Which is more evil?
 

Hillary wants to pass a no-burn flag law instead of amending the Constitution. So which is more evil? At least the Republican nutjobs acknowlege that there has to be an amendment to mess with freedom of speech. They are sociopaths for suggesting it, however.

Hillary wins the blind patriot points with out putting real teeth into it. Is manipulation less evil than force?

The Dems need to not run someone this time whose followers "know" (s)he doesn't really believe the nonsense (s)he spouts.

Hill's goal here is to force the Rs to spend stomping up-and-down time on an issue that doesn't really resonate with the public. And also to get them mad at her. If they are mad at her, she will win.

I didn't read Sun Tsu but I've spent time with people who did

Until I read UT's post I was thinking "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

Now I realize it is more of the same political shenanigans. Ugh. Still, how about stirring up some real shit, instead of these red herrings? (Hilary)

BTW, I met Hilary once and she has back. All kinds of back. She's got back she hasn't used yet.

The only way to win political office in this country is to make sure and divert the public from anything bearing even the most remote similarity to an actual issue. Make shit up, blame it on the other guy, sit back and bake until done.

I think UT's got this one right.

Huh?

They're both evil. One of the things the flag stands for is my right to burn a flag if I feel like it (assuming it's my own flag)

I think that all flags wrapped around politicians should be burned! ;)

Flags are essential. We must have a flag so that cannon fodder can wrap themselves in it. We need our cannon fodder properly directed. Every nation needs cannon fodder from time to time. Don't burn flags. Otherwise we would never have tools to convince cannon fodder that they are the patriots.

This safely posted here because no one in the Cellar would be foolish enough to become cannon fodder. I could be wrong.

cannon fodder? well, i guess i've signed up to be cannon fodder for the last 13 years(although January 12th will bring the end of my military career). i don't think i'm the most stupid individual on the planet.

i do believe that burning that flag is a constitutionally protected right that i'm willing to give my life for. even if the people who do it are, IMO, ignorant and generally just piss me off.

i believe that the idiots who want an amendment banning flag burning are just that - idiots. most of them don't get why some of us who have been willing to put on a uniform and hold a position are ok with the constitution the way it is.

i believe that the idiots that want to pass a law against flag burning, don't truly believe in the cause, and are only doing it to position themselves for the next election cycle and are double damned.

i don't care what the hell you stand for, just truly stand for it and i'll support your right to do that. if you are just vocalizing certain "beliefs" to get votes... well, i'd like to shoot you for it.


yep, i've been absent from the cellar, but little has changed in my thought process.

It is nice to be able count on some things.

I'm not sure on this one. I think getting your opposition mad at you might be a bad idea. Making your oppo made gives them a reason to come out and vote against you, even if they don't like their particular candidate. You want your opposition to be apathetic and disinterested, and to stay at home on election day.

-sm

The only poeple who will get mad over flag burning are histrionic politicians. Few will go to the polls over it.

Eh, back in the late 60's the "love it or leave it" crowd might have. I don't see it as being one of today's burning issues, though (so to speak ;) )

We've been through why such a law or amendment won't work before. But just taking the burn part, burning is the proscribed way to dispose of a flag.
So in order to prosecute, intent has to be proven....like hate crimes. That's a very slippery slope. :eyebrow:

The smart soldier is not cannon fodder. Flags are but one tool so that cannon fodder can be directed into their hell. As Patton said, the other soldier should die for his country. Unfortunately, every nation at some time needs some cannon fodder. Flags are but one tool to recruit and direct those types into a frontal assault.

The smart soldier also knows the difference between a flag and a country.

I like that idea!

Dangerous subject either way. Burning the flag is inherently obscene to me, but I still think people should have the right to do so if it makes 'em happy. Tough call.

This site explains why an amendment or law against flag burning will not work. Can't be enforced. Is a huge warm and fuzzy joke. :headshake

Rap is not music.

Entertainment? Yes.

Art form? Possibly.

Music? No.


But thanks for the link. Now I know.

I second that. :thumb:

Yeah, well true. But the joke would have been too cumbersome if I tried to acknowledge that fact.

In fact, I question its entertainment potential.

Other than a quick-fix for some rebellious attention whore, what could possibly be gratifying about burning a flag, anyway?

I say let the people who feel compelled to burn flags go ahead, spend their life savings on flags and burn as many as they can afford.

Just leave mine alone.

After the flag is burned, there is no way to tell what it represented anyway. It is not the flag that makes a country strong, but the people who fly them.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong about burning a flag.

Interesting that many of those who oppose burning the flag have no problem suspending the provisions of the Constitution because they are too lazy/stupid/wrong to go through the Constitutional provisions to fight the "war on terror."

In other words, If *I* violate the Constitution its "for your your own good" so its ok but if you torch a symbol of the Constitution without actually violating any of its provisions then its off to pound-you-in-the-ass prison for you.

Imagine the consternation of the right wing when the "activist judges" on the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional. :lol:

Imagine your consternation as your toilet seat slaps you on the back of your neck as you're getting a drink. :comfort:

And it could very well happen, laying all jokes aside. Nothing surprises me anymore. :mg:

They would then make it a campaign donation rallying point. ;)

The conservative right will rally to support a law introduced by Hillary Clinton? Now THAT's priceless.

Ironic or not they'll pass up no oportunity for fund raising or vote gleaning. :3some:

Tw never fails; he always manages to say something I curl my lip at. The poor boob actually believes he's "too intelligent" to serve in uniform. Having some experience in this field, I've got news for him he doesn't want to hear: it's better, saner men than tw that put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line for their society.

Hillary is following her political instincts here. Too bad she's a mix of socialist and sociopath, and her instincts run towards the oppression of anyone not her, and the convenience of herself. We watched her in action during the Clinton Administration, the most anticonstitutional in recent memory simply because the Clintons cared for nothing beyond the convenience of the Clintons (typical of people who get their political education in an effectively one-party state like Arkansas) and we don't trust her any farther than we could throw her across the Hudson.

Whoo boy. I don't even know how to respond to that one other than to say I'm happy that you have come out of your 5-year coma and will be happy to debate you once you read a few newspapers and catch up on current events.http://www.cellar.org/images/moresmilies/right.gif

As for being in uniform. The one advantage of a volunteer army is that you can get to pick your Commander-in-Chief. If what TW says is that at least he will not be forced to fight and possibly die in a pointless foreign conflict like Vietnam which had very little to do with a real threat to the US, than that is a reasonable statment.

A smart commander is one who picks his battles. A bad commander is one who gets himself pulled into bad ones.

Alas, Bush isn't a memory yet.

Thank goodness you don't post much. Your content-free reply to a clever post was very revealing.

Rich, your posturing may impress you, but it cuts no ice with me. I'm wiser than you; I've read your posts, young man. I'll routinely pound you into the ground.

The quickest check for how Constitution-friendly an Administration is is its attitude towards the Second Amendment. (Other libertarians, perhaps after a moment's thought, will tell you the same thing.) A Republic is only a genuine republic when the electorate is powerful. One sort of power translates readily into another sort, and an electorate with the power of life and death widely distributed through it is about as powerful as an electorate is likely to get.

Sooo, as long as everyone can buy a hunting rifle, they are safe from an oppressive government? That is the most simplistic and naive argument I have ever heard.

From what I understand, the Branch Davidians had a very impressive personal armory. It didn't do them very much good.

I hope that when you took your oath, you took it to the entire Constitution and not just the second amendment, which allows for militias, and makes no claims towards the carry rights of civilians.

In a government that only respected the second amendment, the only solace would be the last bullet you saved for yourself.

I will agree that when you get drunk watching Bill O'Reilly, you probably are the wisest living thing in the room. Assuming of course, that you let the cat out.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/lol.gif

Do we have to do this again ...

How can basically all the other rights in the bill of rights be individual rights and only the second amendment be considered a collective right?

(and the Branch Davidian thing basically got started because of their exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I happen to think they were a bunch of nutjobs, but I wouldn't have seen autopsy photos of the crispy remains of David Koresh if the ATF hadn't decided to knock on the door that day. Ditto for Randy Weaver. Remind me ... who was in charge of the govt at that point?)

I'm not going to defend the ATF handling of the case because it was atrocious, but the incident didn't occur because the ATF showed up. It occured because the ATF showed up and were shot at.

That being said, I just get annoyed at the focus on the second amendment to the exclusion of the other nine in the Bill of Rights. The idea that if everyone can keep a gun everything will be all right is a silly idea. In fact, if everyone were paying attention, they would note that the insurgents in Iraq are using explosives, not guns. The kinds of guns people can legally own are of limited use against a military force with automatic weapons, body armor, and armored vehicles.

The only intelligent thing UG has said recently is about a 'powerful electorate'. IMO, this is an informed electorate which jealously guards it's rights and pays attention. It is one that refuses to give in to fear and to abdicate it's rights for the illusion of safety.

Now, I may want to pound UG, as he colorfully puts it. But I will happily pound anyone who tries to interfere with his right to express his views, no matter how wrong headed they are. IMO, he is overbearing and obnoxious, but noone can say that he is apathetic and disengaged, like so many people appear to be these days. My view comes thanks to the first amendment, which protects and encourages discussion, debate, disagreement, and argument in as loud and raucous a manner as possible.

The real danger isn't when they come for the guns, but rather when people begin to check themselves before speaking - when the chill of a real or perceived oversight slips into private or public conversation. When that happens, we will have stepped onto the same road as people in the Soviet Union, the Weimar Republic, or any of a number of states that have raised oppresive regimes out of fear or ignorance.

Why are logical responses from richlevy justification for Urbane Guerilla to again exercise testosterone? Some people think with their brains. Others use their balls. It does explain Urbane Guerilla's selective filtering of reality. Is there such a thing as a testosterone haze?

Of course you do. That's the difference between one who uses his brain and one who thinks with his balls. Is this an insult? No. It is how some males - those that also make excellent cannon fodder - do think. Unfortunately Urbane Guerilla traditionally will take insult seeing this post as an attack by his enemies. A classic 'black and white' perspective.

Curious. Urbane Guerilla also advocates a violent response to richlevy. Is that someone using a brain ... or using ...

TW, I'm going to be charitable here and assume that UG meant that he was going to 'pound me into the ground in a debate' and that he wasn't trying to reenact the last scene from West Side Story.

"Fists. Chains. Knives. Zip Guns."http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Of course, I may be wrong. See me shaking?http://www.cellar.org/images/newsmilies/nervous.gif

He sounds like Nikita Krushchev standing before the UN pounding his shoe on the podium and proclaiming, "We will bury you!" Where is the attitude any different?

Just post your damn post. We'll all decide for ourselves who won. I seldom side with Rich but at least he let's his posts do the talking.

Personally, I think the second ammendment is a personal right, which should be well regulated.

We have long since passed that point.

Merry Christmas.

Dismissing the importance of the 2nd amendment because you don't own a gun is like dismissing the 1st amendment because you don't own a television station. Don't ever think that you can attack the constitution on one front, and have it held sacred on the others. It's either [capital]The Constitution[/capital], or a flimsy set of guidelines written in pencil. No middle ground. We're not talking about some "no donkey riding on Sunday" law in some backwater -- these are the basics upon which all of this country's laws are based.

And the 2nd amendment guarantees the safety of the rest, in the final analysis.

How quickly we forget. Rights are NOT granted by the government ... we get them automatically (versions vary whether that's at birth or before), and the bill of rights keeps the government from messing with them.

I'm not dismissing the importance of the second amendment because I don't own a gun. I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is at best a tool to guarantee the other amendments. If you had to choose between owning a gun and freedom of assembly, speech, religion, the press and petitioning of grievances, which would you choose?

The guns that actively protect the Constitution are in the hands of the soldiers who have taken an oath to do so. Civilians who are not naturalized citizens have not taken that oath. The guns might be nice to have. They may even provide protection in the event of a breakdown of society, but they would not provide protection againsts tanks and automatic weapons.

I certainly wouldn't want to have to make that choice.

Actually, the guns that protect the constitution are in the hands of the citizens. The gov't has a certain impetus to avoid living by the constitution in some ways, after all it is a significant check on its powers. It was the possession of those firearms by the civilians and used by them against the monarchy that made the constitution possible. And as to the tanks and automatic weapons those aren't necessarily as much of an advantage as you might think. At least not in a stand up fight. Just ask the Mujahideen. Throw in the factor of a much more likely unified and supplied resistance. There are a lot more guns available to citizens than the military can bring to bear. Especially if that military is going to spend all of its time elsewhere...

That's why the military is spending umpteen billions on robots and autonomous fighting machines........quickly destroy ANY group of people, even Americans. :(

And let's not forget about monkeywrenchers and the 5th column too.

Who fought in inaccesible regions. The US highway system was designed for the rapid deployment of forces.

Also notice that most of the damage done by insurgents is from bombs, not guns. Any group of insurgents who attempted to fight using guns would be wiped out by artillery, helicopters, or unmanned drones.

The whole point of an insurgency is not to get in a stand up fight. The guns that do the most damage are used by snipers. The only defense insurgents have is to blend in to the population. That's hard to do carrying a rifle. Handguns might be useful. Shotguns would be suicide.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a heroic struggle, just a doomed one unless there was a split in the military or the intervention of an outside nation.

Also consider that an oppressive government would be backed by a significant portion of the population, either Red or Blue depending on which fringe took power, who would be equally armed.

UG was right in that the only way to prevent the rise of an authoritarian government is to watch for it and stop it before it forms. That means paying attention to what is happening in Washington. Right now because of 9/11 and a one party government, we are putting a lot of unchecked power back into the executive branch. Fear makes us do things like that.

Oh I didn't say it wouldn't be ugly. :)

I think that unless it happens quite a way down the road after significant changes in the US population it might not turn out like anyone expects, even me. Can anyone out there do a comparison of our current civilian vs gov't arms levels against any other times in history? I know guns and swords aren't the same thing but it's a same vs same comparison as long as you don't consider nukes.

In the ridiculously unlikely event that we have some kind of military-vs-populace clash in my lifetime, my privately owned guns won't keep me from getting killed by a tank. They will, however, make a terrific racket -- each clang representing a firmly upraised middle finger.

In the meantime, they're good for fun times with the family and to put meat in the freezer, and they represent my freedom. If I break the law with them, I lose that freedom. Until then, hands off.

If the shit goes down, forget the cap in your ass. We've learned its IEDs all around.

Correction, if you break the law, or someone claims you did, you lose them until you satisfy the local law enforcers. :(

Sad but true, xoxoxoBruce. And that gradual erosion of a basic right is what concerns me. No one is going to say "Okay, all guns are outlawed as of right now" It's a continuous process that might look something like this:

The right to own a weapon for self defense is inherent, and not to be infringed upon by the government.

Well, not just any weapon, but guns are at least protected by the Bill of Rights.

Okay, guns are still legal, but they can't fire too quickly.

Oh, and they can't be easily hidden on your person.

Hm. They can't hold too many rounds either. Or have a handle that protrudes below the stock. Or have a detachable stock.

Okay they can have 2 of the 3. But if they have more, they're "assault weapons". Can't own assault weapons, you know.

That barrel's too short -- can't have that kind of grip with that kind of barrel. Only crooks use those.

Got any guns left? Fine. You can have them in your home, but only if you register them with us. Oh, and don't have them in your car. Need to take them to the shooting range? You have to drive around city X -- if you drive through it, you're committing a felony.

Your ex-girlfriend said you hit her. Is that true? No? Well, until you can prove otherwise, we get your guns.

Good job, you cleared your name. But I think the law now should be that if you ever go to jail for domestic problems (not convicted, just go to jail), you can never own a firearm.

Oh by the way, neither can anyone who lives in your house.

What kind of politics/religion/club is that? That sounds dangerous. No guns for you. Maybe we'll even send in a tank to enforce it. Woah, you put that lantern too close to our tank. Sorry about your "compound".

Let's see, where do we stand...you can own a gun, but you have to tell the government what kind and how many. If it's cosmetically similar to something I associate with war or maybe saw in a movie, it's verboten. Likewise, it can only be of X dimensions, hold Y amount of ammunition, and when you pull the trigger, only Z number of rounds per minute can come out the barrel. Which has to be between 14 and 24 inches. Unless it's a pistol. Then it has to be 3-12 inches. Cuz, you know, the safety of the populace and all that.

Got it? Good.

Oh wait, some douchenozzle left one loaded where his baby could reach it. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11! The rest of you........you're leaving YOUR guns loaded around kids too, aren't you? Oh me. I knew we shouldn't have let "the gun problem" get out of control. You know what? This is a civilized society, what's the point of these barbaric objects, anyway? They practically jump off the table to maim and kill the innocent. We can't let the whining of one special interest lobby keep us from saving our people from such evil things.
------------------------------------------------------
Ding, guns get taken away. One more right flushed down the tubes. By the time I got done rambling, I realized that someone COULD, in fact, say "Okay, all guns are outlawed from now on."

Oh well, at least that would stop the criminals from getting their hands on them. :right:

[/ramble]

Step one: find an unguarded stockpile of explosive munitions and raid it.

Step two: wait a minute, not done with step one yet. :neutral:

Look on the bright side mrnoodle. At least noone can shoot you in the head for coming to close to a military convoy or bomb your house because suspicious looking people may have run into it.

As for the slippery slope argument, I wish the people who are willing to apply it to even full automatic weapons would apply the same logic to flag burning and other free speech issues.

No disgruntled worker ever walked into his office and talked his coworkers to death.