of chaotic revolution since the political banter started on this board. Very unmanly to walk it back now.
Where the fuck is @YellowSnow these dayz?
2. I invented the alt handle back on the Rivals boards bantering with titans like @RaceBannon , CastlerockRon, HuskyHusky, JJHusky, @dflea. But the @creepycoug handle became so famous, so synonymous with greatness, that I've long since loathed the practice, at least for myself. So, @Squirt is entirely his own man. And he seems to have the topic well in hand.
Proceed.
@dflea should weigh in on this.
Guess which fish feeds on herring hence their use as bait
Sincerely,
Group 2 Vice President.
Raysiss!!!!!!!!!!
Try being a victor instead
Sorry.
The only dent in my drift boat is from the original owner.
The dent in your forehead is from banging it against the headboard while you get plowed.
The only herring I eat is the chunk of pickled herring I eat on New years Eve to comply with family tradition. I've tried to make it a habit to not eat the bait.
Zittles