Should an act of expression be a crime?

Jarod said:
In my opinion he is unfit to be an American president, but not legally prohibited.
Click to expand...

walk it back, Michael Jackson........

images
 
Candidly, I thought we were in agreement. Maybe not. Or maybe this guy just isn't willing to take -yes- for an answer.
"Its the essence of the quotes idiot....do you really expect every person to use exactly the same words while making the same exact point ?...." N #191
Click to expand...
a) No I don't.

b) Do you think I do?

c) Do you?

And now, since we're communicating in question form, are you aware that words mean things? That even the same words with different punctuation can mean something quite different.
1) Woman: without her man, is nothing.

2) Woman: without her, man is nothing.
Click to expand...
Same words. Different punctuation. Different meaning.

If Pelosi meant it was a certitude that Iraq had at the time of her speech, a viable arsenal of battle ready weapons of mass destruction, she could have said:

At this date and time, it is a certitude that Iraq has a viable arsenal of battle ready weapons of mass destruction.

That's not what she said. The quotation uses the wording "no question", and that's wrong; even if her INTENDED point was correct; which turns out to ALSO have been wrong. So much for Speaker Pelosi!
"idiot" NOVA U. S. NAVY Veteran
Click to expand...
- seriously ? -

You require these elementary English lessons, instead of a college level policy discussion, and YOU call ME an "idiot"?

Well, NOVA U. S. NAVY Veteran,
In so doing you embarrass the United States Navy.
"Your lame excuse are pathetic"
Click to expand...
What excuse, lame or otherwise?
What have I excused here? Please quote me verbatim.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there is nothing at all shameful in thinking a person who burns a flag should lose citizenship.......I dare bet eighty percent of Americans think something similar if not worse......the constitution is THERE to protect the minority from the majority.......it is not there to tell the majority that they are wrong......
Click to expand...

Congratulations, that's exactly how dictators think.
 
NOVA said:
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as original co-sponsor. The other co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.).[1]

The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.[1][2][3]

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

I'm just curious....when would desecration of the flag not do any of the above....maybe in your back yard when no one is looking ?
When did you ever see desecration of the flag not be a breach of the peace ?....
When flags put up at Brown U. to honor the vets on Veterns Day
were destroyed by the students was that not a breach of peace and an act of intimidation and to incite violence...?
Click to expand...

I would say that burning the flag might be the grounds for inciting violence. :dunno:
 
The Only Sarge said:
Yawn @ hypocrite...............
Donald Trump came under heavy criticism Tuesday after calling for the criminalization of burning the American flag, with critics gasping that the president-elect’s words represent a threat to the First Amendment. However, Trump’s suggestions are similar to a bill pushed in the Senate in 2005 that would criminalize flag burning – a bill that was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

This is what it said: "The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism."

Seems a lot different than simply protesting. And the bill wasn't even taken up by Congress, rightfully so.
 
NOVA said:
Well, lets point 'em out.....as for being objective ?....I never thought of myself as totally objective, not as you claim you are....
I have my faults and biases, pet peeves, and my own personal values....as everyone in the world does.

Here is where your double standard shines, Thingy, your hypocrasy.....

Bill Clinton, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Sen. Kennedy, Al Gore,
Albright, etc. harped about Saddam and his WMD, but when
George Bush says EXACTLY the same thing, he is the liar, never a word about the others....and its so easy to be
consistent and say they were all lying....or as I always say, they were all wrong......instead of being a hypocrite as you've proven over and over.

And why in conversing with you, it always down to a personal attack instead of just commenting on what is being discussed....
well, it least your consistent there....
Click to expand...

For me, bush could have said it a million times and I wouldn't have cared. It's when he started a war over it that I criticized him. Think sticks and stones...
 
very good day.

1. liberals defend flag burning
2. liberals trot out the corpse of scalia and give it praises.
3. Trump looks good to the people who dont like flag burning.

I have not seen any streams of people burning american flags in protest though so that is very dissapointing.

all from a single tweet. :)

on time and under budget?
 
NOVA said:
Just answer the question....exactly what did Bush say about WMD that is inconsistent with what all those Democrats said......
I'll understand if you can't ....

I'm not interested in you generalities about what Powell said of about Curveball....the Democrats quotes on Saddam and WMD don't involve them at all.....

All you've got is the same of old general accusations about he lied and opinions....you claim he specifically claim he lied about WMD....so tell how what he said is different from what the Dems said.... either they all lied or nobody lied...you can't have it both ways.

Or refresh you memory here....
Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE) - Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton mainly criticized chemical weapons. bush upped the ante by talking about nukes.

However, it’s important to note that Clinton focused on chemical weapons and did not bring up nuclear weapons, as Bush would later do.

"The Senate will vote on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention," Clinton said. "By voting for this treaty, the Senate can help to banish poison gas from the earth, and make America's citizens and soldiers much more secure. … The treaty will increase the safety of our citizens at home, as well as our troops in the field. The destruction of current stockpiles, including at least 40,000 tons of poison gas in Russia alone, will put the largest potential sources of chemical weapons out of the reach of terrorists, and the trade controls will deny terrorists easy access to the ingredients they seek."

Bush, by contrast, would later make much more sweeping claims.

For instance, in a weekly radio address on Sept. 14, 2002, Bush said of Hussein-era Iraq, "Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-bill-clinton-george-w-bush-had-basically/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top