1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Flag Burning Amendment

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cdru, Jun 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 2, 2005 #161 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    *lol*

    Don't try and argue state's rights when it comes to gay marriage. Conservatives don't care what your rights are when it comes to "social" conservative issues. They reverse course and WANT the government telling us what we can do.
     
  2. Jul 2, 2005 #162 of 193
    AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I have a flag-burning suggestion that just might resolve the dilemma. Just make sure the flag you set afire is in need of destruction. The flag burner can have the satisfaction of expressing him/herself and the flag-protector can be comforted that the flag came to its end in the honorable, recommended manner.

    Bring on your other unresolvable social issues... :D
     
  3. Jul 2, 2005 #163 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    That speaks volumes about your inherant prejudice against conservatives.
     
  4. Jul 2, 2005 #164 of 193
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Ooo! Ooo! I've got one.:D

    How about legal abortions ONLY for minorities and illegal immigrant workers?

    We could write it off as unavoidable "collateral damage" in our respective wars on welfare and illegal immigration!:shrug:

    Can I get an Amen?
     
  5. Jul 4, 2005 #165 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    That speaks volumes about your inherant prejudice against conservatives.


    Or my inherant prejudice against hypocricy.
     
  6. Jul 4, 2005 #166 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    No, to lump Conservatives into one lot, and then tell us what we think, is nothing less than bigotry.
     
  7. Jul 4, 2005 #167 of 193
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    OK, I guess I need to respond here.

    I'll probably still lose you both. But let me 'splain it to ya.:D

    First, your assumption that I "prefer an overreaching nanny-state which controls virtually everything in society" is inaccurate. I "prefer" a state that pretty much stays OUT of everything in society. What I expect from my "state" is basic police and fire services, education of children, availability of medical services, and a reasonable guarantee no one in my community will suffer or die from lack of food, clean water or basic shelter, whatever the reason they are lacking them. There's nothing I hate worse than having to step over emaciated dead people on the sidewalk.:nono:

    Ideally, these "services" would be provided, financed and directed at the local level. And in fact, most of my "expectations" have traditionally, and still are the purvue of "local" authority, albiet lately with increasing finance and direction from federal sources.

    I prefer local control for several reasons, not in any order. Locally, people better understand their wants and needs and therefore would provide only the services they collectively decide they want and need. And by knowing their own community be better able to allocate these services, and almost without doubt do it more economically. Also, the beneficiaries of these services would be more responsible with how they use them. You're less likely to spend your "welfare" on a big screen TV or "rims" if the check is coming from your neighbor rather than from a printing plant several thousands of miles away. Or, you're less likely to pollute or throw your trash out in the street if you know you(and your watchful neighbors) will be assessed for cleaning it up. There are other reasons, but I suspect I'm already boring you.:zzz:

    As I've stated, I firmly believe the first priorities of any community are police and fire protection, education, medical care and providing minimal food and water for everyone. And all this works better on a local level. As communities grow, at a certain point people decide some or all of these are no longer their responsibility.

    The paradigm has been set up where local communities are made dependent on larger centralized governments, mostly through taxation. I think this relationship needs to be reversed. Centralized governments, when it is necessary they exist at all, should be dependent on local communities.

    However, I'm a realist and understand none of that's going to happen anytime soon. So if I'm stuck with a bloated central government, I'd at least like them to supply to the best of their abilities, the services I'd expect from my local community if the central authority didn't exist. I would hope the basic necessities of police, fire, education, health care and food would be addressed.

    I should also note that given the choice between an "overreaching nanny-state which controls virtually everything in society" and an overreaching military-state at perpetual war, I choose the former as the lesser of two evils.
     
  8. Jul 4, 2005 #168 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    No, to lump Conservatives into one lot, and then tell us what we think, is nothing less than bigotry.

    Ok, I guess it takes one to know one.

     
  9. Jul 4, 2005 #169 of 193
    waywoos

    waywoos Mentor

    17
    0
    Mar 14, 2004
    if i want to burn the flag i think i should be able to.
    cuz of the f@#ed up government that i want to so many times.
    only a matter of time b4 someone does.
     
  10. Jul 4, 2005 #170 of 193
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Danny, its only ever a problem when conservatives or the rich get lumped. When liberals or the poor get lumped thats just the way things are. :lol:
     
  11. Jul 5, 2005 #171 of 193
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    C'mon Bogy, surely you know the suffering endured by the conservative class as the result of liberal stereotyping? Certainly you've had your share of three piece suits pounding at the parsonage door seeking comfort and solace after a brutal tongue lashing by the local union shop steward?

    You don't? You haven't?

    As Emily Litella would say, never mind!:grin:
     
  12. Jul 5, 2005 #172 of 193
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Actually *I'm* the one who offers comfort to the suffering of someone who endures a union shop steward. My wife's maor complaint about her job is the way that union officials are allowed to get away with criminal activity (such as assault) and almost never have to pay the consequences.

    Though one recently got run out. It's pretty clear-cut in the contract that if you commit fraud concerning your timecard (like getting someone to punch in or out for you) you are fired *immediately*.
     
  13. Jul 5, 2005 #173 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    When you go back for the history lesson from your elemenatary school, you should also demand to be told the definition of "sarcasm".
     
  14. Jul 5, 2005 #174 of 193
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Did anybody ever tell you that you have a lot to learn about sarcasm? This seems to be your standard response when you say something hypocritical.
     
  15. Jul 5, 2005 #175 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Yes, definitely, keep insulting me, to avoid actually answering the question.

    If the Court can legislate from the bench, and have the last word, where are the checks and balances?
     
  16. Jul 6, 2005 #176 of 193
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You have thrown the whole thread so far off the track by your whining about insults and insulting others, that I'm not sure what your question is.

    The court does not legislate. They DO tell states etc. why what they have done is not constitutional, so if they want to change a law to make it constitutional they can do so. This saves time, so the lawmakers don't have to guess at what the problem is. This is sometimes misunderstood by some people as being the same as legislating. The check and balance is that if legislators want to write a constitutional law, they can do so. Whining that the Court found something unconstitutional, in other words, doing their job, is a copout. For example, last year in Nebraska a law was written "defending" marriage. It was written so broadly that it was plainly unconstitutional. This was pointed out by constitutional scholars. But thats the way those writing the law insisted it be presented to the voters. A majority of the voters voted for it. When it went to the SC, it of course was found unconstitutional for the very reasons that had been pointed out a year earlier. But those who wrote and backed the law could point to how the SC was defending gay marriage and how they should all be hung. The purpose was not to pass a law that was constitutional, the purpose was to go to court and have more ammunition against the Judicial system.
     
  17. Jul 6, 2005 #177 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    If the Court can legislate from the bench, and have the last word, where are the checks and balances?

    Why does it need more checks and balances than it already has? Its not as if the Court is all powerful. In fact, of the three branches it's powers are the most limited when it comes to taking any direct action. After all, the court can only respond to actions taken by others. It doesn't initiate action on its own and can't "create" new legislation from thin air without prior legislation coming to its door. Without any disputes in interpretation, the court is powerless.

    You seem to argue that because its judgement power is almost absolute, it is overpowered, but I think not.

    If you want to not need the Court, then all you need to do is amend the Constitution in such a way that its very specific, rather than those silly little words like "Equal Protection" that some people think means one thing for one group, but excludes another. :nono2:
     
  18. Jul 6, 2005 #178 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    All of that, and you still didn't answer the question. Shocking!
     
  19. Jul 6, 2005 #179 of 193
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    All of that, and you still didn't answer the question. Shocking!

    Sorry, I thought your question was rhetorical and you, like most educated Americans, already knew the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

    My post was to delve into what the court actually does and examine this absolute power you think so deserves even further checking.
     
  20. Jul 6, 2005 #180 of 193
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    One of the checks and balances built into the Constitution is that Congress, in conjunction with the Executive can pass laws. However, the Court gave itself the power to legislate from the bench, with the final word. When one branch has the "final word" the checks and balances break down. When one branch has the ultimate power over the other two, particularly when that branch was supposed to have been the weakest branch, the system breaks down and we have a tyrannical Court with activist judges who can only be replaced by their own doing.

    The only check on the court right now is that the President can appoint and the Senate consents. After that Senatorial consent, the Court now becomes a nine member tyrannical board that cannot be replaced, and who's decisions cannot be questioned.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page