Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Mike:
You need to wash your mouth with soap. Questioning PC, making a case for someone who should be sentenced for 74 lives to sensitivity training for words that excite CAIR, even if they were true. How abominable? Shame on someone here.

Perhaps CAIR executives should be sent to seminars on how to recognize, handle, accept and appreciate TRUTH.

Is CAIR registered as a foreign agent yet?

I am sure when Al Queda uses Rubin’s own words to recruit Muslims to the Jihad, OBL will thank him.

Saying that the Mullahs and Shieks are the only ones who can control the oil is like saying Republicans love to Torture people. Its both true but it only serves to build up the hatred.

Besides, as Chief Economist for CIBC World Markets, Rubin is a representative of CIBC and its Affliates. His words and actions are a reflection of his Company and the People around him. If you Conservatives ever cared about that, the USA would not be so unpopular in the World today.

Mike T., you don’t even understand why the remarks were insensitive and stereotypic, do you? If you do, you don’t reveal same in your article.

FACT: A great deal of oil comes from NON ARABIC states. Check out the makeup of OPEC and get a little education. To refer to oil problems as belonging to Arabs is to ignore reality, the problems are those of ALL the oil producing states, not just Arabic. In other words, if OPEC cuts supply, implying Arabs are the only bad guys for such cuts IS IN FACT racially insensitive since S. America has as much to say and do in supply as Arabic Nations do. When supply is cut, GW BUSH refuses to open the spigot on our own national reserves, forcing all to pay higher prices.

So, yes, it was racially insensitive, ignorant of the reality of the racial diversity that controls oil supplies, and reflective of the man’s prejudical feelings toward Arabs having any power at all.

I think the comment was a tad bit insensitive, but not meriting of the reaction.

But the fact is, we’re talking about Canada here. If somebody said that here, I doubt anything would be done, especially if it was on FOX! Even then, I recall Jon Stewart, a rather liberal comedian, saying much more offensive things than that about the Saudis, and I haven’t heard about any such controversy regarding that.

Truth is, we’re not that politically correct in this country. Frankly, I think this article is a bunch of handwaving. We’re too willful in this country.

I agree with Stephen. As another liberal, I wasn’t offended by the comments of Jeff Rubin, and it seemed like the reaction was overkill.

More overkill than that however, are the plethora of Mike T.’s posts dealing with PC talk, 1984, and claims that the sky is falling.

Mike, we get your point. We don’t need a new post everytime someone is softly scolded for something they said.

David R. Remer -

I agree that the remarks were stereotypical, especially coming from an educated official. However, sensitivity training for him? Unnecessary.

I just want to point this out while I still can.

Imagine a Semi-truck of oil that you’ve just purchased. Now imagine attempting to unload that oil using a kitchen funnel.

That is the problem with gas prices. How many refineries have been shutdown (fires/explosions) in the last ten to fifteen years? 4 or 5 that I can think of.

How many new refineries have been built in that time? 0, nada, zilch.

Now do you the picture?

Mike:

Two things. First, this was in Canada, not the US. How is this relevant for this blog? I was under the impression this blog dealt with US politics. Second, you again fail to recognize the difference between Orwellian thought-crime (where the government makes certain ideas illegal) and the example of PC behavior you have presented, where a private business requires sensitivity training for one of its employees. You even take this further by associating that sensitivity training with orwellian reprogramming, brainwashing, and torture. Is it such a huge leap to understand that as a business, CIBC does not wish to offend a large group of potential customers (Muslims and Arabs) and therefor took the guy aside for a quick refresher course in public relations and TACT?

Aldous
Please explain to me your ability to mix fact and fiction. I don’t get it in my world of absolutes.

Mike T., you are right, instead of sensitivity training, they could have just fired his ass. I think he got the better end of the bargain. I mean in Texas or Florida, you can be fired for having a Gore or Kerry bumper sticker on your car in the company parking lot. So, yes, I think he got the more civilized and rational response.

David,

When did that happen? What companies?

Im pretty tired of hearing about how “unpopular” the US is..maybe if we cut off the over 7 billion dollars in foreign aid to over 50 foreign countries they would really have something to hate us for…

Lawnboy, they were in the headlines, I don’t have time to do the reasearch.

rich, right action, wrong reasons.

David,

Fair enough. I wasn’t doubting you. I was just curious because I hadn’t heard about it, and I wanted to know more.

With Google, I found this story about a woman in Georgia fired for having a Kerry bumper sticker.

To be fair, the same sort of thing happens in the other direction.

Lawnboy, yep, no question, extremists exist on both the left and right. One of the reasons I write from the center, column that is. :-)

so mike,

[views, you can dispense with the references to folks here imbibing too much and references to crazy people. Such comments are flame baiting and there are plenty of other sites for those kinds of comments.

This will be your only warning to keep it civil and non-personal with the critiques. —WB Managing Editor]

ironic, yet point taken.

my bad.

Mike T.

I don’t understand the purpose of your article. You talk of a company that sent a guy to sensitivity training because he was insensitive to Arabs. Lots of companies do similar things.

Are you against companies acting as compassionate citizens? Are you against sensitivity training? Are you implying that the company is as bad as liberals who believe in what you call PC? Do you want to show that upright conservatives do what’s right, not what’s PC?

Or are you finding fault because this is what Republicans love to do? Here our entire government - executive, legislative and judicial branches - is under Republican control. Isn’t it time to stop complaining and start accomplishing something? Accomplishing something for the people, not only for the rich and powerful.

views: I’m confused. Where did I disparage someone?

Paul Siegel: I am not a Republican, however your comments about them do not really deal with PC. And yes, I am against sensitivity training, but the reason I pointed this out is because CIBC did not give much detail on what happened, which is curious… I believe in treating everyone with compassion, respect, honor, and dignity - however, I think being reprimanded versus sensitivity training would be a more appropriate approach.

views,

While I agree with the Managing Editor whole-heartedly, the irony of the situation gave me the first really good laugh I’ve had all day (which is sad and pathetic, I know, but not everyday can be a good day). Thank you for that.

Mike,

I can see how this might upset you, but you have to bear in mind the profound difference between governmental thought control, ala’ 1984, and corporate thought control. CIBC doesn’t have the power to send Rubin to prison for his statements, but they do have the power to control the statements of their officers.

If Rubin had been speaking for himself, rather than as a representaitve of the company, I would be much more sympathetic to your outrage about the mandatory sensitivity training, and I would have joined you on the picket lines if they had tried to excise those comments from his personal writing. Most importantly, if the Canadian government had tried to censor his work or if the RCMPs had dragged him off to twenty years in the slammer, you’d have had to chain me down to keep me from throwing rotten eggs at their embassy. But that didn’t happen here. This was an example of a self-correcting market, and I thought that that’s something you guys on the right believed in devoutly.

Remember Justice Holmes’s test:

“… that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

Mike T.,

Aside from the fact that this occured in Canada, aside from the fact that this was a corporation not a government making this demand, aside from the fact that Mr. Rubin had the choice to quit unlike Winston (yes, I’ve read the book)…. well, aside from those I see no relevance for your comparison, I’m sorry.

I have no love for intentional derogatory comments or statements on the basis of race, religion, ect. Nor do I have any love for Political Correctness, mostly from the fact that I all too often have to explain to various people that there is a difference between “retarded” and cognitively delayed or mentally disabled (my sons do not have below average IQs, but three of them are cognitively delayed and mentally disabled).

However, from the pov of a student of literature, 1984 was a fictional work about the extremes that humans beings can/might go to concerning thought control and the situation you sited really doesn’t compare. Not disclosing details probably has more to do with privacy laws than anything else, at least if Canada has anything like the privacy laws the US has.

Oh I see, the managing editor edited views post, and it had nothing to do with me.

The sad fact remains, although CIBC is not the government, with hate speech bills going into action across Europe, this could very well be taken the wrong way and deemed hate.

Also CAIR-CAN is also part of CAIR.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, D.C., is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a “front group” for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S.

The scary yet funny part.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43941

While CAIR’s motives are certainly questionable, that changes very little and perhaps nothing at all in this argument. It is the company’s choice in how to respond to them, not yours. Rubin had the choice of whether to comply with the company’s request or resign his position and seek employment elsewhere. If he was making a politic statement against CAIR on his own time, it would have been a totally different matter and both CAIR’s and the company’s motives would be very relavent, but… Rubin chose sensitivity training, which is very, very different from Winston’s fictional circumstance.

yeah mike, the editor kindly pointed out to me that i was using inappropriate language, and that was completely true…
i apologize…although i still find the edit to be some of the best comic timing i’ve seen in ages.

but sorry that i got a lil’ roudy.

steph: glad you saw the humor there too!

Mike,

I understand your trepidation about hate speech and your inclination to build a fence around the Torah, so to speak, but the fact remains that you’re talking about apples and oranges here.

The fact that CAIR may or may not have some direct or indirect relationship with Hamas proves my point. They have as much right to express their opinion as CIBC. CIBC, in turn, can accept or reject it. In this case, it made a business decision to accept it.

As far as hate speech is concerned, even if a bill were to make it through Congress, the SCOTUS has implied in R.A.V. v. St. Paul and especially Wisconsin v. Mitchell that it will take a very dim view of consitutionality of any such legislation. Unlike some bloggers over on the Third Party, they differentiate clearly between conduct and speech (at least outside the workplace). Hope this mollifies.

This is a bit off topic, but does concern censorship and might be very relavent to Weblog. Somebody please read this to tell me whether this is just hype or if it’s cause for serious concern.

hey mike:

if you would, weigh in on this…flag burning.

the rep’s have pushed through a ban on flag burning,
but isn’t burning the american flag (which seems to happen more in places OTHER than america) the ultimate in anti-PC?

it is the shining example of someone’s freedom of speech, even if it is a tremendously unpopular thing to do. so to ban the right to burn the flad in protest would seem to me to be very very PC.

i am curious how that would play in your arguement.

stephanie, it is half true, and half BS. Yes, there are moves underway to try to register websites and owners who receive sponsorship or funding from a political party or candidate to declare the value of their services whether bought or exchanged, for the purpose of accounting for in-kind contributions to candidates or parties. 501C’s which seek money under non-profit status to act on behalf of a candidate or party are in fact, making an in-kind contribution.

As for Hillary being behind all this and the claim that this is a left wing conspiracy, it is pure BS. The accounting will occur on both sides and count toward max. limits or legislative accounting limits. Move-On.Org will be just as affected as Swift Boat Veterans…

Bloggers who are not working under a non-profit umbrella, who are not professional, or otherwise trasacting monetary value exchanges of services with a candidate or party, will not affected, since 1st Amendment protections kick in. To the degree that the law can limit dollar value support for candidates or parties in an actual exchange, websites engaging in such exchanges could be affected. It is not a limitation of what they can say or how often. It is a limitation on the monetary value of contributions to a candidate or party that is the focus under the McCain-Feingold legislation. Not a limitation on the freedom of individuals to express their political opinions.

Thank you, David. I didn’t think it was something to freak over, seeing as how it didn’t make sense, but I’d rather know for sure than ignore something that should get attention. I trust your opinion/knowledge on this matter and thank you for clarifying it for me.

views: I am against the flag burning ban, that is all we need one more law…

The sensitivity training for Jeff Rubin included a reminder that next time he references mullah or shiek he should include it as a quote from someone and then refuse to divulge his source.

This obviosly is the best way to ever have to take responsibility for your own thoughts or words.

The liberals would now be applauding his position on exercising his Constitutional rights.

PC Joke
This person walks into a place carrying an object.
Another person say “You cann’t come in here with that thing.” the person says “This isn’t a thing, it’s an object.” The person says “I’m talking to the object.”
If the PC crowd has it way that would a racy joke.
People need to quit being so damned touchy about things.
As long as there are people on this earth someone is going to say things that are not so nice. Either we can sit around a cry about it all the time, or we can let it roll off our backs and keep going with our lives.
I find it interesting though that the PC crowd is afraid of offending everyone but those that disagree with them.

I am for the flag burning ban becoming Constitutional law in every nook and cranny in the US and it’s territories.

How is flag burning a protected right anyway?

It falls under freedom of speech. Specifically using a visual aid to make a strong political point.

Besides, making it illegal to burn a flag would make it illegal to dispose of an old, worn out flag in the proper manner.

It’s the visual aid thing I didn’t get, and still don’t quite agree should be protected (in general, not just this specific example). Besides, couldn’t you just ticket someone on a burning violation (in many places, at least) for the nature of the burn not what is being burned?

I agree with a fine for burning something in a public place without proper safety procedures. (And being responsible for anyone or anything burned because of it)

SirisC,

I am talking about flag burning for purposes of demonstration.

There are 2 acceptable ways to dispose of flags that are no longer servicable :

1. Burning - in a formal ceremony under the auspices of VFW, Boy Scouts and several other such groups.

2. Burying - same as in # 1.

These methods should remain as they are.

My concern would be safety over demonstration. If a demonstrator was willing to go through all the trouble to get the proper burning permits and ensure that they are burning in a safe manner, then they are determined to send their message. Since, from a stereotypical look at the situation, the person burning the American flag is likely not to care about the American laws involved, slap them with a nice hefty fine for endangering people and property.

If you support free speech, you can’t just support speech that you agree with - you must also support speech (in all its forms) that makes your blood boil with anger and that you would spend your life’s blood oppposing. So although seeing my flag being desecrated makes me furious, I recognize that it’s protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

If you think you can ban some types of speech, then you really don’t support free speech.

exactly elliot!

here is a question regarding flag burning….how often does it happen in the united states?

i know the flag is burned in other countries in form of protest against america, but until we invade them we can’t enforce our laws upon them, but i’m sure that’s only a matter of time, right steve smith?

so, why would we write something into our constitution that would prevent a form of free speech that happens SO INFREQUENTLY in this country that i cannot recall a single episode of flag burning in the last decade or longer?

it’s a distraction issue, something the GOP can use to shore up support from the die-hards.

Stephanie,

In your post from the 7th you added a link that talked about a book called “Hillary’s Secret War”.

In true Newspeak fashion (to reference MikeT’s last thread), the author shills his own spin, on his own book!
The first clue was the quote from Rush Limbaugh, who BTW, is capable, through clever wording, and his kool aide sipping minions, of turning rumor into fact, in mere minutes.

“AMENDMENT I
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.”

steve smith,

If an assembly (protest) is peaceful, there is no greater (I mean that as in big, large, etc) means of getting the Government’s and therefore, the American public’s attention, than burning an American Flag.

Do I condone it?
Not in the sense that it is used in the Middle East as a form of hatred, or if someone just wants to stick their thumb in the eye of the Government, but there are causes where the act can be a powerful tool to bring attention to an untenable situation.

We cannot amend the Constitution on a whim. To do so because something offends us flies in the face of what the Constitution is all about.

Rocky,

Burning a flag (or anything else) amongst a large group of people sounds dangerous and stupid, regardless of the message. One person wears the wrong type of clothing and you now have a martyr for your cause. While some political statements may be worth that risk, there are better/safer ways of expressing oneself and still getting attention.

I don’t think there should be a ban on flag burning, if people really think that falls under the protection of free speech, not that I agree with the logic there. But, burning a flag (or anything else) amongst a crowd of people in an uncontrolled manner should be illegal for very different reasons, with no need for a Constitutional Amendment, because it represents a clear and present danger.

Stephanie,

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Do we need to require that fire extinguishers be readily available at any protest where a flag might be burned?

Doesn’t that kinda take the spontaneity out of the act?

Rocky,

As you know, there was about a 200 post discussion on the entire flag burning thing as relates to free speech among other things pretty recently. I see no way that anyhting could be brought up that has not already been debated.

steve smith,

Hey you guys brought it up, I was just following the flow of conversation.

Rocky,

My bad.

I responded to SirusC, thinking it would be dropped. Sorry

no worries.

The American hating Muslims both in the U.S. and outside must be having a good laugh over the comments in this column.

I know that some of you say that flag burning is against this or is protected under that, but when I think of the American Flag, I think of the numerous men and women that have fought and died to protect and defend what that flag is all about. A lot of you guys (and gals) seem to think that the American flag is just a piece of cloth and since when you burn it it should be protected because you are just trying to get attention, and express your “Freedom of Speech”. When I see that flag burned in protest, well it is like saying those that have fought and died to protect our country and what our country is all about, well they are nothing. Everytime I see it burned I see our rights being taken advantage of in the utmost horrible fashion. I mean think about it, the country our forefathers gave up so much to MAKE and protect, the country so many have sacrificed for, and you want to burn our FLAG…. for the sake of PUBLICITY no less??? ABSURD!!! They would roll over in their graves, I say if you want to burn the American flag, a reprsentation of all that we stand for, in tangible form, FINE, get out, go live in France or Iran. If you want attention, have strippers (male or female for PC) at your rally, but for god’s sake don’t burn the one thing that truly embodies our country and all it stands for. As for whether a law needs to be signed into effect, I will tell you I would have NO problem with it, but I try to see where others come from when they say they do, it just makes me sick to think of what is OK by law and what our fore fathers meant when they wrote those words. I will not sit here and delve into what I think they meant or what they literally meant because I am not them, no one is. I will be honest and say that there are some parts of the Constitution that I do think are LIVING and others that are not. I think you have to take the whole thing in context as it was 218 years ago when they said freedom of speech they mean freedom to SAY what you felt about whatever you felt it about, freedom of demonstration to demonstrate about whatever you felt wronged over, but to take an icon of American principles and set it aflame in the US, well I fell it is like setting fire to the White House, or the Capitol building, or even the Declaration of Independance, and that isn’t legal, now is it? But if you bring up the second amendment, I think that is pretty explicit, I think there is no doubt about what they meant with that one. Like I said, these are my personal opinions, I am sure I will get a few people on here who don’t like what I have to say but you will not change my mind, being a member of the U.S. military, I believe whole heartedly in my convictions about the US Flag the respect and honor it carries with me as a person, to look upon it and have no doubt about what I am fighting for and that is a better way of life, regardless of race, color, creed, religion or sex. A government chosen by the people, for the people, is possibly the most revolutionary idea ever set forth, but it is also the most successful.

Load Toad 2W151,

So what’s your interpretation of the 9th amendment?

“I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public
definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed
power.”-WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON on the ninth amendment.

In other words, what I take from that is that no right is actually granted by the constitution on that issue and that it is purely saying that if you take the ninth amendment and break it down, it is EXTREMLY vague, providing no actual infringment guidelines or anything, if you research it, you will come up with the fact it was hardly used until an issue concerning contraceptives in the 1960’s in New England somewhere. There they had outlawed the use of contraceptives, and the supreme court said it [that law] was an invasion of privacy, and therefore unlawful.

For those of you unfamiliar with the 9th amendment, it states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

No more, No less

Load Toad 2W151,

So what you are saying is that you are willing to honor the parts of the Constitution that you deem “LIVING”, and trash the rest?

Talk about the founders rolling in their graves!

This is typical far right blather. You pick and choose which parts of the Constitution that suit your purpose de jour and trample on the rest. You want some amendments left open for YOUR interpretation (of your chosing of course), and everything else should be left as it was written.

You can’t have it both ways pal.

Rocky, I was just quoting what James Madison wrote, as for the rest that was MY interpretation of it, so take from it what you will, but the facts are there. James Madison thought the amendment was too vague, now you are judging it 218 years later… what do you want me to do, change the words to make it more specific to fit our times. I may be wrong in what I thought he meant, but I am saying this LONG after the Constitution was written. May I ask what you thought he meant? or for that matter the amendment itself…

Load Toad 2W151,

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The people had rights before the Constitution and the Constitution wouldn’t take those rights away.

That’s pretty simple, and I don’t think it’s vague at all.

The founders couldn’t think of every possible senario, but I think words in the 2nd amendment “Well REGULATED militia” pretty much sums that one up.

Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”.
How well have we followed that advice?

Or Washington, “Beware foreign influence”.
I don’t see us doing very well on that one either.

We cannot interput the Constitution as we fit, it is either the way it was writen, or it’s not.

On the flag we disagree. We cannot wrap all that we are as Americans into an icon. The flag itself has changed over the years and may change again still.

If you want a flag desecration law you have to include not using it on a vehicle (that won’t go over well), that surely causes damage, and you cannot use it for addvertising (I’m sure that one is gonna go over real big as well), those are both desecration of the flag.

Besides, there is nothing more American than protest. This country was born from it.

May it always be so.

Rocky,

No, I would require permits, which would need to be obtained before hand, and at least a pamphlet distributed with regards to safe burning practices and fines for those who do not follow such practices. This wouldn’t be exclusive to flag burners, of course, but similar laws that are in place should definitely apply to them as should any new law.

Yes, it would take the sponteneity away, but… How shall I put this? I don’t care! Do you have any idea how much damage can occur because of a small, unsafe fire? Add a crowd of people and you are begging for disaster. Many places in the US go through cycles of drought. Several places (such as California) experience devestating fires on a relatively regular basis. Some such massive fires started with a simple cigarette or camp fire. While I’ve never witnessed a flag burning, I assume such a burning would create the same kind of sparks and cinders that burning of other fabrics does and that poses a clear and present danger.

Yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater involves sponteneity and clear and present danger. It is not a protected free speech. Why should flag burning, without proper safety measures, be any different?

Stephanie,

It was a joke.

I have never burned a flag in protest, but I have seen one. Flags burn very quickly, and are gone in moments. I have never seen anything on record about anyone being injured by a burning flag. Those protestors are more likely to suffer injury from a right wing zealot beating them up than being burned by the flag.

Load Toad,

I deeply and sincerely apologize if the litiguous-ness of my arguments offended you. For clarification purposes:

1) I disagree with flag burning 100% as a demonstration practice. You are completely right when you said it is disrespectful to the people who have served and died to make this country the great nation that it is. Thank you for serving!

2) I disagree with flag burning as a protected right for various reasons. The logic of it just doesn’t make sense. To say flag burning is protected by the Constitution takes a LOT of extrapolation as to the intent of the founding fathers who wrote the document. It is not speech. It is not the press. It is not peaceably assembling, though may be done amongst peaceably assembled people. And, it does present a clear and present danger to those assembled and all the people and property surrounding them.

I chose to argue from the last point only because it seems the most middle-of-the-road argument that may be accepted by those who see flag burning as a truly protected right.

Steve,

Sorry, I missed that thread and was too just going with the flow.

Rocky,

I realize it was a joke. However, I don’t consider the topic a funny issue. And, I’m less concerned about the flag itself burning people (though people who burn flags may be stupid enough to brush up against it, that’s a really prejudice line of thought I’m not going to persue), but some regularly worn fabrics are very flammable. All it would take would be a spark carried on a light breeze to start another fire, either on grass, people, paper, ect. I’ve seen supposed “controlled” burns get out of control and do lots of damage. I’ve seen forest fires on the news that started with cigarettes and camp fires. While an instance of a flag burning hurt people or property might be rare, so would people getting trampled if someone were to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Stephanie,

Flag burning is as much free speech as donating to a political party.
As I said, I am not fanatic about it, but I do belive it is protected by the First Amendment.

Rocky,

How is donating to a political party “free speech”? It doesn’t make sense. It’s extrapolation and justification. Is burning crosses free speech? How about posting the Ten Commandments?

Stephanie,

That donating is free speech is the biggest stumbling block to campaign finance reform.

If you wanted to burn a cross in your own yard, I could see that as free speech. If you wanted to burn it in someone elses yard, I would see that as intimidation, and therefore a hate crime.

I don’t have a problem with you posting the Ten Commandments in your yard either.

Rocky,

Where in the Constitution is free speech limited to my yard? Or private property? That logic is lacking.

Stephanie,

If you put something in someone elses yard you are impinging on their freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court just had a ruling about government buildings.

Rocky,

I wasn’t necessarily refering to putting a cross in someone else’s front yard. That impinges on their right to private property, not freedom of speech. And, just because the Supreme Court made a ruling doesn’t make it right or in-line with the intentions of the founding fathers.

No, Stephanie, that just makes it the law. I didn’t say that it was right. The states, and therefore, the government have more rights than you do.
Unfortunatly we are not the ones that get to determine what our rights are, that is now up to our government.
And with the re-passage of the Patriot act, those rights just got a little fewer.

Frankly, I feel less safe with the passage of that act, than I did before.

Have a good night.

Rocky,

If your argument is: That’s the law *shrug*, then another law against flag burning should be no big deal, because then that would be the law.

Good night, I’m done now. And, BTW, you should feel no need to apologize for debating with me, that’s why I’m here. It forces me to make my positions more precise, more clear and more sound and for that I thank you.

Surerly a flag burning amendment is an old subject. My objection is that every time some flake, crazy, or loony desecrates (define deserate)a battery of lawyers will make a living off the contest. Why have a constitutional issue/crisis every time? Local ordinances can handle the matter up to a point. If it gets to court, ignore it.