Oh Bernie...
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-sponsored-a-bill-to-punish-flag-burning/

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What I intended to do in my rather strident initial comment was to smack some sense into folks who seemed to be [engaged in] a loathsome intellectual scavenging of misery. It could not go unchallenged.

To be honest, I have the same motivation behind about 80% of my comments. It the "someone on the Internet is WRONG" syndrome.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Are there people out there who are using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric? Not as many as are typically implied. I cannot name a SINGLE person who I would hold up as “the example” of a person that routinely uses ‘violent and apocalyptic rhetoric’. When such rhetoric exists it is typically very isolated.

Let me give two examples of something I found both pervasive, and an incitement to violence.

The first one is Sarah Palin's invention of the "death panel":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That was never something even remotely part of the Affordable Care Act, but you had it repeated and defended almost to a man by conservatives. Even the normally anti-talking point libertarians we have around here felt compelled to occasionally add "perhaps that's the basis for the 'death panels' the Republicans keep talking about..." to their criticisms of the ACA.

If you think that what liberals are trying to do is, as Senator Chuck Grassley put it, "pull the plug on Grandma", then it justifies trying to stop it by all means necessary. If talking about it doesn't work, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, and ultimately armed rebellion is okay, because it's all self defense against an unconscionable act of nihilistic genocide.

The second one is the talk about revolution and secession. The most famous are Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" about Cap & Trade, and Gov. Rick Perry winds up on TV a lot for talking about secession.

I'd also say that when I compare left vs. right on this topic, it's not so much about the quantity, but the quality and authority. The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election, while left-wing ones never did. Glenn Beck is making the case, night after night, that Obama and liberals aren't metaphorically taking us down the path of fascism and genocide, but literally doing so. That's qualitatively different from the average boisterous protester drawing a Hitler mustache on Obama or Bush's face, or some nobody like me calling him that in a comment.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'd just be a bit happier if they'd return the favor, and admit that liberal philosophy has a legitimate place in American politics, rather than talking about it like it's a cancer that must be completely eliminated.
Conservatives feel the exact same way. It’d be nice if liberals treated conservatives like human beings instead of vermin to be eradicated. Classic example: like how liberal pundits & politicians treat the Tea Party.

Okay, again, I think there's a big difference. The criticism of the Tea Party from the left has mostly been to call them:

• Racist
  
• Angry
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Believe a revisionist version of history
  
• Believe in a revisionist version of the Constitution
  
• Quick to resort to intimidation or violence
  
• Run by corporations
  

That's a pretty negative set of attributes. Well earned too, IMO.

Thing is, we don't really want them gone, we want them to snap out of it. We want to demonstrate to them the value of what we believe, and we want to show that the things we want and what they want aren't really so different when you come down to it.

Their criticism of us is:

• Elitist
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Weak (on terror/drugs/Ruskies/welfare parasites, etc.)
  
• Lazy
  
• Naive
  
• Run by special interests (mostly Unions and enviro-terrorists)
  
• Propagandist (we supposedly control all media, remember?)
  
• Unpatriotic
  
• Un-American
  
• Baby-killing
  
• Grandma-killing
  
• Job-killing
  
• Troop-hating
  
• Gay-loving
  
• Flag-burning
  
• God-hating
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Fascist
  

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them. They're not okay with a government that's part-conservative and part-liberal in inspiration. It's an all-or-nothing game to them.

I think that's less true in the broader right-wing movement, but the Tea Party-style of argument is in ascendance over there, and it seems like hardly anyone on the right thinks they should be trying to cool down that eliminationist streak.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But most of the time the reality is that the guy we want to believe is such a jerk is nowhere near as bad as we imagine in our head.

I agree.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when some politician says, “Hey – Limbaugh (or whoever) is poisoning our national discourse with their violent rhetoric”, all too many people are ready to lap up the demagoguery. Politicians who do so are manipulating us for votes. Pundits who do so are manipulating you for ratings.
Don’t be a dupe. We live in a free country, where speech – even speech you don’t like – is protected.

I agree with where you start here, but not where you end. Throughout, I am talking about condemnation, not criminalization.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

I think the kind of political junkies who come and get in my face here are kindred spirits, but I get so very, very tired of trying to break through the vitriol, and I mostly just write off responding to the people who seem to only speak to provoke.

To be frank, you have been a pretty borderline case in my book. You come across to me as someone who's commentary often only serves to raise the amount of heat and useless vitriol in conversations. I know I can dish it out myself, but I tend to dial it way back if I sense someone wants a real conversation.

I'm glad to see you do that at least a bit here.

Like you said, don't be a dupe -- don't be one of these people who carries nothing but a burning hatred of people who disagree with you, especially if you like to hang out in a place you think is 90% people who disagree with you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The majority of the American people aren't buying the leftmedia's BS spin about this lone vermin, whose heinous act was apolitical.

A politician was specifically singled out at a political function. By that very fact, it can't be apolitical.

It wasn't like he went and robbed a 7-11 and ended up accidentally hit a member of Congress when the clerk pulled a gun. That would be apolitical.

The word "non-partisan" is a better fit, but firing a gun at a politician sounds pretty "partisan" to me.

He was clearly not right in the head, but also pretty clearly, he wasn't completely loopy. As much as the media has joked about "government using grammar as mind control", that's exactly what was going on in 1984, which was on his favorite book list.

Also, there's been mention of him burning the flag. Well, in his Youtube videos he explains that the flag isn't in the Constitution, therefore it's meaningless.

As much as the right likes to act like flag burning is something liberals do for fun, what does it mean if it's burned in protest of it being unconstitutional to even have an American flag?

He also talks at length about currency, and there he sounds like an Austrian economist -- the Fed is manipulating currency to control us, and the solution is that we should just individually create and use our own currency instead.

All that said, I'm perfectly happy to say that nothing about the above makes "the right" directly responsible for what happened. I think he had sterner stuff than cable news driving him nuts.

But I will say that the delusional nightmare he fell into is very much like the one the right is always trying to sell these days. The government is evil, all powerful, and coming for you, so get your guns, you "might" need them.

Do I think they should stop pushing that dystopian picture? Yes, and I always have felt that way. Do I think this is a good time to say so again? You betcha.

Do I think the left generates a significant chunk of the noise that adds heat to our debates without adding light? Sure. Does the left have a similar dystopian vision that they're constantly hammering home? Maybe. If so, ours is presented with non-violent calls to action and a kernel of hope that it's not too late to make a difference, not a call to lock and load, build a bunker, and your only hope is that you might survive the inevitable apocalypse.

And QM, if you read this far down, I'm not really directing this at you, you were just the catalyst for a rant that had been building for a while. Thanks for helping bring it out.

You know, I can respect this reply very much. The analogy is just that, similiar but different. It is hyperbole, but along with the flag burning, as we both agree, it puts things in perpective.

The tree is a slippery slope. I find permits completely appropriate because of certain situations that may arise. Say, for example, two groups book one event. One is the skin heads, and they booked their protest to meet with the black panthers... Chances are, there will be blood...

Next is an anti-gay protest/march, right into a gay activist parade (Coupled with floats and driving drag queens in little punch buggies.) This protest by the anti-gays would be completely lawful if there were no permits yet would be disasterous.

Besides, these three proved you can hold a "protest" without a permit. Just deny it is a protest.

I respect your opinion and wish we had valid freedoms in all walks of life just like you do. However, freedom is sometimes our worst enemy. People will always f-things up to where laws have to be made...

See, freedom allows you to walk past a 15 year old girl being raped and do nothing about it (Has happened in America.) It allows you to take a picture with your cell phone of a man who has been shot while trying to protect his family (Has happened.) It allows motorists to yell at someone just run over and dying to, "Get this fucking trash off the god damn road!" Freedom is the antithesis to community, sadly... But would I live anywhere else but a "free" nation? No... I just wish we had more responsibilty towards one another.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).
"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."
This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.
You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.
I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)
The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).

"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."

This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.

You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.

I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)

The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

Wow. You really bring out the fact that she is renouncing the subjugation of females in Muslim society by your incessant laser focus on her femininity. It makes you seem so intelligent how you think an intelligent and sexy woman is pornographic. Let me ask you a question. Do you beat your wife or girlfriend with a studded club or with a broad stick?


>> ^NinjaInHeat:

Ech, I knew she was too good to be true.
What's up with all these self righteous videos lately? Think for a second before you make them, who the fuck are you preaching to? your majority of viewers who are atheist and who understand just as well as you do how ridiculous religions are? or the occasional religious man who believes in that ridiculous shit and doesn't need to hear you point out how illogical it is.
Bitch, if you had half the brains you seem to think you do you'd stop prancing around being all sexy and "hey, look at me, I don't believe in shit, how cool am I?" and start giving some actual opinions, some relevant commentary. When you spend five minutes preaching to a web cam on how stupid Islam is you're showing you're not capable of anything more than your version of flag burning, how stupid a religion is has no relevance on life and laws in a pluralist society and making fun of something doesn't show you have intelligence (Wit may, but you seem to lack in that department).
Anyways, don't mind me, your videos are perfectly acceptable as they are, just as long as you realize they are no more than porn for slightly educated masses (maybe not even slightly educated, just atheist...)

Ech, I knew she was too good to be true.
What's up with all these self righteous videos lately? Think for a second before you make them, who the fuck are you preaching to? your majority of viewers who are atheist and who understand just as well as you do how ridiculous religions are? or the occasional religious man who believes in that ridiculous shit and doesn't need to hear you point out how illogical it is.

Bitch, if you had half the brains you seem to think you do you'd stop prancing around being all sexy and "hey, look at me, I don't believe in shit, how cool am I?" and start giving some actual opinions, some relevant commentary. When you spend five minutes preaching to a web cam on how stupid Islam is you're showing you're not capable of anything more than your version of flag burning, how stupid a religion is has no relevance on life and laws in a pluralist society and making fun of something doesn't show you have intelligence (Wit may, but you seem to lack in that department).

Anyways, don't mind me, your videos are perfectly acceptable as they are, just as long as you realize they are no more than porn for slightly educated masses (maybe not even slightly educated, just atheist...)

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I'm really sick of this guy. I have no problem with 'Draw Muhammad Day,' or even burning an image of Muhammad. It's all free speech, just like flag burning. However I hate the way he insults ALL Muslims. And let there be no doubt, he is insulting ALL Muslims when he says that they're too stupid to even start a fire. He's just as guilty of promoting hate and ignorance of an entire group of people (Muslims) as al Qaeda or the Taliban is of promoting hate of an entire group of people (America, or the entire 'West').
Free speech is great, and I defend thunderf00t's right to make these statements. But people who employ tactics like him just make the world worse. Promoting hatred and ignorance aren't things to be celebrated.


He insults just about anyone who believes in fairy tales.

At 0:31 he says, "Although many* Muslims struggle, I mean really struggle with this new-fangled technology of making fire." It doesn't sound like he's differentiating between flag-burning Muslims and the rest of them. He's casting a blanket assertion that most Muslims are so retarded that they can't even make fire.

But it's more than just that. He's constantly sarcastically labeling Islam as the "religion of peace." And you know what? It ain't a religion of peace. (GASP!) But neither is Christianity. Nor Judaism. Nor Hinduism. Nor even freaking Buddhism, if you can believe that. They all have lovey-dovey peacey-huggy teachings, but they also aren't afraid to pick up the sword whenever they deem it necessary for whatever god-awful reason. So why is he singling out Islam? Because he's a bigot? Yes, most definitely.

And that's why I'm sick of this guy. Fuck him. He's the West's counterpart to Ahmadinejad or bin Laden. Put them in Thunderdome. Except let no one come out.

*Bold face my emphasis

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I tend to think his "so stupid they can't even light a fire" was directed more specifically at the flag-burners themselves, and less at Muslims in general. He referred to the group as an "angry Islamic mob"; presumably he would take less issue with a "peaceful Islamic mob", or a "collection of average Muslims". "Maybe the Koran would burn better" could be offensive to Muslims in general, but I would assume particularly so to the flag-burning extremists.

I tend to think his "so stupid they can't even light a fire" was directed more specifically at the flag-burners themselves, and less at Muslims in general. He referred to the group as an "angry Islamic mob"; presumably he would take less issue with a "peaceful Islamic mob", or a "collection of average Muslims". "Maybe the Koran would burn better" could be offensive to Muslims in general, but I would assume particularly so to the flag-burning extremists.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I'm really sick of this guy. I have no problem with 'Draw Muhammad Day,' or even burning an image of Muhammad. It's all free speech, just like flag burning. However I hate the way he insults ALL Muslims. And let there be no doubt, he is insulting ALL Muslims when he says that they're too stupid to even start a fire. He's just as guilty of promoting hate and ignorance of an entire group of people (Muslims) as al Qaeda or the Taliban is of promoting hate of an entire group of people (America, or the entire 'West').
Free speech is great, and I defend thunderf00t's right to make these statements. But people who employ tactics like him just make the world worse. Promoting hatred and ignorance aren't things to be celebrated.
well, he does consider all of islam to be wrong.

I'm really sick of this guy. I have no problem with 'Draw Muhammad Day,' or even burning an image of Muhammad. It's all free speech, just like flag burning. However I hate the way he insults ALL Muslims. And let there be no doubt, he is insulting ALL Muslims when he says that they're too stupid to even start a fire. He's just as guilty of promoting hate and ignorance of an entire group of people (Muslims) as al Qaeda or the Taliban is of promoting hate of an entire group of people (America, or the entire 'West').

Free speech is great, and I defend thunderf00t's right to make these statements. But people who employ tactics like him just make the world worse. Promoting hatred and ignorance aren't things to be celebrated.

Specter is about as moderate a Republican as John Boehner is.


Here's a brief rundown:

In the 110th Congress, Specter voted with his party 70.6 percent of the time

• Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.
• Rated 81% by the Christian Coalition.
• Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.
• Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.


• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
• Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage
• Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
• Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
• Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.
• Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
• Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba.
• Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
• Voted YES on telecomm deregulation.
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq


On March 9, 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 was signed into law. It amended the process for interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys, written into the bill by Arlen Specter during his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.[18] The change allowed the Bush Administration to appoint interim U.S. attorneys without term limits, and without confirmation by the Senate. The Bush administration used the law to place at least eight interim attorneys into office in 2006.



There's ungodly amount more of really piss-poor judgment.

Thanks MG. I come here for meaningful discourse. So "abuse" of marriage by hetros would include what? Marrying for immigration, healthcare, stuff like that? Sounds like you agree that is a problem with the institution, not the genders of the participants?

What about taxes? In California, two incomes folded into a single "household" income would increase tax revenue, wouldn't it? There are a lot of wealthy Homosexuals out there because they tend to be Dinks, right (not an epithet, 'dual income no kids')

I have always thought of this as a "flag burning" issue, more based on the dubiously invoked principals of "values" than it is on anything that actually effects anyone.

I am sick of the Ron Paul-is-the-best talk that has infested the Internets for months.

Yes, Ron Paul is an honorable man. Yes, I respect Ron Paul. Yes, I agree with him on many things, especially regarding the Iraq War and civil liberties.

But Ron Paul as President would be ridiculous. At this point America has lost nearly all its respect among the rest of the world. Our alliances are tenuous and strained. Ron Paul would make that all worse. He is opposed to alliances and wants to withdraw the U.S from the United Nations. How on Earth would that help us?

With domestic policy, Ron Paul sees everything through the lens of state rights. Many civil liberty transgressions he opposes at the national level he either ignores or condones at the state level, such as flag burning. Essentially he thinks that the federal government shouldn't be involved in anything other than the bare minimum given to it by the Constitution. What he fails to realize is that the Federal Government is already involved in a lot and he couldn't just dismantle it.

Ron Paul sees the world as he would like to see it and is an idealist to the extreme. He is not what is best for the American people.