NationStates Jolt Archive

You know...I'd debate this ill-conceived rant, but there's just too much hate, propaganda and blind faith in this post. However, I will respond to a few key points:

1. US has engaged in styles of genocide - the Native Americans, the oppression in much of Latin America - invasion of Cuba and the Phillipines are a good case for oppression and massacres

2. You have used WMDs. Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They may have been justified contemporarily, but you have used WMDs before.

3. Why exactly are socialist revolutionaries evil? Because they don't like to be pro-US puppets, and can actualy criticise the US?

4. The bill is divisive, since it only covers soldiers. Soldiers are no better than doctors, firemen and other such emergency services personnel. All risk their lives for a salary. Why no bill covering Doctors, or Firemen?

5. I don't hate America. I rather like your country for its rich history and social structure; I'm also not a socialist, but basically a centrist. Thus I don't fit your ill-concieved notion of someone who opposes your bill.

6. The military is not more valuable than civilian jobs. Soldiers cannot heal sick people, put out fires, arrest criminals or clean your gutters. They serve a role, no less or more important than any other. They know what they're joining up to do; if they don't, they damn well should.

Perhaps when you run for Congress again, you should use "Service Guarantees Citizenship" and "War Is Peace" as your running slogans. They seem more than suited to your idealistic, naive and hate-filled crusade.

Actually American soldiers can do all those, and they do.

Actually American soldiers can do all those, and they do.

So...just avoid my main points and pick on the last point? Good job! Now hurry along, there must be some socialist dictators helping the poor that you can go destroy in the name of Capitalism and the god-blessed USA!

So...just avoid my main points and pick on the last point? Good job! Now hurry along, there must be some socialist dictators helping the poor that you can go destroy in the name of Capitalism and the god-blessed USA!
actually there is: a vile scum bag by the name of Chavez. But an assassins bullet, paid for with US tax dollars, can easily solve that problem. :cool:

actually there is: a vile scum bag by the name of Chavez. But an assassins bullet, paid for with US tax dollars, can easily solve that problem. :cool:

Until you actually answer my points, I'll ignore you. But considering that might tax your biased, military-centric mind, I'm guessing we won't talk again.

Did you see the news articles on how the Venezuelans are trying to use vote machines to influence the US elections?

Which times? The UN's been lobbying for machine voting in the US since 1996.

Which times? The UN's been lobbying for machine voting in the US since 1996.
Thank god think how easy they would be to secure if they just put some thought into it and did not compromise on a few key points

actually there is: a vile scum bag by the name of Chavez. But an assassins bullet, paid for with US tax dollars, can easily solve that problem. :cool:

He was ELECTED, you son of a bitch! We will not let the US dictate terms on who we elect, you murderer.

Did you see the news articles I made up and hope you won't question me about on how the Venezuelans are trying to use vote machines to influence the US elections?

There, moron, that's fixed.

So...just avoid my main points and pick on the last point? Good job! Now hurry along, there must be some socialist dictators helping the poor that you can go destroy in the name of Capitalism and the god-blessed USA!
Go away, little person. We're not interested in your bigotry! :p

Go away, little person. We're not interested in your bigotry! :p

You could have said this to the guy that's proposing a coup after supporting the "liberation" of Iraq, Forrest, but, by all means, ignore the moron you have at your side...

Edit: For that matter, before you use the "Hitler was elected" card, remember that Venezuela isn't launching preemptive strikes at hapless countries, nor arresting ilegally and keeping people at camps without charges. You know, like the US and its "elected leader" is doing in Iraq amd Guantanamo.

He was ELECTED, you son of a bitch! We will not let the US dictate terms on who we elect, you murderer.
Please don't do that. :rolleyes:

Please don't do that. :rolleyes:

That what? Whittier is suggesting a coup d'etat in the continent I live in. What's to keep this psychopath from suggesting the murder of another elected leader he dislikes, such as my president, and the installment of an US-friendly dictatorship, like in 1964, all over again? You'd be crying foul if I called for Bush's assassination and a subsequent coup in the US, wouldn't you?

Until the U.S. stops picking on other countries for doing exactly the same things they're doing, stops going backwards on women's rights, votes in a leader who doesn't go to war because he feels like it and generally practices what it preaches (liberty? equality?) Then people are going to protest, and the funeral of a person who, by some people's standards, is less of a war hero and more of a governmental puppet would seem to some as good a place as any. No law against protesting will stop protests. When people have strong views, they act upon them.

Until the U.S. stops picking on other countries for doing exactly the same things they're doing, stops going backwards on women's rights, votes in a leader who doesn't go to war because he feels like it and generally practices what it preaches (liberty? equality?) Then people are going to protest, and the funeral of a person who, by some people's standards, is less of a war hero and more of a governmental puppet would seem to some as good a place as any. No law against protesting will stop protests. When people have strong views, they act upon them.

You have great points, save for the fact that Phelps is the one protesting funerals. But, yes, protests in general, outside funerals, will keep happening. Here we see one of the causes: Whittier supporting, at the same time, the "liberation" of Iraq and a dictatorship in Venezuela. I wonder how he'd feel if his family was arrested for no reason, tortured, etc... Maybe he'd feel good about it?

You have great points, save for the fact that Phelps is the one protesting funerals. But, yes, protests in general, outside funerals, will keep happening. Here we see one of the causes: Whittier supporting, at the same time, the "liberation" of Iraq and a dictatorship in Venezuela. I wonder how he'd feel if his family was arrested for no reason, tortured, etc... Maybe he'd feel good about it?
Venezuela already has a dictator. His name is Chavez. People in Venezuela already are arrested for no reason and tortured.
Before you say anything, dictators get elected in the third world all the time. They use intimidation to stay in power. Let us not forget the fact, that the observers who went to Venezuela, were only allowed to monitor the vote counting in just one city in just one polling station. All of the others were placed off limits and it is from those others that reports of large scale vote irregularities came from. The people, Venezuelans, who questioned how the votes were being counted in those districts were swept off to some God forsaken prison never to be heard from again.
Among the charges: that votes for the opponent were deliberately shredded and tossed with the garbage.
When Carter certified the vote, he only certified for the one polling station he and the other observers were able to watch. They were never allowed access to the other sites, they were never allowed to investigate charges of vote fraud.
Chavez' reelection was nothing more than the biggest fraud in South America and it has cost a lot of innocent people their lives.
At least in 2000 Bush and Clinton weren't carting people off to jail for voting for their opponents.

Also, in America, we allow people to protest against the Bush administration. In Venezuela, if people protest the Chavez regime they are beaten, intimidated, and arrested.
Bush allows people to criticize him in his country. Chavez on the other hand does not.

Also, in America, we allow people to protest against the Bush administration. In Venezuela, if people protest the Chavez regime they are beaten, intimidated, and arrested.
Bush allows people to criticize him in his country. Chavez on the other hand does not.

It must be so nice to be able to live in a world where evidence counts for nil. However, you not only are yet to provide any, but are also forgetting about the coup attempts against him. He gets criticized in Venezuela all the time, by lots of people. I have yet to see one arrested. One would think that, as happened with Saddam, nobody would hear criticism against him if he were such a ruthless dictator.

You could have said this to the guy that's proposing a coup after supporting the "liberation" of Iraq, Forrest, but, by all means, ignore the moron you have at your side...
Hmm. I thought you were handling that quite well, actually. I saw no reason to say anything.

Until the U.S. stops picking on other countries for doing exactly the same things they're doing, stops going backwards on women's rights, votes in a leader who doesn't go to war because he feels like it and generally practices what it preaches (liberty? equality?) Then people are going to protest, and the funeral of a person who, by some people's standards, is less of a war hero and more of a governmental puppet would seem to some as good a place as any. No law against protesting will stop protests. When people have strong views, they act upon them.
Actions have consequnces.

Hmm. I thought you were handling that quite well, actually. I saw no reason to say anything.

What? You actually AGREE WITH ME on this one? :shock: (Or the face that's surprised... how is it done?)

Okay, when Eut and I agree on something, it's so far off the line that's not even funny. Whittier, give up...

Actions have consequnces.

Bush's actions too. And protesting the Military/Government, no matter how much you want to make it a felony (you know, out of your love for the 1st Ammendment), is still not a crime. And if it becomes a crime to protest at funerals, then let it be erga omnes, as opposed to making everyone else second-class citizens with a law.

Venezuela already has a dictator. His name is Chavez. People in Venezuela already are arrested for no reason and tortured.
Before you say anything, dictators get elected in the third world all the time. They use intimidation to stay in power. Let us not forget the fact, that the observers who went to Venezuela, were only allowed to monitor the vote counting in just one city in just one polling station. All of the others were placed off limits and it is from those others that reports of large scale vote irregularities came from. The people, Venezuelans, who questioned how the votes were being counted in those districts were swept off to some God forsaken prison never to be heard from again.
Among the charges: that votes for the opponent were deliberately shredded and tossed with the garbage.
When Carter certified the vote, he only certified for the one polling station he and the other observers were able to watch. They were never allowed access to the other sites, they were never allowed to investigate charges of vote fraud.
Chavez' reelection was nothing more than the biggest fraud in South America and it has cost a lot of innocent people their lives.
At least in 2000 Bush and Clinton weren't carting people off to jail for voting for their opponents.
Link?
'cause I kinda doubt Carter would say that the election was OK if your allegations were true... Nor the observers from the EU...

Venezuela already has a dictator. His name is Chavez. People in Venezuela already are arrested for no reason and tortured.
Before you say anything, dictators get elected in the third world all the time. They use intimidation to stay in power. Let us not forget the fact, that the observers who went to Venezuela, were only allowed to monitor the vote counting in just one city in just one polling station. All of the others were placed off limits and it is from those others that reports of large scale vote irregularities came from. The people, Venezuelans, who questioned how the votes were being counted in those districts were swept off to some God forsaken prison never to be heard from again.
Among the charges: that votes for the opponent were deliberately shredded and tossed with the garbage.
When Carter certified the vote, he only certified for the one polling station he and the other observers were able to watch. They were never allowed access to the other sites, they were never allowed to investigate charges of vote fraud.
Chavez' reelection was nothing more than the biggest fraud in South America and it has cost a lot of innocent people their lives.
At least in 2000 Bush and Clinton weren't carting people off to jail for voting for their opponents.

I should now better than to ask you, but do you have evidence to support these allegations?

Actions have consequnces.

Free speech shouldn't have physical or government consequences.

Free speech shouldn't have physical or government consequences.

Ok, let's say I take a shit on your lawn because I don't like you. According to you, I have that right, yet, you still have shit on your lawn. Do you have a right to be angry about it?

Ok, let's say I take a shit on your lawn because I don't like you. According to you, I have that right, yet, you still have shit on your lawn. Do you have a right to be angry about it?

Shitting is a form of speech?

And you have a right to do it on my private property?

Your premises are absurd.

Free speech shouldn't have physical or government consequences.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I don’t see any legal reason that the peaceful picketing of a funeral should not be allowed. I see plenty of emotional reasons, plenty of reactionary reasons, but little else.

Taken from my own blog:

'nuff said.

(Before you protest: your internal links are dubious sources and/or do not support your thesis.)

Nice try.

Yeah, that's just disrespectful. They should have been arrested. yes, it is free speech, but they are harassing a damn funeral.

'nuff said.

(Before you protest: your internal links are dubious sources and/or do not support your thesis.)

Nice try.
seeing as you responded so quickly it is clear that you never even looked at them. Nor read the post itself.

Nevermind, I deleted that post since it is not at all relevant to the subject of protestors attacking military families at funerals.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11591

Now Venezuela's dictator is ranting against a US naval exercise.

http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/international/2006/abril/19-04-06.htm


Well, now, if a major foreign military power had warships maneuvering 15 miles away from my country, I might be worried too.


http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=54458
The only reason Venezuela's economy has not collapsed is that they continue to sell lots of oil to the United States. The very country that Chavez hates and openly threatens war with. In fact the US government and the American people are the ones funding the Chavez regime. Yet Chavez, in his paranoid delusions, keeps propagating false and mileading comments about the US trying to take over his nation.


Chavez has the oil. We insist on continuing to use it. He wants to charge more money for what he has that we want. So? Even better, he uses the money from oil income to help fund social programs for the people. Oh yeah. He's a bad guy.:rolleyes:

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604191801

Here Chavez threatens to destroy his own nation.

While Washington continues to ignore Chavez, American consumers continue to fund his evil regime.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604181552

a letter to Chavez from a Venezuelan in exile, accusing the dictator of various crimes against humanity

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604140802

Hugo Chavez continues to support the terrorist group FARC, and threaten Mexico. He continues to fund revolutionaries in Colombia who abduct and kill innocent civilians. Chavez continues to support the drug cartels.

"Evidence, as is often the case with his 'revolution,' indicates that since Chavez's arrival in power, Venezuela has become the favourite launching pad for Colombia's drug traffickers. It is argued that +80% of the cocaine produced in neighbouring Colombia and the region enters the international markets via Venezuela, as heretofore unseen quantities have been seized in various countries"

"On the other hand Chavez's cozy relationship with the FARC is no secret. So much so that the deranged president disrupted ties with Colombia, over the capture in Caracas of FARC's leader Rodrigo Granda, who had Venezuelan citizenship, whose wife and step-daughter were welcomed by close associates of Chavez -read Rodriguez Chacin, and who was a guest of honor in one of his Bolivarian get-togethers."

Hugo Chavez treats terrorists as guests of honor.

So not only is oil funding the Chavez regime but he is also being supported by the evil drug cartels.

No reputable reporter uses "deranged" and "insanity" to describe the leader of a country. And destroying Venezuela's oil fields IS a way to keep oil out of the hands of foreign invaders.

Drug trafficking? Possibly. Treating terrorists as guest of honor? Maybe? But none of the articles on this site seem to be news, they are all extremely biased rants.

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=4684

In support of his drug cartel allies, Chavez halted all cooperation with US antidrug efforts. In his delusions he claimed the DEA agents were spies.

Again, not surprising. Perhaps drugs ARE a problem, but for Chavez, it is not surprising that the bigger problem would be allowing armed agents of a foreign power that is vehemently anti-Chavez into his country.


Not only is he openly providing military support to FARC but he is now threatening to invade the Netherlands Antilles:

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000012/001211.htm

The dutch are taking precautions to defend their land against an illegal Venezuelan invasion.

"peace between the Antilles and Venezuela could collapse at anytime."


Well, in this article, most of the concern seems to be coming from within the Antillean military, and the two countries are admittedly still at peace.

And now he aims to interfere in US internal elections:

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4814

"Smartmartic connection to the Hugo Chavez regime is a matter of public record, having been launched with Venezuelan government’s funds."

"If 9-11 taught us anything, it was to be wary of asym- metrical threats from hostile entities no matter what size. We might just get ambushed again if the Venezuelan government ends up controlling our elections.

Don’t think it can’t happen. A Venezuelan-linked company called Smartmatic has bought out a U.S. electronic voting device firm called Sequoia, which holds contracts for elections in Chicago and elsewhere."

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is the foremost meddler in foreign elections in the Western hemisphere and has been accused of secretly financing candidates in Peru, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Mexico. Why wouldn’t he be interested in influencing vote outcomes here?"

Chavez has been covertly rigging elections around Latin America.

Well... so now it is Venezuela's fault that our elections are rigged? Sorry... aside from this not being a reputable source of info, I must ask... who owns the machines? Does Chavez come in and count the votes or does someone here do it? Do the Venezuelans have access to the machines after we get them? Probably not... so if they are riggable, then it is somebody HERE rigging them... and which party won the last set of major elections with the rather obvious amount of vote tampering? Give you a hint... it wasn't the Democrats. What on earth would Chavez gain from helping Republicans?

And now the US has no choice to campaign to block Venezuela from getting a seat on the UN Security Council where it can help Iran. The US government wants Guatemala, but I would prefer Mexico, a stronger US ally.

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y06/apr06/19e7.htm

More proof that Chavez has allied himself with Iran.

Iran has also been strengthening ties with Cuba.

Because, of course, the United States SHOULD have absolute control over the UN. That is only NATURAL and RIGHT. :rolleyes:


http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21215349.shtml

Upset that Bolivia and Ecuador signed trade agreements with the US, Chavez pulled Venezuela out of the Andean Community of Nations trade block.

Once again, Chavez is trying to protect his own region's interests. Let's condemn him for that and for not wanting to bow down to our needs.


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1717930&C=landwar

"I know there’s some concern by that government,” the U.S. spokesman told AFP from Miami.
He said the operation was “not focused on any one country” but designed to boost interoperability with partner countries, provide training and “show some good will.”

”This deployment is not focused on any one country, it’s focused on the region, focused on promoting partnership with other nations’ militaries so they can learn how we do maritime operations, so that we can see how they do maritime operations. It’s also for training and readiness,” Loundermon said.
...

Chavez maintains the United States was behind a coup that forced him from office for two days in April 2002, which Washington denies, though it swiftly recognized an interim leader. Then Chavez, an elected leftist populist ex-paratrooper, regained power."


It is not good will if the people you are maneuvering amongst don't want you there, and "so that we can see how they do maritime operations. It’s also for training and readiness” seems rather unnecessarily threatening.

Washington swiftly recognized an interim leader. A leader who through a coup overthrew the properly elected leader. While it may not prove Washington was involved in the coup, it certainly SMELLS like a dead fish.


http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4744

Again Chavez is trying to take over US elections.

"Chavez has moved on to far more ambitious things like getting a grip on the U.S. voting apparatus itself."

"With Chavez already convincingly shown to have been meddling in Mexico’s and in Peru’s elections right now, there is no doubt in the slightest that Chavez intends to do as much as he can to destroy our elections in our free system here, too. He’s got his eyes on us. He intends to destroy our elections and put a candidate to his liking as high up as he can go in our government in our next election."

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4785

And he claims the US has no rights to enforce our own immigration laws.

"The Venezuelan dictator, who’s driven tens of thousands of Venezuelans into U.S. exile since he took power in 1999"

More of the same nonsense about Venezuelan control of voting machines. And more overblown rhetoric. Not to mention the attempt to damn Chavez for offering to help Katrina victims... yeah, Chavez is a bastard there!

Just some of the latest antics of the Hitler of South America.

All the links needed to prove my point that Chavez is the South American Stalin and that he is supporting terrorism, seeking nuclear weapons, and attempting to interfere in US elections. As I say in my blog, we more than enough justification for military action against Venezuela.

And military action from the US would make Chavez's claims of concern about military action from the US obsolete because...?

Look, I am not claiming he is the best person who ever lived, in fact it is very likely that a good deal of what is claimed about his domestic troubles is accurate. But MUCH of what is said about Chavez, and much of the US's concerns about him seems to stem from the fact that he controls a VERY large amount of oil. In fact, most of what the US considers to be serious foreign concerns that require military solutions worldwide come from countries with potential strangleholds on the world supply of oil. Funny, don't you think? How is it that Iran, who is just threatening to be pursuing nuclear weaponry (but is not especially close to achieving it) is our next big threat, while North Korea (which actually HAS a nuclear weapons program) keeps getting back burnered? Oh, wait... that's right. Not as much oil for the US in North Korea, is there?

Chavez could holler all he wanted about the US trying to overthrow him, and if our government did not make such big denial noises, no one would pay it a lick of attention. But perhaps Shakespeare said it best, and if I may paraphrase, methinks Bush doth protest too much. If there was nothing to the rumors, the easiest way to deal with them would be to ignore them. But of course, if there is any truth to what Chavez says, the US government must immediately make it look first as though he is a lying loon, then spin the public sentiment here so that it seems utterly reasonable for the US to go in and overthrow him when they find it politically and financially advantageous.

Shitting is a form of speech?

And you have a right to do it on my private property?

Your premises are absurd.

No more absurd then arguing people have a right to throw insults at a funeral they weren't invited to held on private property (as more and more graveyards are becoming every year) without the consent of the land's owner or the funeral party.

See, by taking a shit on your lawn, I would be making a statement. Think about it this way: There are laws banning hate speech in the US, yet we are supposed to still have free speech.

So, how come you guys object to Nazis saying they want to kill Jews, but you don't object to supposed peaceniks claiming they want to kill soldiers? That's what happens at some of these funerals, you know.

No more absurd then arguing people have a right to throw insults at a funeral they weren't invited to held on private property (as more and more graveyards are becoming every year) without the consent of the land's owner or the funeral party.

See, by taking a shit on your lawn, I would be making a statement. Think about it this way: There are laws banning hate speech in the US, yet we are supposed to still have free speech.

So, how come you guys object to Nazis saying they want to kill Jews, but you don't object to supposed peaceniks claiming they want to kill soldiers? That's what happens at some of these funerals, you know.

Actually, we don't have laws against hate speech in the US.

You have no right to be on private property against the will of the owner, unless the property is a public forum.

You really need to go back to the drawing board and get your facts straight.

Actually, we don't have laws against hate speech in the US.

You have no right to be on private property against the will of the owner, unless the property is a public forum.

You really need to go back to the drawing board and get your facts straight.
Actually there are hate speech laws in the US. But the US overturned a bunch of them.

The US you see today, didn't exist 10 years ago. America and the world was a much different place.

Actually there are hate speech laws in the US. But the US overturned a bunch of them.

The US you see today, didn't exist 10 years ago. America and the world was a much different place.

The US changes every second. Big eye-opener.

And we have no hate speech laws. Care to cite one?

So you want us to venerate the military? Piss off.

I'm all for stopping assholes overstepping their bounds but this is just an increase in status for the military over the 'common people'. What next, 'Service Garuntees Citizenship'?
aye, great post lad

Actually, we don't have laws against hate speech in the US.

Should I start listing off hate crimes laws in my state that people have been arrested for breaking, or can I just call you an idiot?

You have no right to be on private property against the will of the owner, unless the property is a public forum.

So if I bring a hundred buddies, and then we throw crap on your lawn it's free speech, basically? Again, learn to live in reality. And here I was thinking those trespassing laws actually existed, why, how silly of me.

You really need to go back to the drawing board and get your facts straight.

Were you dropped on the head as an infant, or are you just willingly this ignorant?

Should I start listing off hate crimes laws in my state that people have been arrested for breaking, or can I just call you an idiot?

It depends. Do you recognize the difference between a hate crime law and a hate speech law or are you an idiot?

Just in case, let me explain the difference:

Under hate speech laws, certain speech in and of itself is criminalized. We don't do that regarding hate speech in the U.S. Under hate crime laws, additional penalties are imposed when a crime is committed with discriminatory intent. Most states and the federal government have such statutes. They are perfectly constitutional and do not infringe on free speech.


So if I bring a hundred buddies, and then we throw crap on your lawn it's free speech, basically? Again, learn to live in reality. And here I was thinking those trespassing laws actually existed, why, how silly of me.

*sigh*

I'm the one that originally said the difference was my lawn is private property.

I expressly said that one does not have a right to speech on private property unless it is a public forum -- a mall, for example, can become a public forum if it allows some types of public speech. It can't then discriminate among types of speech.

But a public forum is a very small exception to the general rule. You generally have no right to be or do things on my property. You have no right to throw crap on my lawn.

(I've already established that throwing crap isn't free speech anyway. Why do you persist with an absurd example?)

Were you dropped on the head as an infant, or are you just willingly this ignorant?

What witty repartee.

You asserted:

So, how come you guys object to Nazis saying they want to kill Jews, but you don't object to supposed peaceniks claiming they want to kill soldiers? That's what happens at some of these funerals, you know.

I tried to point out this was ridiculous without having to resort to detail. But if you insist on being willfully dishonest ...

I don't know who these "you guys" are, because you are not describing reality.

I object both to Nazi's saying they want to kill Jews and to "peacniks" claiming they want to kill soldiers. But I would recognize that, within certain limits, both groups have a right to free speech. I don't think either example inherently presents a case of clear and present danger where the mere words themselves are criminal, but circumstances could arise that would change the legality of the speech.

Do you have evidence that "peaceniks claim[] they want to kill soldiers" "at some of these funerals"? If so, I would condemn those particular "peaceniks. I would not therefore take away a fundamental right of free speech from all of us.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I don’t see any legal reason that the peaceful picketing of a funeral should not be allowed. I see plenty of emotional reasons, plenty of reactionary reasons, but little else.
free speech does not confer the right to violate another person, in any way. picketing a funeral is clearly a violation of something or other of the family, and as such is not covered by plain free speech. leastways, it shouldn't be.

My problem with this petition is that it conveys special rights. I would support a ban on picketing funerals if applied equally, but that's not the argument here and thus I cannot support it.

I do however think picketing funerals is behavior anyone should be ashamed of, be they people protesting a war or people protesting homosexuality. I can't think of a worse way to try an make a point.

My problem with this petition is that it conveys special rights. I would support a ban on picketing funerals if applied equally, but that's not the argument here and thus I cannot support it.

I do however think picketing funerals is behavior anyone should be ashamed of, be they people protesting a war or people protesting homosexuality. I can't think of a worse way to try an make a point.
picketing weddings?

Should I start listing off hate crimes laws in my state that people have been arrested for breaking, or can I just call you an idiot?

I'd like you to list off the laws that support your point. I believe the original point was -
There are laws banning hate speech in the US, yet we are supposed to still have free speech.

Could you please list the laws banning hate speech in the US? I know of none.

free speech does not confer the right to violate another person, in any way. picketing a funeral is clearly a violation of something or other of the family, and as such is not covered by plain free speech. leastways, it shouldn't be.

Right, but it's either covered or not covered for EVERYONE, right?

That's cute, Whittier dislikes what he CALLS a socialist dictatorship but would love a right-wing military one in which soldiers are upper-class citizens...

free speech does not confer the right to violate another person, in any way. picketing a funeral is clearly a violation of something or other of the family, and as such is not covered by plain free speech. leastways, it shouldn't be.

"clearly a violation of something or other"

So clear a violation that you aren't even sure of what. :rolleyes:

If the protest violates a content-neutral rule, such as tresspassing, then it may be punished.

Simply because you find it distateful (and I agree with you) does not mean it isn't free speech.

I got this from a fellow soldier on MySpace. Things like this, even if they only happen once in every 50 funerals, happen one time to often and very spiteful and hateful or our men and women in the military. I don't know what this guy's party is, but party doesn't matter here. What matters is that these families have earned and deserve the right to say their good byes with peace and dignity without people calling them names, throwing rocks, and shouting insults and derogatory comments at them. We can't let anti-america and anti Bush protestors attack our national heroe's families while they are saying their final goodbye to their loved ones. Any one who thinks it right for Bush haters and other protestors to this kind of thing is dispicable.

Rogers Proposes the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act

While attending the funeral of a Michigan soldier who died of combat wounds suffered in Iraq, protestors attempted to disrupt the funeral by shouting vile and harassing slogans at the family and other mourners. Military families mourning the loss of a loved one killed in the defense of our nation deserve the right to say their final goodbyes in peace. America honors and respects our soldiers, and none more than those who die defending freedom and our nation.
Next week, I will be introducing federal legislation to protect grieving military families by banning protestors from military funerals. This legislation, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, will prohibit demonstrating one hour before and one hour after the service for a fallen solider and keep the protesters 500 feet from the grieving family. No family burying a son or daughter, a husband or wife, a brother or sister, should be faced with the insults, verbal attacks, and intimidation that these protestors were screaming or displaying on signs. This common sense legislation will help to protect military families in their most difficult hour and is narrowly tailored to fit within the time and place restrictions consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Giving citizens an opportunity to participate in the process and support the legislation, I launched an on-line petition. The petition will allow citizens to express honor and respect for our American soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation, as well as support for the people they love and leave behind. The petition and comments from citizens will be presented to the House Veterans Affairs Committee at an April 6 hearing in Washington.

Petitions can be signed at www.mikerogers.house.gov/fallenheroes.aspx I encourage you to forward this site to your friends and family and ask them to help protect military families.

And people wonder why America won't last much longer. My dear friend, welcome to the modern age: No one remembers how they got here. Soldiers are viewed as pesky, not vital to survivial. However...if I had been at that funeral, those protestors would have gotten a bullet in the brain.

It's time for a revolution!!!

And people wonder why America won't last much longer. My dear friend, welcome to the modern age: No one remembers how they got here. Soldiers are viewed as pesky, not vital to survivial. However...if I had been at that funeral, those protestors would have gotten a bullet in the brain.

It's time for a revolution!!!

Apparently your revolution starts by desecrating that which soldiers have fought to defend: our Constitution.

How many times has the constituion fought for them?
So far it's gotten soldiers very short, and unsavory politicians very far.

How many times has the constituion fought for them?
So far it's gotten soldiers very short, and unsavory politicians very far.

What then do soldiers fight for? Their own glory?

The Constitution defends freedom every day.

Soldiers fight because it is their duty. Politicians throw them to soak up the blood from bad political descisions. Even though we know about the corrupt degeneritive government, we continue to fight, because we swore to.

However, I do advocate returning the government to a more constitutionalist platform. The government is to big, and far too corrupt. However if this does not solve our problems, then perhaps a new government is needed.

Snippity.

Riiiiight... So you're advocating defending a Constitution that has freedom as its main tenets by turning your country into a dictatorship that doesn't respect said freedom. Or worse, you're defending abolishing the Constiturion and turning America into a dictatorship (you strict constitutionalist, you). You actually support military dictatorships, the torturing of dissenters, and, basically, anything that sounds like, y'know, George Orwell's 1984. How nice. You want the Constitution to be flushed down the toilet, and want to achieve this goal by calling yourself a "strict constitutionalist".

COME ON!

Wow.
Your good at making up shit.
Where IN THE HELL did I even SAY DICTATORSHIP!
How IN THE HELL is making the government SMALLER CREATING A DICTATORSHIP?!?

Are you really that blinded? Has your infection got that bad. You are the reason we cannot have arguments anymore in America.

Wow.
Your good at making up shit.
Where IN THE HELL did I even SAY DICTATORSHIP!
How IN THE HELL is making the government SMALLER CREATING A DICTATORSHIP?!?

Are you really that blinded? Has your infection got that bad. You are the reason we cannot have arguments anymore in America.

You said you wanted a revolution. You said you'd SHOOT people for offending your precious little ears. You said the Constitution "did nothing for the soldiers". And corporate police states have really small governments, yet thet're just as democratic as Brazil 1968 was. Also, would you care to enlighten me on which infection you're referring to? Also, why "can't we have arguments anymore in America"? Because people disagree with you? I'm in Brazil, in the unlikely case you want to know.

Now, do tell me, what "infection" is that again, Horde?

You said you wanted a revolution. You said you'd SHOOT people for offending your precious little ears. You said the Constitution "did nothing for the soldiers". And corporate police states have really small governments, yet thet're just as democratic as Brazil 1968 was. Also, would you care to enlighten me on which infection you're referring to? Also, why "can't we have arguments anymore in America"? Because people disagree with you? I'm in Brazil, in the unlikely case you want to know.

Now, do tell me, what "infection" is that again, Horde?
Lets go point by point
1. I do want a revolution, who said anything about it being a pro-dictatorship one?
2. Offending me? No, they can offend me all they want. Disrespecting a dead soldier, one who gave his life for his country(something I'm sure you wouldn't understand). Yes, i would've opened fire.
3. As it is being practiced, yes the constituion seems to be nothing but a piece of paper. However if the government worked as it is put on the constitution, then it would benefit all Americans. However, too many politicans just decide they can do whatever they please.
4. And corporate police states have really small governments, yet thet're just as democratic as Brazil 1968 was.
That has no purpose in this argument. Thats like saying "Well, you told me to share a bike, and communists share. YOU MUST BE A COMMUNIST!!!"
5. The "infection" is the fact you are to blinded by you respective political wing to see things in a different light. You see "pro-military" and "revolution" and naturally your small mind tries to connect dots rather then think. So, rather then exerting yourself, you think "He must be talking about a dictatorship! And not a socialistic one either!"
6. Can't have arguments anymore...well arguments here in America(once again, not that you would know...all though you seem to think you are an expert on the United States) tend to turn into shouting matches. Example:
"Im against gay marriage because-"
"BECAUSE YOUR A RIGHT WING FASCIST JESUS LOVER! GO BACK TO THE HILLS YOU DIRTY REDNECK!"

Need anymore clarity?

What then do soldiers fight for? Their own glory?
Each other. At least I know I can trust my brothers and sisters, which is more than I can say for many on here.

Lets go point by point
1. I do want a revolution, who said anything about it being a pro-dictatorship one?
2. Offending me? No, they can offend me all they want. Disrespecting a dead soldier, one who gave his life for his country(something I'm sure you wouldn't understand). Yes, i would've opened fire.

So you'd want to live in a country with a definition of "free speech" that'd include "execution for speaking against the military/against dead soldiers". You've done nothing to improve your situation.

3. As it is being practiced, yes the constituion seems to be nothing but a piece of paper. However if the government worked as it is put on the constitution, then it would benefit all Americans. However, too many politicans just decide they can do whatever they please.
4.
That has no purpose in this argument. Thats like saying "Well, you told me to share a bike, and communists share. YOU MUST BE A COMMUNIST!!!"
5. The "infection" is the fact you are to blinded by you respective political wing to see things in a different light. You see "pro-military" and "revolution" and naturally your small mind tries to connect dots rather then think. So, rather then exerting yourself, you think "He must be talking about a dictatorship! And not a socialistic one either!"
6. Can't have arguments anymore...well arguments here in America(once again, not that you would know...all though you seem to think you are an expert on the United States) tend to turn into shouting matches. Example:
"Im against gay marriage because-"
"BECAUSE YOUR A RIGHT WING FASCIST JESUS LOVER! GO BACK TO THE HILLS YOU DIRTY REDNECK!"

Need anymore clarity?

Right now the only one that's trying to turn this argument into a shouting match is you. You have said that the Constitution is obsolete, now you decided to say that it's obsolete because it's not followed. However, this was AFTER saying that it "didn't help the soldiers". I'm not claiming you support a dictatorship because you spoke of revolution and are in the military, I STATE you support a dictatorship because you want a revolution and you'd KILL PEOPLE FOR STATING DISREPUTABLE POINTS OF VIEW. I never claimed expertise on the US (I do claim MORE expertise on just about anything than you, though, but that might be because the tone you're using so far shows it to be no merit). You'd make no such fuss if it were people protesting on Coretta Scott King's funeral. So, yes, you want the military to be a privileged class. You stated you'd shoot people for "badmouthing" dead soldiers. So, no, you're not even close to accepting free speech (shooting is not the same as a lawsuit for slandering). You've shown yourself as a) willing to make the military into a privileged class and b) supportive of a regime in which some voices would be silenced by a bullet.

Now kindly tell me what kind of a regime that is, if not a military dictatorship. And no flaming, or you'll go to bed without dessert.

Each other. At least I know I can trust my brothers and sisters, which is more than I can say for many on here.

Oh, hi, Eut, why haven't you shown up for so long?

Lets go point by point
1. I do want a revolution, who said anything about it being a pro-dictatorship one?

Yes, and the soldiers you claim you'd be defending will likely be standing on the other side of the battle line squashing your revolution.

2. Offending me? No, they can offend me all they want. Disrespecting a dead soldier, one who gave his life for his country(something I'm sure you wouldn't understand). Yes, i would've opened fire.

And every soldier I know would have considered you a murderer and would have disarmed you. You'd be lucky to survive the debacle. There's pretty much nothing that would offend me more as a veteran than meeting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly with violence.

3. As it is being practiced, yes the constituion seems to be nothing but a piece of paper. However if the government worked as it is put on the constitution, then it would benefit all Americans. However, too many politicans just decide they can do whatever they please.

Kind of how Americans decide they can do as they please. Like shooting people for excercising the freedoms the US Constitution protects. Good thing you have so much respect for the document that you would set out to destroy it.

4.
That has no purpose in this argument. Thats like saying "Well, you told me to share a bike, and communists share. YOU MUST BE A COMMUNIST!!!"

Or maybe he met your hyperbole with *gasp* hyperbole. You pretty much said do it my way or I'm gonna kill people. I can't imagine how he would confuse that with a dictator. /sarcasm

5. The "infection" is the fact you are to blinded by you respective political wing to see things in a different light. You see "pro-military" and "revolution" and naturally your small mind tries to connect dots rather then think. So, rather then exerting yourself, you think "He must be talking about a dictatorship! And not a socialistic one either!"

Or maybe he saw "do it my way or I'll kill people" as connected to a dictatorship. Maybe your are so blinded by your venom that you're not actually thinking aobut what you're saying. The US Constitution is on the side of the protestors, not the side of the vigilante who has no respect for human life. It's one of the things I love about that document. I wish more people had respect for it. I also wish less people were so hypocritical as to demand our politicians respect a document while those same people DO NOT.

6. Can't have arguments anymore...well arguments here in America(once again, not that you would know...all though you seem to think you are an expert on the United States) tend to turn into shouting matches. Example:
"Im against gay marriage because-"
"BECAUSE YOUR A RIGHT WING FASCIST JESUS LOVER! GO BACK TO THE HILLS YOU DIRTY REDNECK!"

Need anymore clarity?

You're the only one shouting. Perhaps it's just the arguments you get involved in. I know I'm not upset. Or perhaps people get upset when you start threatening to kill people. Perhaps if you toned down the rhetoric you'd find arguments here in America to more to your liking.

Each other. At least I know I can trust my brothers and sisters, which is more than I can say for many on here.

In the Marine Corpx, I pledged alliegance to my God, my country, THEN my corps. I was fighting for my countrymen and my fellow soldier, but I'd like to think that part of what I loved about my countrymen and my fellow soldier is their belief in freedom and the US Constitution.

Question: Where would you be standing if someone opened fire on innocent civilians for excercising their right to assembly and free speech? As sickening as I find that speech, I'd be the first one trying to find a way to neutralize the violence.

Each other. At least I know I can trust my brothers and sisters, which is more than I can say for many on here.

Someone seems to be harboring a personal grudge. Grow up.

I believe in the rule of law. The law applies equally to everyone -- you don't get special treatment.

As for soldiers, I have no doubt many fight for each other, but that isn't the underlying reason one would defend this nation.

In the Marine Corpx, I pledged alliegance to my God, my country, THEN my corps. I was fighting for my countrymen and my fellow soldier, but I'd like to think that part of what I loved about my countrymen and my fellow soldier is their belief in freedom and the US Constitution.

Question: Where would you be standing if someone opened fire on innocent civilians for excercising their right to assembly and free speech? As sickening as I find that speech, I'd be the first one trying to find a way to neutralize the violence.

Amen.

So you'd want to live in a country with a definition of "free speech" that'd include "execution for speaking against the military/against dead soldiers". You've done nothing to improve your situation.



Right now the only one that's trying to turn this argument into a shouting match is you. You have said that the Constitution is obsolete, now you decided to say that it's obsolete because it's not followed. However, this was AFTER saying that it "didn't help the soldiers". I'm not claiming you support a dictatorship because you spoke of revolution and are in the military, I STATE you support a dictatorship because you want a revolution and you'd KILL PEOPLE FOR STATING DISREPUTABLE POINTS OF VIEW. I never claimed expertise on the US (I do claim MORE expertise on just about anything than you, though, but that might be because the tone you're using so far shows it to be no merit). You'd make no such fuss if it were people protesting on Coretta Scott King's funeral. So, yes, you want the military to be a privileged class. You stated you'd shoot people for "badmouthing" dead soldiers. So, no, you're not even close to accepting free speech (shooting is not the same as a lawsuit for slandering). You've shown yourself as a) willing to make the military into a privileged class and b) supportive of a regime in which some voices would be silenced by a bullet.

Now kindly tell me what kind of a regime that is, if not a military dictatorship. And no flaming, or you'll go to bed without dessert.
you've made repeated claims to be an expert on all things American. You've never answered my question of whether you've even been to America.
I believe your response was that you don't have to visit America to be an expert on it cause you got all your socialist propaganda down there that you read that never ever lies to you.

you've made repeated claims to be an expert on all things American. You've never answered my question of whether you've even been to America.
I believe your response was that you don't have to visit America to be an expert on it cause you got all your socialist propaganda down there that you read that never ever lies to you.

I don't see where Heikoku made a claim to be "an expert on all things American."

Regardless, this is in contrast to your extensive time in Venezuala?

Those who live in glass houses ....

But I suppose if you can't answer someone's argument, and ad hominem attack is warranted.

You can't go around killing people just because you don't like what they are protesting. But you can pass a law, like Ohio did yesterday on this matter, to require jail time for people who engage in abusive behavior at funerals. It does not matter whether that abusive behavior was a part of a protest or not. The fact is now illegal there means you do it, you now go to jail for it. That's how it should be.

You can't go around killing people just because you don't like what they are protesting. But you can pass a law, like Ohio did yesterday on this matter, to require jail time for people who engage in abusive behavior at funerals. It does not matter whether that abusive behavior was a part of a protest or not. The fact is now illegal there means you do it, you now go to jail for it. That's how it should be.

If a law is passed by a state, that means the law is right?

I guess the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment are without meaning.

EDIT: You mischaracterize the Ohio law. It does not prohibit certain types of protest. Rather it seeks to place limits on the locations of some protests. Unlike your rants, the law at least pretends to be content neutral. Whether it passes constitutional muster is still open to question.

Where does the military get it's assumed moral respectabilitly and demands for veneration from?

I mean, ultimately and by basic definition, are they not all just a load of hired killers?

It depends. Do you recognize the difference between a hate crime law and a hate speech law or are you an idiot?

Just in case, let me explain the difference:

Under hate speech laws, certain speech in and of itself is criminalized. We don't do that regarding hate speech in the U.S. Under hate crime laws, additional penalties are imposed when a crime is committed with discriminatory intent. Most states and the federal government have such statutes. They are perfectly constitutional and do not infringe on free speech.




*sigh*

I'm the one that originally said the difference was my lawn is private property.

I expressly said that one does not have a right to speech on private property unless it is a public forum -- a mall, for example, can become a public forum if it allows some types of public speech. It can't then discriminate among types of speech.

But a public forum is a very small exception to the general rule. You generally have no right to be or do things on my property. You have no right to throw crap on my lawn.

(I've already established that throwing crap isn't free speech anyway. Why do you persist with an absurd example?)



What witty repartee.

You asserted:



I tried to point out this was ridiculous without having to resort to detail. But if you insist on being willfully dishonest ...

I don't know who these "you guys" are, because you are not describing reality.

I object both to Nazi's saying they want to kill Jews and to "peacniks" claiming they want to kill soldiers. But I would recognize that, within certain limits, both groups have a right to free speech. I don't think either example inherently presents a case of clear and present danger where the mere words themselves are criminal, but circumstances could arise that would change the legality of the speech.

Do you have evidence that "peaceniks claim[] they want to kill soldiers" "at some of these funerals"? If so, I would condemn those particular "peaceniks. I would not therefore take away a fundamental right of free speech from all of us.

This is just a wild ass guess, but when they're arresting people for marching in Nazi uniforms or using Nazi slogans even though they haven't done anything yet, there's probably a law on the books. I know this is a very hard thing to deal with, because, quite frankly, you are a grade a dumbass. You've come in here specifically stating that the reality we all live in doesn't exist. .

In an age where a guy can and will be arrested in places like Los Angeles for having the gall to say that maybe, the problem of gang violence could be helped by tossing all of the illegals in gangs out of the US, you sit here and pretend this doesn't happen. You specifically ignore the fact that a law like this would not even be suggested, were it not for the many shitty, violent things supposed "peace" lovers have done to soldiers and their families.

You wanna tell me that idiot who started throwing rocks into soldier's houses out here was " peacefully protesting" or those people coming into cemetaries and on occasion pelting the casket and mourners of a soldier in garbage are "peacefully protesting" your just showing how well you've deluded yourself.

I have seen the violence targetted at soldiers and their families, I have seen the people walking around with their hate filled placards, I have even been there as people started making shitty calls to an old friend's parents after some idiot passed around a flier around the neighborhood claiming he was KIA.

You would, and probably have demanded legal protection from this kind of shit, yet you are adamantly opposed to allowing someone you don't agree with to have it.

You wanna think about who's the scary one here for a second?

I'd like you to list off the laws that support your point. I believe the original point was -


Could you please list the laws banning hate speech in the US? I know of none.

Ever seen a person be arrested for shouting out Nazi slogans? There's one. Ever seen someone fined for making racist statements? There's another.

Just because you'd much rather pretend this doesn't happen, doesn't mean I should humor you.

This is just a wild ass guess, but when they're arresting people for marching in Nazi uniforms or using Nazi slogans even though they haven't done anything yet, there's probably a law on the books. I know this is a very hard thing to deal with, because, quite frankly, you are a grade a dumbass. You've come in here specifically stating that the reality we all live in doesn't exist. .

In an age where a guy can and will be arrested in places like Los Angeles for having the gall to say that maybe, the problem of gang violence could be helped by tossing all of the illegals in gangs out of the US, you sit here and pretend this doesn't happen. You specifically ignore the fact that a law like this would not even be suggested, were it not for the many shitty, violent things supposed "peace" lovers have done to soldiers and their families.

You wanna tell me that idiot who started throwing rocks into soldier's houses out here was " peacefully protesting" or those people coming into cemetaries and on occasion pelting the casket and mourners of a soldier in garbage are "peacefully protesting" your just showing how well you've deluded yourself.

I have seen the violence targetted at soldiers and their families, I have seen the people walking around with their hate filled placards, I have even been there as people started making shitty calls to an old friend's parents after some idiot passed around a flier around the neighborhood claiming he was KIA.

You would, and probably have demanded legal protection from this kind of shit, yet you are adamantly opposed to allowing someone you don't agree with to have it.

You wanna think about who's the scary one here for a second?

*sigh*

1..Your crude insults do not aid your attempts to engage in intelligent discourse.

2. It is not illegal to wear a Nazi uniform or use Nazi slogans. You may not be aware of the rather famous case of the Nazis being allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois. Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if you were right that such laws existed (and they don't), then the shouldn't.

3. I know not of the case you refer to in Los Angeles. Perhaps you would care to supply a link? If such a thing had occurred, it would be wrong.

4. When did I say that violence, rock-throwing, etc is legally protected? To the contrary such conduct is not protected speech, but rather criminal activity. Merely carrying hate-filled signs on the other hand is protected speech.

5. Pray tell, if the protestors have not been peaceful and have engaged in these violations of the law, why can they not be arrested for their criminal activies. Why do you need a special law restricting free speech?

7. By the way, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that (a) the Phelps people are peace protestors and (b) are anything other than abhorrent to me. They disgust me. That does not mean, however, that they don't have rights.

Ever seen a person be arrested for shouting out Nazi slogans? There's one. Ever seen someone fined for making racist statements? There's another.

Just because you'd much rather pretend this doesn't happen, doesn't mean I should humor you.

Please cite evidence of the alleged arrests and fines. They are contrary to existing constitutional law.

If such things occurred -- and I don't believe your bare assertion -- then it was wrong. It is contrary to the law.

Cat People. listen, rather then sniffing burlap, how about you actually show some evidence of your position? Especially since your the one alleging that reaily in reality, does not exist for no other reason then it still shows you as a complete dumbass.

Cat People. listen, rather then sniffing burlap, how about you actually show some evidence of your position? Especially since your the one alleging that reaily in reality, does not exist for no other reason then it still shows you as a complete dumbass.

I supposed to prove a negative?

If reality is as you suppose, it should be easy to prove. Yet you do not do so.

Regardless, I've already mentioned the case of the Nazis in Skokie. Not only were they held to have a right to wear their uniforms, spout their hate, etc, but they were held to have a right to march through an area populated by Holocaust survivors.

Here is a Supreme Court case holding that a hate speech laws are unconstitutional. RAV v. City of St. Paul (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html), 505 US 377 (1992).

Here is information on what hate crimes legislation actually is. http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp

Hopefully, this is sufficient evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

2. It is not illegal to wear a Nazi uniform or use Nazi slogans. You may not be aware of the rather famous case of the Nazis being allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois. Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if you were right that such laws existed (and they don't), then the shouldn't.

Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.
:D

And I still remain opposed to the proposed legislation, by the way...

Ever seen a person be arrested for shouting out Nazi slogans? There's one. Ever seen someone fined for making racist statements? There's another.

Just because you'd much rather pretend this doesn't happen, doesn't mean I should humor you.

No and no. I've never heard of either of these things. How about you link to these laws? You're not listing laws. You're making them up. Neither of those things are illegal. You want us to prove our side, but you can't list to things that do not exist. I'd be very interested to see these laws that say speech is not free. Can you link to a story about someone being arrested for wearing a Nazi uniform? Should be easy since it occurs all the time according to you. Can you link to these laws? Since they're everywhere it should be easy. Can you evidence any of these spurious claims?

This is just a wild ass guess, but when they're arresting people for marching in Nazi uniforms or using Nazi slogans even though they haven't done anything yet, there's probably a law on the books. I know this is a very hard thing to deal with, because, quite frankly, you are a grade a dumbass. You've come in here specifically stating that the reality we all live in doesn't exist. .

In an age where a guy can and will be arrested in places like Los Angeles for having the gall to say that maybe, the problem of gang violence could be helped by tossing all of the illegals in gangs out of the US, you sit here and pretend this doesn't happen. You specifically ignore the fact that a law like this would not even be suggested, were it not for the many shitty, violent things supposed "peace" lovers have done to soldiers and their families.

You wanna tell me that idiot who started throwing rocks into soldier's houses out here was " peacefully protesting" or those people coming into cemetaries and on occasion pelting the casket and mourners of a soldier in garbage are "peacefully protesting" your just showing how well you've deluded yourself.

I have seen the violence targetted at soldiers and their families, I have seen the people walking around with their hate filled placards, I have even been there as people started making shitty calls to an old friend's parents after some idiot passed around a flier around the neighborhood claiming he was KIA.

You would, and probably have demanded legal protection from this kind of shit, yet you are adamantly opposed to allowing someone you don't agree with to have it.

You wanna think about who's the scary one here for a second?
Cat adequately addressed this, but I like for you to also show some evidence that we have ever support limiting the free speech of people who spout hate but demanded legal protection for people who protest funerals? First of all, Cat and I disagree. I don't think that people should be allowed to protest funerals. Period. He thinks it falls under freedom to protest.

I'll tell you what we do agree on - that you can't shoot people for protesting, that committing violent acts whether part of a protest or not is against the law (so if people are throwing rocks, no special law is needed because it's already illegal), that wearing a Nazi uniform is a protected form of expression.

I supposed to prove a negative?

If reality is as you suppose, it should be easy to prove. Yet you do not do so.

Regardless, I've already mentioned the case of the Nazis in Skokie. Not only were they held to have a right to wear their uniforms, spout their hate, etc, but they were held to have a right to march through an area populated by Holocaust survivors.

Here is a Supreme Court case holding that a hate speech laws are unconstitutional. RAV v. City of St. Paul (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-7675.ZS.html), 505 US 377 (1992).

Here is information on what hate crimes legislation actually is. http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp

Hopefully, this is sufficient evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

No, that's a ruling saying in that case, it was considered as having been broken. All the incidents I've mentioned happened AFTER this. There was no supreme court rulings on any of them.

So like I said, rather then sniffing the burlap, prove your position, if you can.

No, that's a ruling saying in that case, it was considered as having been broken. All the incidents I've mentioned happened AFTER this. There was no supreme court rulings on any of them.

So like I said, rather then sniffing the burlap, prove your position, if you can.

Sorry to butt in, but you've given very vague examples. Why not wualify them by giving details so Cat-Tribes can refute them? Where did these alledged incidents occur, and when? How did they happen, why? Were authorities involved, and if so which agencies? Details are needed, not insults.

No and no. I've never heard of either of these things. How about you link to these laws? You're not listing laws. You're making them up. Neither of those things are illegal. You want us to prove our side, but you can't list to things that do not exist. I'd be very interested to see these laws that say speech is not free. Can you link to a story about someone being arrested for wearing a Nazi uniform? Should be easy since it occurs all the time according to you. Can you link to these laws? Since they're everywhere it should be easy. Can you evidence any of these spurious claims?

Are you going to show evidence of any of yours first? Just because laws you don't like exist, doesn't mean you can pretend they don't, ok? You want to convince me of this, you prove reality doesn't exist.

No, that's a ruling saying in that case, it was considered as having been broken. All the incidents I've mentioned happened AFTER this. There was no supreme court rulings on any of them.

So like I said, rather then sniffing the burlap, prove your position, if you can.

You can't prove a negative. You aren't citing specific cases. Link to the cases you claim occurred and we can address it. I can find none of the case you CLAIM happened. I've never heard of such a thing. And, as Cat's link shows, traditionally free speech is protect provided it doesn't directly incite violence. Wearing a Nazi uniforms or hating Jews does not directly incite violence. I suspect you won't link these cases because they either don't exist or they didn't occur like you claim.

By the way, your ad hominems have made you Arrontthereportedtomoderation.

Are you going to show evidence of any of yours first? Just because laws you don't like exist, doesn't mean you can pretend they don't, ok? You want to convince me of this, you prove reality doesn't exist.

You want me to prove these laws don't exist? It's impossible. What do I link to? Every law in the US. Link to the law. Link to a case citing the law. Link to a news story about someone violating the law. So far I see no evidence that this law exists. You're asking for proof of non-existence. It's impossible.

Prove that a guy named Johannesburg Von Hausendougalwafer James Serci Patton does not exist. You can't without listing every name of every person in the world. Proof of non-existence is usually impossible. Thus unless you prove it exists and you haven't, you're just trolling.

I'll tell you what. You tell me what kind of evidence I should link to in order for you to be convinced. I can't link to laws because I am claiming the laws DO NOT exist. I can't link to stories of events that DID NOT happen. I can't link to Supreme Court cases stating that hate speech laws are unconstitutional, because you claim that doesn't count. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

You want me to prove these laws don't exist? It's impossible. What do I link to? Every law in the US. Link to the law. Link to a case citing the law. Link to a news story about someone violating the law. So far I see no evidence that this law exists. You're asking for proof of non-existence. It's impossible.

Prove that a guy named Johannesburg Von Hausendougalwafer James Serci Patton does not exist. You can't without listing every name of every person in the world. Proof of non-existence is usually impossible. Thus unless you prove it exists and you haven't, you're just trolling.

You're being uberpolite to him. If you were to post evidence, he'd find summat else to moan about. Like a widdle baby trying to have the last word without a thing to say...

All the incidents I've mentioned happened AFTER this.

you haven't mentioned any specific incidents at all. please provide names, dates, and newspaper articles about them aryan brother.

Sorry to butt in, but you've given very vague examples. Why not wualify them by giving details so Cat-Tribes can refute them? Where did these alledged incidents occur, and when? How did they happen, why? Were authorities involved, and if so which agencies? Details are needed, not insults.

He's alleging there has never been an arrest or fine because someone said something specifically to irritate a minority. No offense intended, but anyone making that argument to begin with is showing either a willful ignorance of the world around them, or really is as stupid as I've implied.

That might not strike you as a very politic thing to say, but I'm not here for anyone's approval.

you haven't mentioned any specific incidents at all. please provide names, dates, and newspaper articles about them aryan brother.

Godwin's law gets proven again. Tell me, you libs going to do anything besides shout Nazi and pretend I have to prove reality to you?

You can't prove a negative. You aren't citing specific cases. Link to the cases you claim occurred and we can address it. I can find none of the case you CLAIM happened. I've never heard of such a thing. And, as Cat's link shows, traditionally free speech is protect provided it doesn't directly incite violence. Wearing a Nazi uniforms or hating Jews does not directly incite violence. I suspect you won't link these cases because they either don't exist or they didn't occur like you claim.

By the way, your ad hominems have made you Arrontthereportedtomoderation.

I wish you luck with that, I really do. You might want to start deleting some of your posts while your at it, I learned a long time ago most places the person reporting is usually the one that gets looked at the most.

He's alleging there has never been an arrest or fine because someone said something specifically to irritate a minority. No offense intended, but anyone making that argument to begin with is showing either a willful ignorance of the world around them, or really is as stupid as I've implied.

That might not strike you as a very politic thing to say, but I'm not here for anyone's approval.
So I guess backing up your statements is too much for you?

He's alleging there has never been an arrest or fine because someone said something specifically to irritate a minority. No offense intended, but anyone making that argument to begin with is showing either a willful ignorance of the world around them, or really is as stupid as I've implied.

That might not strike you as a very politic thing to say, but I'm not here for anyone's approval.

Myself and the others here are still awaiting specifics of the incidents you referenced. Cat-Tribe gave more than a few links. Where are yours?

So I guess backing up your statements is too much for you?

Actually, I'm just waiting for people to say something aside from posting links that offer denials of day to day reality. You included.

Actually, I'm just waiting for people to say something aside from posting links that offer denials of day to day reality. You included.
I'll take that as a yes.

Actually, I'm just waiting for people to say something aside from posting links that offer denials of day to day reality. You included.

Look mate, I see no denials because I see you providing no details of incidents that apparently you know about. Give us details of these incidents, and they can be debated. If you have no such links or other proof, then...well, I fail to see how you can keep arguing.

Godwin's law gets proven again.

i don't think that means what you think it means

Tell me, you libs going to do anything besides shout Nazi and pretend I have to prove reality to you?

i know it's difficult to understand, so let's try it a different way. pretend that i said that it was a well known fact and easily demonstrated that you were a big fan of bestiality. suppose also that any time i was asked for evidence of it i responded with "why should i have to prove reality to you?" does that work for you? of course not.

now apply that to what you've been saying.

I wish you luck with that, I really do. You might want to start deleting some of your posts while your at it, I learned a long time ago most places the person reporting is usually the one that gets looked at the most.

I hope they look at my posts. I have called you any names. I certainly have never told you were "sniffing burlap" or called you a "dumbass" or an "idiot". I think I have little to worry about. And if I do have to worry, I'll be glad to take a little friendly advice from them to correct my behavior.

He's alleging there has never been an arrest or fine because someone said something specifically to irritate a minority. No offense intended, but anyone making that argument to begin with is showing either a willful ignorance of the world around them, or really is as stupid as I've implied.

That might not strike you as a very politic thing to say, but I'm not here for anyone's approval.

We didn't say there's never been an arrest or fine for dowing something lawful. We said it's not illegal. In California they arrested latinos for protesting in the 70's. That doesn't mean protesting is illegal. What it means is that law enforcement in southern California in the 70's was corrupt. In the end, their case was overturned and they were set free.

It's clear you don't want to offer an evidence because the evidence you wish supported your position does not exist. So instead you are asking us to prove non-existence.

Godwin's law gets proven again. Tell me, you libs going to do anything besides shout Nazi and pretend I have to prove reality to you?

Nazis were actually sort of left-wing so I don't think it would be appropriate to call you one, among other reasons. Now, of course, no one called you a Nazi or Hitler, so I suppose you're not actually familiar with the text of Godwin's law.

Godwin's Law - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Coined by Mike Godwin in 1990.

Clearly, a link to racism was attempted by the poster you are replying to, but racism is not equal to Nazis or Hitler.

you've made repeated claims to be an expert on all things American. You've never answered my question of whether you've even been to America.
I believe your response was that you don't have to visit America to be an expert on it cause you got all your socialist propaganda down there that you read that never ever lies to you.

I made no such claims, you've never been to Venezuela to criticize Chavez the way you do, and PROVE I AM A SOCIALIST OR SHUT UP!

You want me to prove these laws don't exist? It's impossible. What do I link to? Every law in the US. Link to the law. Link to a case citing the law. Link to a news story about someone violating the law. So far I see no evidence that this law exists. You're asking for proof of non-existence. It's impossible.

Prove that a guy named Johannesburg Von Hausendougalwafer James Serci Patton does not exist. You can't without listing every name of every person in the world. Proof of non-existence is usually impossible. Thus unless you prove it exists and you haven't, you're just trolling.

I'll tell you what. You tell me what kind of evidence I should link to in order for you to be convinced. I can't link to laws because I am claiming the laws DO NOT exist. I can't link to stories of events that DID NOT happen. I can't link to Supreme Court cases stating that hate speech laws are unconstitutional, because you claim that doesn't count. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

thinking like that won't get you elected to any thing except a seat on the Democratic Party Partisan Central committee.

I made no such claims, you've never been to Venezuela to criticize Chavez the way you do, and PROVE I AM A SOCIALIST OR SHUT UP!
other people that I link to in my blog have. the refugees from his evil human rights violating regime.
Chavez is the Stalin of South America. He has his thugs going around killing innocent people for the crime of having been successful enough to lift themselves out of poverty.

thinking like that won't get you elected to any thing except a seat on the Democratic Party Partisan Central committee.

What you mean reason? Asking for evidence for spurious claims? Stating that you cannot prove a negative?

What you mean reason? Asking for evidence for spurious claims? Stating that you cannot prove a negative?
nay. Not reason at all. You have a great penchant for arbitrarily dismissing or belittling other people's personal experiences. Your "reasoning" is that if it didn't happen to you personally or it is not recorded on the internet it never ever happened. Your failing is that you do not realize that most things that people mention on these forums cannot be found by googling the internet. But that does not mean they never happened or that the person pointing to them was lying as you have claimed repeatedly in thread after thread.
I happen to agree with him cause I know of such laws that were on the books UNTIL the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. The problem with relying on Cat Tribe is that even he is in this habit. Yet even he was forced to admit that the world was a different place 5 years ago. There were hate crimes laws and hate speech laws and both were vigorously enforced until some group of racists decided to take their case to the US Supreme Court.
Take another example: when the soviets left afghanistan, the Afghans asked for US help in rebuilding their country but Bush I refused. Because it was BEFORE the internet you are not going to find any online news items about it. The closest you will find is a history thing where it says "after the Soviet withdrawal, the US and its allies abandoned Afghanistan to the warlords." The tendency by you and some of the people on these forums would be "because you can't link to it, that means the Afghans never ever asked for US assistance".

Same with Bible clubs. It was only in the mid 90's that the US Supreme Court ruled that schools had to allow Bible clubs if they allowed anyother type of club. Before then, Bible Clubs were actually banned in just about every single public school in America on the guise that allowing them violated the seperation of church and state. But because you can't find news articles saying so online, you would assume that bible clubs were always allowed in American public schools.

You have to remember that being able to provide a link does not necessarily prove or disprove anything.
If you persist in such a take on things, you won't be very appealing to the voters. You have to be able to stand in the shoes of every person who is going to be your constituent. Not just the liberals, not just the socialists, not just the conservatives, not just the rich or just the poor. Because a congressional district is composed not of one constitutency, but many. And you have to cater to every single one of them. But at the same time you can't be a Mr. Nice pansy. Because Americans don't vote for pansys (spelling). But they don't vote for complete snobs either.

You have to take a middle road. That doesn't mean you compromise on everything. It does mean that you accept that experiences that you didn't have but that someone else did, are just as valid as yours even if they can't link to them on some internet forum or you've never heard of such a thing. And you have to avoid partisan bias. (not that that really matters as long as you have lots and lots of money).

The one thing I realized is that the main reason it is hard for challengers to defeat incumbents is that the incumbents bribe the voters with pork barrel spending. That's why they pass such spending every election season. So they can go home and say "vote me cause I gave you free swimming pools". They're doing it this year too if you look at the budget bills being passed. The most atrocious being the case of the railroad in Miss. that could have been relocated with the original funds. Instead they rebuilt it where it was and are now wanting hundreds of millions more US taxmoney to relocate it. That's money that is needed elsewhere. But you already know about that case. You can find it on CNN, MSN, everywhere.


Aaronthepissedoff was right when he was talking about hate speech laws. But he was wrong when he said they were constitutional. They used to be, but not anymore. The opposition was wrong when they made the claim that hate speech laws have never been enforced by US courts. Before the USSC stepped in, in the 90's, US state courts did indeed enforce hate speech laws.
What happened in the 90's was we got racists that were rich enough or who had rich enough friends to challenge it all the way to the US Supreme Court.


Edit add: The American electorate is not like the people who post on these forums. Or even other forums for that matter.

You can't use the views of people online to determine how the people will vote or how policies will be decided by gov., etc. In fact, I note that the American people have voted for people other than what the majorities of some internet forums wanted them to.
People on forums have a bad habit of belittling voters when the voters don't choose their guy or issue.

YAY for people protesting the funerals of those fucking baby killers! They deserve no respect!

They are henchmen of the evil Bush regime, and deserve to die a horrible death!

---
You have to remember that being able to provide a link does not necessarily prove or disprove anything.
---


While that may be true (as some links are NOT authoritative), providing a link serves the same purpose as citing a reference in a bibliography to a paper, it proves that you are not just making things up wholesale to try and prove your point. And those links from disreputable sources will simply be discussed, disected, and disregarded if unreliable.

If a link is not available, as may be true in the case of information that is older than the internet and may not currently be cited anywhere online, it is certainly possible to type out a bibliographic reference if your point has any merit. The reason for asking for a link is just that it is the simplest way to provide such a reference.

When listing facts and figures, if you wish to be believed, you should be prepared either to show yourself to be an authoritative scholar on a particular subject, or you should be able to cite an authoritative source for your data. Other than that, you should state "I think this is true..." and be prepared for people to disbelieve your data.

With SO much data available so easily at our fingertips, it is not unreasonable for people in this sort of a discussion to expect you to be able to back up your claims with actual checkable references.

Don't expect facts from americans...only expect fascist right wing shit.

Don't expect facts from americans...only expect fascist right wing shit.

That was slightly over the top.

I am an American, and I use facts where appropriate.

That was slightly over the top.

I am an American, and I use facts where appropriate.

Uh huh...sure...now go play with the firecracker...

Uh huh...sure...now go play with the firecracker...

Sorry, didn't realize you were a troll. Nevermind.

Last nite I'd the most beautiful dream of my life.

I dreamt of a war, a fuc*** harsh one with hundreds of wounded and many savagely killed.
That war made me laugh, yes. I woke up happy this mourning. The first clever war I'm waiting to see for good.
Alas twas only a dream.
Maybe I'll dream again of that war between Montana and Kansas, maybe next time would it be creationist against scientists.

Now let's pray, brothers. Make it becomes true USA will have his own personal war at home and give us some rest with lotta bullshit around the world, amen.


The High Priest
Father of your children
Guide in the After-Life.

Another American Civil war would make good entertainment on the BBC.

But this time, they should make it bloodier! And in Colour!

Another American Civil war would make good entertainment on the BBC.

But this time, they should make it bloodier! And in Colour!

I'm no fan of the American military, but your posts are rather inflammatory and rude; no one deserves to die a painful death. Though misguided, those men and women serving in Iraq are merely doing their jobs.

nay. Not reason at all. You have a great penchant for arbitrarily dismissing or belittling other people's personal experiences.

No, not belittling. I simply don't accept them as fact without more evidence. If they happen to go against my own personal experience then this is even more the case. You want me to ignorantly accept the random internet claims of people I have no reason to assume are telling me not just the truth as they see it, but the objective truth.

[QUOTE=Whittier---]Your "reasoning" is that if it didn't happen to you personally or it is not recorded on the internet it never ever happened. Your failing is that you do not realize that most things that people mention on these forums cannot be found by googling the internet. But that does not mean they never happened or that the person pointing to them was lying as you have claimed repeatedly in thread after thread.

My point is that if it's a law, it's on the internet. I didn't say it didn't happen. However, why would I just assume everyone's internet claims are true. In the absense of a law or a news story that this occurred, there is no evidence that it's illegal. I didn't call him a liar. I asked him to provide evidence. The same request he asked of me. His request of me is impossible, so only one of us can actually do it.

I happen to agree with him cause I know of such laws that were on the books UNTIL the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. The problem with relying on Cat Tribe is that even he is in this habit. Yet even he was forced to admit that the world was a different place 5 years ago. There were hate crimes laws and hate speech laws and both were vigorously enforced until some group of racists decided to take their case to the US Supreme Court.

Those laws WERE on the books. He claims they ARE on the books. You just evidenced that I was right to not accept his claims.

And good for those that got that changed. We should not get in the business of deciding what ideas are okay to talk about.

Take another example: when the soviets left afghanistan, the Afghans asked for US help in rebuilding their country but Bush I refused. Because it was BEFORE the internet you are not going to find any online news items about it. The closest you will find is a history thing where it says "after the Soviet withdrawal, the US and its allies abandoned Afghanistan to the warlords." The tendency by you and some of the people on these forums would be "because you can't link to it, that means the Afghans never ever asked for US assistance".

Are you actually suggesting that history that occurred before the internet has not evidence to be found on the internet?

Yes, we have this funny penchant for expecting people to provide evidence. Otherwise there is no point to having a logical discussion because you have to treat every claim not matter how unlikely or ridiculous as equal.

Same with Bible clubs. It was only in the mid 90's that the US Supreme Court ruled that schools had to allow Bible clubs if they allowed anyother type of club. Before then, Bible Clubs were actually banned in just about every single public school in America on the guise that allowing them violated the seperation of church and state. But because you can't find news articles saying so online, you would assume that bible clubs were always allowed in American public schools.

If there is a Supreme Court case you should be able to link that and that would be evidence of your claim.

I've noticed how important it is to people who make things up to claim that it's really there and we're being unfair by expecting evidence.

You have to remember that being able to provide a link does not necessarily prove or disprove anything.

No, what it does is offer evidence that's more useful than "I had this buddy once that went back in time, therefore time travel is possible. I can't link to the story because the time he went back to was before the internet, but he did it really and anyone who doesn't believe me, is just being a prick."

It allows to analyze the link and their other evidence and see if it is support for their claim and if it is a valid support.

If you persist in such a take on things, you won't be very appealing to the voters. You have to be able to stand in the shoes of every person who is going to be your constituent. Not just the liberals, not just the socialists, not just the conservatives, not just the rich or just the poor. Because a congressional district is composed not of one constitutency, but many. And you have to cater to every single one of them. But at the same time you can't be a Mr. Nice pansy. Because Americans don't vote for pansys (spelling). But they don't vote for complete snobs either.

Ha. Amusing. I hate to tell you, but I'm not going to take advice from someone who has 1) proven that he doesn't have what it takes to win an election (what was it? 71% to 23%? Perhaps I should rely on more tried and true methods.), 2) claimed to be the voice of God and 3) has been proven to be a hypocrite. I think if I have to take my chances between being someone who evidences their claims and makes conclusion based on evidence or someont who just makes things up and expects people to believe him, I'll choose the former. If we're just going to go on people say it's true with no evidence then Elvis is working in a deli in Ohio.

You have to take a middle road. That doesn't mean you compromise on everything. It does mean that you accept that experiences that you didn't have but that someone else did, are just as valid as yours even if they can't link to them on some internet forum or you've never heard of such a thing. And you have to avoid partisan bias. (not that that really matters as long as you have lots and lots of money).

I accept experiences that someone else had when they provide evidence. Otherwise, people can tell me anything they want. I don't think they are necessarily lying but I can't act is if what they say is fact. It would end up just being pass down the ignorance so to speak. My mother swears that things occurred that did not and I was there. If people accept her testimony alone then they will be ignorantly acting on false knowledge. I intend to base my actions on more than ignorant assumptions.

The one thing I realized is that the main reason it is hard for challengers to defeat incumbents is that the incumbents bribe the voters with pork barrel spending. That's why they pass such spending every election season. So they can go home and say "vote me cause I gave you free swimming pools". They're doing it this year too if you look at the budget bills being passed. The most atrocious being the case of the railroad in Miss. that could have been relocated with the original funds. Instead they rebuilt it where it was and are now wanting hundreds of millions more US taxmoney to relocate it. That's money that is needed elsewhere. But you already know about that case. You can find it on CNN, MSN, everywhere.

Encumbents win because they're familiar. I walked around my neighborhood asking people who they voted for last election and they couldn't tell me the name in the vast majority of cases unless I showed them a list of the candidates. They new the person they voted for so well, they couldn't remember his/her name. That's sad.

Aaronthepissedoff was right when he was talking about hate speech laws. But he was wrong when he said they were constitutional. They used to be, but not anymore. The opposition was wrong when they made the claim that hate speech laws have never been enforced by US courts. Before the USSC stepped in, in the 90's, US state courts did indeed enforce hate speech laws.
What happened in the 90's was we got racists that were rich enough or who had rich enough friends to challenge it all the way to the US Supreme Court.

If the hate speech laws still exist as he claims then they are available on the internet like almost all other laws. It's very convenient that no links can be provided for something that should be so easy to evidence.

Aaron was wrong and you've admitted as much in this very post. He claimed that Hate Speech is currently illegal as a reason to support this bill. It obviously is not currently illegal by your own admission.

Edit add: The American electorate is not like the people who post on these forums. Or even other forums for that matter.

Thank you. I'm quite aware of this.

You can't use the views of people online to determine how the people will vote or how policies will be decided by gov., etc. In fact, I note that the American people have voted for people other than what the majorities of some internet forums wanted them to.
People on forums have a bad habit of belittling voters when the voters don't choose their guy or issue.
Again, amusing. Forgive me if I find your advice less than valuable. First, it makes several less that valuable assumptions about me. Second, I can just as easily get advice from people who win elections, IN MY AREA. Whose advice do you think I'll find more valuable?

Yes, fortunately, belittling is a tactic you are unwilling to approach. Nope, I couldn't find, oh, say, a few hundred posts of you belittling people.

"Hey, Kettle."
"Yes, Pot."
"You're black."

While that may be true (as some links are NOT authoritative), providing a link serves the same purpose as citing a reference in a bibliography to a paper, it proves that you are not just making things up wholesale to try and prove your point. And those links from disreputable sources will simply be discussed, disected, and disregarded if unreliable.

If a link is not available, as may be true in the case of information that is older than the internet and may not currently be cited anywhere online, it is certainly possible to type out a bibliographic reference if your point has any merit. The reason for asking for a link is just that it is the simplest way to provide such a reference.

When listing facts and figures, if you wish to be believed, you should be prepared either to show yourself to be an authoritative scholar on a particular subject, or you should be able to cite an authoritative source for your data. Other than that, you should state "I think this is true..." and be prepared for people to disbelieve your data.

With SO much data available so easily at our fingertips, it is not unreasonable for people in this sort of a discussion to expect you to be able to back up your claims with actual checkable references.

Don't be ridiculous. Why should people have to show evidence for their claims? What kind of silly BS is that?

The amusing part of his claim is that every article written by any reputable source is expected to support their facts by editors and publishers. Every academic paper. Basically every time someone attempts to influence the opinions of others, people check their facts. It's not a unique effect of the internet. In person or on the internet, I don't accept random claims as objective fact without evidence. It's a fair request and it's becoming more and more the practice of the electorate.

other people that I link to in my blog have. the refugees from his evil human rights violating regime.
Chavez is the Stalin of South America. He has his thugs going around killing innocent people for the crime of having been successful enough to lift themselves out of poverty.

Any credible news source to back this up? Mind you, credible. I have yet to find any such event on any news (national or otherwise) that came from anywhere credible. Even Fox News, which is vitriolic against Chavez, is yet to call him a dictator. Fox News. You're not God, Whittier. Your Word doesn't become true.

Any credible news source to back this up? Mind you, credible. I have yet to find any such event on any news (national or otherwise) that came from anywhere credible. Even Fox News, which is vitriolic against Chavez, is yet to call him a dictator. Fox News. You're not God, Whittier. Your Word doesn't become true.

Careful. All joking aside, rather than derail the conversation, I would avoid the God references when you're discussing these things. We could go very far about the authority he believes he has, but keep in mind that this willl serve nothing but enflaming the discussion.

While that may be true (as some links are NOT authoritative), providing a link serves the same purpose as citing a reference in a bibliography to a paper, it proves that you are not just making things up wholesale to try and prove your point. And those links from disreputable sources will simply be discussed, disected, and disregarded if unreliable.

If a link is not available, as may be true in the case of information that is older than the internet and may not currently be cited anywhere online, it is certainly possible to type out a bibliographic reference if your point has any merit. The reason for asking for a link is just that it is the simplest way to provide such a reference.

When listing facts and figures, if you wish to be believed, you should be prepared either to show yourself to be an authoritative scholar on a particular subject, or you should be able to cite an authoritative source for your data. Other than that, you should state "I think this is true..." and be prepared for people to disbelieve your data.

With SO much data available so easily at our fingertips, it is not unreasonable for people in this sort of a discussion to expect you to be able to back up your claims with actual checkable references.
I agree with you except the part where you say you have to give a bibliography for anything a person says to be true. Just because a biblieography or link is not given does not make a statement false. People may choose to believe a statement is true or false but that does not really impact on whether the statement is actually true or false. If there is one thing I learned on here, it's that it makes no sense and is really pointless to try to force other people that something is true or false if such views differ with their own biases. In such cases, even valid links are dismissed as "junk", as happens on this particular forum a lot. This is called cognitive dissonance.


Saying "I believe this is true.." is as valid as saying "I think this is.."

Of course saying something like " I say this to be true...." has less effect than the previous two, but in all three you are still stating that what you are saying is your opinion of truth.

I'm no fan of the American military, but your posts are rather inflammatory and rude; no one deserves to die a painful death. Though misguided, those men and women serving in Iraq are merely doing their jobs.
hey, thanks. even though I disagree with you on the misguided part.

[QUOTE=Whittier---]nay. Not reason at all. You have a great penchant for arbitrarily dismissing or belittling other people's personal experiences.

No, not belittling. I simply don't accept them as fact without more evidence. If they happen to go against my own personal experience then this is even more the case. You want me to ignorantly accept the random internet claims of people I have no reason to assume are telling me not just the truth as they see it, but the objective truth.



My point is that if it's a law, it's on the internet. I didn't say it didn't happen. However, why would I just assume everyone's internet claims are true. In the absense of a law or a news story that this occurred, there is no evidence that it's illegal. I didn't call him a liar. I asked him to provide evidence. The same request he asked of me. His request of me is impossible, so only one of us can actually do it.



Those laws WERE on the books. He claims they ARE on the books. You just evidenced that I was right to not accept his claims.

And good for those that got that changed. We should not get in the business of deciding what ideas are okay to talk about.



Are you actually suggesting that history that occurred before the internet has not evidence to be found on the internet?

Yes, we have this funny penchant for expecting people to provide evidence. Otherwise there is no point to having a logical discussion because you have to treat every claim not matter how unlikely or ridiculous as equal.



If there is a Supreme Court case you should be able to link that and that would be evidence of your claim.

I've noticed how important it is to people who make things up to claim that it's really there and we're being unfair by expecting evidence.



No, what it does is offer evidence that's more useful than "I had this buddy once that went back in time, therefore time travel is possible. I can't link to the story because the time he went back to was before the internet, but he did it really and anyone who doesn't believe me, is just being a prick."

It allows to analyze the link and their other evidence and see if it is support for their claim and if it is a valid support.



Ha. Amusing. I hate to tell you, but I'm not going to take advice from someone who has 1) proven that he doesn't have what it takes to win an election (what was it? 71% to 23%? Perhaps I should rely on more tried and true methods.), 2) claimed to be the voice of God and 3) has been proven to be a hypocrite. I think if I have to take my chances between being someone who evidences their claims and makes conclusion based on evidence or someont who just makes things up and expects people to believe him, I'll choose the former. If we're just going to go on people say it's true with no evidence then Elvis is working in a deli in Ohio.



I accept experiences that someone else had when they provide evidence. Otherwise, people can tell me anything they want. I don't think they are necessarily lying but I can't act is if what they say is fact. It would end up just being pass down the ignorance so to speak. My mother swears that things occurred that did not and I was there. If people accept her testimony alone then they will be ignorantly acting on false knowledge. I intend to base my actions on more than ignorant assumptions.



Encumbents win because they're familiar. I walked around my neighborhood asking people who they voted for last election and they couldn't tell me the name in the vast majority of cases unless I showed them a list of the candidates. They new the person they voted for so well, they couldn't remember his/her name. That's sad.



If the hate speech laws still exist as he claims then they are available on the internet like almost all other laws. It's very convenient that no links can be provided for something that should be so easy to evidence.

Aaron was wrong and you've admitted as much in this very post. He claimed that Hate Speech is currently illegal as a reason to support this bill. It obviously is not currently illegal by your own admission.



Thank you. I'm quite aware of this.


Again, amusing. Forgive me if I find your advice less than valuable. First, it makes several less that valuable assumptions about me. Second, I can just as easily get advice from people who win elections, IN MY AREA. Whose advice do you think I'll find more valuable?

Yes, fortunately, belittling is a tactic you are unwilling to approach. Nope, I couldn't find, oh, say, a few hundred posts of you belittling people.

"Hey, Kettle."
"Yes, Pot."
"You're black."
1. No I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't dismiss everyone's claimed experience just because you haven't experienced. The problem with the internet is that any one can get anonymity and make all kinds of bogus claims and pop up a link or fake a bibliography and people think they are telling the truth whereas a person who doesn't give a link or a bibliography is automatically lieing.

2. Yet that's all that is available on a forum like this: subjective truth, not objective truth. Cause in political discussions people are only capable speaking opinions. I was raised that all opinions are equal.

3. I agreed with you repeatedly in the post that he was wrong in his claim that it was CURRENTLY legal. Are you sure that every single law in the United States is found on the internet? Whittier had a law that banned parking on public streets on Sundays. But Whittier's laws are not posted on the internet.
I speak of the rl cities, not my nation.

4. I agree with you on that. Even though I know you want to disagree with me on it.

5. It is possible. Not all history can be found on the internet.

6. yeah there should be a couple of them.

7. You're rehashing old stuff from old threads. Again, as I've told you in that other thread. You're no authority on who is or who is not the voice of God. You haven't the training for it. But that is seperate from the politics. That you reject my advise, is well, on you.


8. Actually most Americans don't even know who their congressional reps are. The names aren't familiar until election time when the incumbents use their positions to get pork barrel projects passed. These projects, if approved, make it into the local paper with the Congressman's name who supported it. Hence they are using their position to campaign by pretty much using pork barreling to buy votes. Do you know why Congress has never done anything about pork barrel spending? Because no one gets reelected on cutting pork. But everyone gets reelected if they vote in favor of pork. Unless they've done something else seriously wrong.

9. hey you can take advice from whoever, but it is best to listen to people from the district you are actually running in. All politics is local. What happens in District 1 won't work in district 2. And what works in california won't work in Illinoise.


10. Belittling? I was merely and innocently showing them the error of their ways. I am a martyr of a just cause.

Don't be ridiculous. Why should people have to show evidence for their claims? What kind of silly BS is that?

The amusing part of his claim is that every article written by any reputable source is expected to support their facts by editors and publishers. Every academic paper. Basically every time someone attempts to influence the opinions of others, people check their facts. It's not a unique effect of the internet. In person or on the internet, I don't accept random claims as objective fact without evidence. It's a fair request and it's becoming more and more the practice of the electorate.
Well maybe the people you know but certainly not of the electorate. Most voters don't even vote on issues. They vote along party lines cause that's what their families have done for generations.
Most people think that elected officials know about every single issue when the fact is that they don't.
The people are, as a whole, ignorant.
And people don't always check facts.
Two assumptions you made that are wrong.

Any credible news source to back this up? Mind you, credible. I have yet to find any such event on any news (national or otherwise) that came from anywhere credible. Even Fox News, which is vitriolic against Chavez, is yet to call him a dictator. Fox News. You're not God, Whittier. Your Word doesn't become true.
Ha ha ha. That doesn't mean he isn't one. His supporters are killing innocent people. check that chavez thread. I put all the links there.

Ha ha ha. That doesn't mean he isn't one. His supporters are killing innocent people. check that chavez thread. I put all the links there.

Logic 101: It's your obligation to prove he did it, not his (or anyone else's) to prove he did not do it. Again, any credible news sources at all, or simply guys that send messages to your blog (if they aren't you yourself) and claim to be from Venezuela, etc, without the slightest iota of evidence? I could also claim that Bush said the US Constitution is a "goddamned piece of paper" and link to this:

http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

I don't, though, as much as I hate Bush and as much as I know he despises the US Constitution. Because I know that no other news source aside from one with an interest against him reported that.

Now give me some evidence. It's not, I repeat, not his obligation to prove a negative. It's, indeed, usually impossible to prove a negative.

Logics 101.

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.
Quoted for Truth

...
I happen to agree with him cause I know of such laws that were on the books UNTIL the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. The problem with relying on Cat Tribe is that even he is in this habit. Yet even he was forced to admit that the world was a different place 5 years ago. There were hate crimes laws and hate speech laws and both were vigorously enforced until some group of racists decided to take their case to the US Supreme Court.
Take another example: when the soviets left afghanistan, the Afghans asked for US help in rebuilding their country but Bush I refused. Because it was BEFORE the internet you are not going to find any online news items about it. The closest you will find is a history thing where it says "after the Soviet withdrawal, the US and its allies abandoned Afghanistan to the warlords." The tendency by you and some of the people on these forums would be "because you can't link to it, that means the Afghans never ever asked for US assistance".

...
Are there no books upon the development of the American jurisprudence and, while we are at it, the modern history of Afghanistan? I don't think so.

Logic 101: It's your obligation to prove he did it, not his (or anyone else's) to prove he did not do it. Again, any credible news sources at all, or simply guys that send messages to your blog (if they aren't you yourself) and claim to be from Venezuela, etc, without the slightest iota of evidence? I could also claim that Bush said the US Constitution is a "goddamned piece of paper" and link to this:

http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm

I don't, though, as much as I hate Bush and as much as I know he despises the US Constitution. Because I know that no other news source aside from one with an interest against him reported that.

Now give me some evidence. It's not, I repeat, not his obligation to prove a negative. It's, indeed, usually impossible to prove a negative.

Logics 101.
You must mean like the way you claim to be from and in Brazil but have never proven it. :rolleyes:

Nor can you prove that Bush despises the US Constitution. The fact is he upholds it. Yet you make that claim.

The evidence that violent crime resulting in the deaths of people whose only crimes were pulling themselves out of poverty and living successful lives, while he did nothing was in the papers. I linked to it earlier. Search the thread.

Are there no books upon the development of the American jurisprudence and, while we are at it, the modern history of Afghanistan? I don't think so.
American jurisprudence would be an easy search depending on what you are looking for.

Afghan history, more time consuming and complex. This is not a college and I am not going to give bibliographies for every single thing. If you want to claim something I state is absolutely false just because I didn't cite it, like a college student (which you all know by now I'm not), is your freedom to do. But it is just your opinion. That you hold that opinion does not make me or someone else making a claim, a liar as you seem to be misinformed.

like a college student (which you all know by now I'm not)
So you're what, then - a middle school student? How am I, or anybody else, supposed to know who or what you are, other than what you claim to be?

I'll take a guess and say you're a longshoreman. Or a multi-level marketing flim-flam man. My guess is as good as your claim.

American jurisprudence would be an easy search depending on what you are looking for.

Afghan history, more time consuming and complex. This is not a college and I am not going to give bibliographies for every single thing. If you want to claim something I state is absolutely false just because I didn't cite it, like a college student (which you all know by now I'm not), is your freedom to do. But it is just your opinion. That you hold that opinion does not make me or someone else making a claim, a liar as you seem to be misinformed.
Why are you so excited? I have asked you only to give some details, and you cannot tell me even which one of the Afghani presidents approached your country with some unspecified request for (supposedly military) involvement. I don't care whether you are a liar or not, I am just curious.

Why are you so excited? I have asked you only to give some details, and you cannot tell me even which one of the Afghani presidents approached your country with some unspecified request for (supposedly military) involvement. I don't care whether you are a liar or not, I am just curious.
Do I sound excited? What do you mean by that?

I answered your post in the other thread btw.

So you were asking for which Afghani Presidents. I see now. The incident I refer to was just after the Russians announced their withdrawal. Before the Presidents you speak of. It was one or two of the factions that would go on to compete for control of the whole nation.

Where do you keep getting the notion of "military involvement" from? There was a request for weapons in 1954 according to that timeline I googled.
And at the time of the soviet withdrawal, the request was not for military aid but more for economic and reconstruction assistance.

Do I sound excited? What do you mean by that?

I answered your post in the other thread btw.

So you were asking for which Afghani Presidents. I see now. The incident I refer to was just after the Russians announced their withdrawal. Before the Presidents you speak of. It was one or two of the factions that would go on to compete for control of the whole nation.

Where do you keep getting the notion of "military involvement" from? There was a request for weapons in 1954 according to that timeline I googled.
And at the time of the soviet withdrawal, the request was not for military aid but more for economic and reconstruction assistance.
You 'sound' like you are excited. And Whittier, you do not check your facts. Najibullah was the president of Afghanistan at the time of our withdrawal.

So, it was a leader of one of the warring factions who asked you for help? As for the military part -- it was just a supposition, like I said. The timeline, BTW, is unreliable.

You 'sound' like you are excited. And Whittier, you do not check your facts. Najibullah was the president of Afghanistan at the time of our withdrawal.

So, it was a leader of one of the warring factions who asked you for help? As for the military part -- it was just a supposition, like I said. The timeline, BTW, is unreliable.
I thought I was checking them by googling the timeline of afghan history.
I didn't say who the Pres was at the time because, I didn't remember but Najibullah sounds rights.

Could you point me to a more reliable timeline.

I think our differences in views on the subject may reflect what our own governments teach us.
American government: Soviets are evil. They invade and oppress poor democratic Aghanistan. We are helping to free Afghanistan from Russian domination and from the Russian puppet regime in Kabul.
Russian government: (correct me if I am wrong, but I am going by what you said the other thread, shit, I forgot the names already)
We think x is American spy. X asked us to help him with uprisings. But we do not like him. So we will give him what he wants and at the same time depose him.

I had question but I'll ask in the other thread so this one can go back to topic.

You must mean like the way you claim to be from and in Brazil but have never proven it. :rolleyes:

The same way you claim to be or have been in the Military and is yet to prove it. Can go both ways. But, if you want me to, I'll prove to you that I at least was born in a Portuguese-speaking country:

Você é um babaca.

Nor can you prove that Bush despises the US Constitution. The fact is he upholds it. Yet you make that claim.

I have much more proof of what Dubya is doing against the Constitution than you have against Chavez. QED the wiretapping scandal.

The evidence that violent crime resulting in the deaths of people whose only crimes were pulling themselves out of poverty and living successful lives, while he did nothing was in the papers. I linked to it earlier. Search the thread.

Ah, right, that one in which you basically link ANY KIND OF CRIME to Chavez's "lack of action". By that logic, whatever mugging that's happening in NY as we speak is Bush's fault and shows that he's doing nothing while they happen, thereby promoting it. :rolleyes:

I thought I was checking them by googling the timeline of afghan history.
I didn't say who the Pres was at the time because, I didn't remember but Najibullah sounds rights.

Could you point me to a more reliable timeline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_timeline - basically OK. It is split in many parts.

I think our differences in views on the subject may reflect what our own governments teach us.
American government: Soviets are evil. They invade and oppress poor democratic Aghanistan. We are helping to free Afghanistan from Russian domination and from the Russian puppet regime in Kabul.
Thankfully our government does not teach us anything about Afghanistan -- we are free to find out everything for ourselves. Aren't you? While we are at it -- Afghanistan was (and is) poor, but there was nothing democratic about it.

Russian government: (correct me if I am wrong, but I am going by what you said the other thread, shit, I forgot the names already)
We think x is American spy. X asked us to help him with uprisings. But we do not like him. So we will give him what he wants and at the same time depose him.
Exactly. This explanation lack many nuances, but yes. Amin regarded us as his protectors (he was afraid that he would suffer the fate of Taraki, whom he had smothered with a pillow). Well... his "protectors" had other ideas.

http://robertsworldview.blogspot.com/2006/01/cool-new-poem.html
-- is that really yours? Disgusting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_timeline - basically OK. It is split in many parts.


Thankfully our government does not teach us anything about Afghanistan -- we are free to find out everything for ourselves. Aren't you? While we are at it -- Afghanistan was (and is) poor, but there was nothing democratic about it.


Exactly. This explanation lack many nuances, but yes. Amin regarded us as his protectors (he was afraid that he would suffer the fate of Taraki, whom he had smothered with a pillow). Well... his "protectors" had other ideas.

http://robertsworldview.blogspot.com/2006/01/cool-new-poem.html
-- is that really yours? Disgusting.
A few years back it was required to put your kids in public school where they learned whatever PC thing the people in charge of public schools wanted them to learn. Only the rich could keep their kids out of those places by putting them in private schools.

The problem with the US education system is that it is highly politicized. As you can see from teachers encouraging kids to cut class to engage in political activities, even though doing so did not benefit them educationally.

The closest comparison I can think is either when we backed Castro but then turned against him, or rather he turned against us (I think it was mutual) or when someone from our State Dept. told Saddam it was ok for him to take Kuwait only to have US troops mop Kuwait clean of Iraqi troops.

You didn't like the poem either eh? Gee, thanks. ;)

I enjoy a rather odd distinction. I am gay and served in the military.

Let me say this clearly. I do not believe it is right that anyone pickets or protests at a funeral of any type, military or civilian. That being said, I simply cannot and will not sign this petition. It venerates my service as a military man over the service of other people in this country. I did not join the military to be worshipped or venerated. I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country in a meaningful way. All I ever wanted was a simple "Thank you" from the government and the benefits that I am entitled to.

Early on in this thread, someone quoted/paraphrased Robert A. Heinlein, who in his book "Starship Troopers" spoke of a society where military service guaranteed citizenship. I did not agree with the concept then, and I do not agree with the concept now. The military is part of the system that is supposed to protect it's citizens from external threats. Doing this allows others to contribute to our society in other ways. Elevating one facet of the system over the others destroys what balance there is in the US system of government. Each of the three branches of the US Federal government are supposed to provide a vital check or balance on the other.

At any rate, Congressman Rogers is pandering to a section of the populace that buys into the mystique of military service. Take it from a guy who served 22 years, while it is a vital job, it is no different than any other job that provides a valuable, vital service to the people of the United States. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics, Teachers...the list runs on...all provide valuable service to the country. Yet no one asks that a teacher's funeral be protected from picketing, how often BEFORE 9/11 did anyone talk of protecting a fireman's funeral from being picketed? A policeman?

I did my job, and I served my country, like my father before me and my grandfather before him. If you are so inclined, thank a veteran for that service. But, please do not forget to thank policemen, firemen and teachers for their service too.

No greater crimes in the history of this country have been more readily on view for people to see than the crimes committed by our elected officials. Yet, instead of punishing these cretins, we thank them for getting us into the current mess we are in. What does that say about us as a nation?

As a retired military officer, I finally get to speak my piece about the cretinous, murdering bastards. Politicians have used us in the military as pawns since time immemorial. I daresay after serving through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and part of Bush 43, there is only one of those four Presidents I have absolutely no use for, and that would be the current one. Heaven help this nation if he gets us into another hot war.

JC

I enjoy a rather odd distinction. I am gay and served in the military.

Let me say this clearly. I do not believe it is right that anyone pickets or protests at a funeral of any type, military or civilian. That being said, I simply cannot and will not sign this petition. It venerates my service as a military man over the service of other people in this country. I did not join the military to be worshipped or venerated. I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country in a meaningful way. All I ever wanted was a simple "Thank you" from the government and the benefits that I am entitled to.

Early on in this thread, someone quoted/paraphrased Robert A. Heinlein, who in his book "Starship Troopers" spoke of a society where military service guaranteed citizenship. I did not agree with the concept then, and I do not agree with the concept now. The military is part of the system that is supposed to protect it's citizens from external threats. Doing this allows others to contribute to our society in other ways. Elevating one facet of the system over the others destroys what balance there is in the US system of government. Each of the three branches of the US Federal government are supposed to provide a vital check or balance on the other.

At any rate, Congressman Rogers is pandering to a section of the populace that buys into the mystique of military service. Take it from a guy who served 22 years, while it is a vital job, it is no different than any other job that provides a valuable, vital service to the people of the United States. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics, Teachers...the list runs on...all provide valuable service to the country. Yet no one asks that a teacher's funeral be protected from picketing, how often BEFORE 9/11 did anyone talk of protecting a fireman's funeral from being picketed? A policeman?

I did my job, and I served my country, like my father before me and my grandfather before him. If you are so inclined, thank a veteran for that service. But, please do not forget to thank policemen, firemen and teachers for their service too.

No greater crimes in the history of this country have been more readily on view for people to see than the crimes committed by our elected officials. Yet, instead of punishing these cretins, we thank them for getting us into the current mess we are in. What does that say about us as a nation?

As a retired military officer, I finally get to speak my piece about the cretinous, murdering bastards. Politicians have used us in the military as pawns since time immemorial. I daresay after serving through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and part of Bush 43, there is only one of those four Presidents I have absolutely no use for, and that would be the current one. Heaven help this nation if he gets us into another hot war.

JC

I respect you.

A few years back it was required to put your kids in public school where they learned whatever PC thing the people in charge of public schools wanted them to learn. Only the rich could keep their kids out of those places by putting them in private schools.

The problem with the US education system is that it is highly politicized. As you can see from teachers encouraging kids to cut class to engage in political activities, even though doing so did not benefit them educationally.
In my opinion history cannot be learned at school -- it is simply too vast a field to be studied well. One who wants to know has to delve into the intricacies oneself. Having a good history teacher helps, of course -- but only in making one interested in the immensely complicated subject of history. All that IMHO. BTW, my teacher wasn't interested in the school programme at all -- she taught us what she considered important. And it worked.

The closest comparison I can think is either when we backed Castro but then turned against him, or rather he turned against us (I think it was mutual) or when someone from our State Dept. told Saddam it was ok for him to take Kuwait only to have US troops mop Kuwait clean of Iraqi troops.
Well, I do not know all the intricacies of those events, but yeah, a little bit of treachery adds some spice into statecraft.

You didn't like the poem either eh? Gee, thanks. ;)
The poem is shit, and I'm not a coprophile.

I enjoy a rather odd distinction. I am gay and served in the military.

Let me say this clearly. I do not believe it is right that anyone pickets or protests at a funeral of any type, military or civilian. That being said, I simply cannot and will not sign this petition. It venerates my service as a military man over the service of other people in this country. I did not join the military to be worshipped or venerated. I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country in a meaningful way. All I ever wanted was a simple "Thank you" from the government and the benefits that I am entitled to.

Early on in this thread, someone quoted/paraphrased Robert A. Heinlein, who in his book "Starship Troopers" spoke of a society where military service guaranteed citizenship. I did not agree with the concept then, and I do not agree with the concept now. The military is part of the system that is supposed to protect it's citizens from external threats. Doing this allows others to contribute to our society in other ways. Elevating one facet of the system over the others destroys what balance there is in the US system of government. Each of the three branches of the US Federal government are supposed to provide a vital check or balance on the other.

At any rate, Congressman Rogers is pandering to a section of the populace that buys into the mystique of military service. Take it from a guy who served 22 years, while it is a vital job, it is no different than any other job that provides a valuable, vital service to the people of the United States. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics, Teachers...the list runs on...all provide valuable service to the country. Yet no one asks that a teacher's funeral be protected from picketing, how often BEFORE 9/11 did anyone talk of protecting a fireman's funeral from being picketed? A policeman?

I did my job, and I served my country, like my father before me and my grandfather before him. If you are so inclined, thank a veteran for that service. But, please do not forget to thank policemen, firemen and teachers for their service too.

No greater crimes in the history of this country have been more readily on view for people to see than the crimes committed by our elected officials. Yet, instead of punishing these cretins, we thank them for getting us into the current mess we are in. What does that say about us as a nation?

As a retired military officer, I finally get to speak my piece about the cretinous, murdering bastards. Politicians have used us in the military as pawns since time immemorial. I daresay after serving through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and part of Bush 43, there is only one of those four Presidents I have absolutely no use for, and that would be the current one. Heaven help this nation if he gets us into another hot war.

JC
I respect your opinion and would note, having been in 4 and a half years (much less time than you), I have found that is the view shared by many in the military: distrust of politicians of any stripe.

In my opinion history cannot be learned at school -- it is simply too vast a field to be studied well. One who wants to know has to delve into the intricacies oneself. Having a good history teacher helps, of course -- but only in making one interested in the immensely complicated subject of history. All that IMHO. BTW, my teacher wasn't interested in the school programme at all -- she taught us what she considered important. And it worked.


Well, I do not know all the intricacies of those events, but yeah, a little bit of treachery adds some spice into statecraft.


The poem is shit, and I'm not a coprophile.
Unfortunately, most Americans today could care less about history. So the only thing they learn about it is what is taught in schools.
There are people who like history, myself included and my neice, but its unfortunate we are few.

I will here reveal a secret: American politicians take their strategies and cues from Machiavilli's "The Prince". It's widely read in Republican circles. I mean Republican activist circles, not the average Joe Republican, just so you know. And I've heard Democratic activists refer to it also.

It's kind of like the American pol's Bible in a way.

Unfortunately, most Americans today could care less about history. So the only thing they learn about it is what is taught in schools.
There are people who like history, myself included and my neice, but its unfortunate we are few.

I will here reveal a secret: American politicians take their strategies and cues from Machiavilli's "The Prince". It's widely read in Republican circles. I mean Republican activist circles, not the average Joe Republican, just so you know. And I've heard Democratic activists refer to it also.

It's kind of like the American pol's Bible in a way.
Mmm... a good reading! "The Prince" was the favourite book of Stalin, after all.

I enjoy a rather odd distinction. I am gay and served in the military.

Let me say this clearly. I do not believe it is right that anyone pickets or protests at a funeral of any type, military or civilian. That being said, I simply cannot and will not sign this petition. It venerates my service as a military man over the service of other people in this country. I did not join the military to be worshipped or venerated. I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country in a meaningful way. All I ever wanted was a simple "Thank you" from the government and the benefits that I am entitled to.

Early on in this thread, someone quoted/paraphrased Robert A. Heinlein, who in his book "Starship Troopers" spoke of a society where military service guaranteed citizenship. I did not agree with the concept then, and I do not agree with the concept now. The military is part of the system that is supposed to protect it's citizens from external threats. Doing this allows others to contribute to our society in other ways. Elevating one facet of the system over the others destroys what balance there is in the US system of government. Each of the three branches of the US Federal government are supposed to provide a vital check or balance on the other.

At any rate, Congressman Rogers is pandering to a section of the populace that buys into the mystique of military service. Take it from a guy who served 22 years, while it is a vital job, it is no different than any other job that provides a valuable, vital service to the people of the United States. Policemen, Firemen, Paramedics, Teachers...the list runs on...all provide valuable service to the country. Yet no one asks that a teacher's funeral be protected from picketing, how often BEFORE 9/11 did anyone talk of protecting a fireman's funeral from being picketed? A policeman?

I did my job, and I served my country, like my father before me and my grandfather before him. If you are so inclined, thank a veteran for that service. But, please do not forget to thank policemen, firemen and teachers for their service too.

No greater crimes in the history of this country have been more readily on view for people to see than the crimes committed by our elected officials. Yet, instead of punishing these cretins, we thank them for getting us into the current mess we are in. What does that say about us as a nation?

As a retired military officer, I finally get to speak my piece about the cretinous, murdering bastards. Politicians have used us in the military as pawns since time immemorial. I daresay after serving through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and part of Bush 43, there is only one of those four Presidents I have absolutely no use for, and that would be the current one. Heaven help this nation if he gets us into another hot war.

JC
Not bad, not bad.

Part of the problem is that a small, but rather loud and obnoxious percentage of Americans disrespect the military. This provokes a reaction among certain others who veiw their own acts as an attempt to redress the balance.

Not bad, not bad.

Part of the problem is that a small, but rather loud and obnoxious percentage of Americans disrespect the military. This provokes a reaction among certain others who veiw their own acts as an attempt to redress the balance.

That'd have a slight chance of being a point if it werent for vocal minorities that disrespect gays, blacks and so on and so forth, without pandering laws being made on their behalf. This is not a "reaction" to "redress the balance", this is pandering to one specific group.

That'd have a slight chance of being a point if it werent for vocal minorities that disrespect gays, blacks and so on and so forth, without pandering laws being made on their behalf. This is not a "reaction" to "redress the balance", this is pandering to one specific group.
That makes no sense. We're talking about military personnel in the thread, not "gays, blacks and so on and so forth."

And btw ...

pan·der (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pander)

intr.v.
pan·dered , pan·der·ing , pan·ders
To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).

That makes no sense. We're talking about military personnel in the thread, not "gays, blacks and so on and so forth."

And btw ...

pan·der (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pander)

intr.v.
pan·dered , pan·der·ing , pan·ders
To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).

My point, which I am pretty sure everyone else got, was that this feeling of "being attacked" isn't a justification, because other groups were also attacked, most of them much more, and no such law was proposed. Also: "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses" is what a politician does when he uses such catering to get votes, such as this case.

My point, which I am pretty sure everyone else got, was that this feeling of "being attacked" isn't a justification, because other groups were also attacked, most of them much more, and no such law was proposed. Also: "To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses" is what a politician does when he uses such catering to get votes, such as this case.
As I said, you're not making much sense here. Many laws have been passed against "hate crimes," insuring the right to vote, affirmative action, "and so on and so forth."

Who mentioned politicians? Sounds an awful lot like a straw man to me. Not much "logic" there.

As I said, you're not making much sense here. Many laws have been passed against "hate crimes," insuring the right to vote, affirmative action, "and so on and so forth."

Who mentioned politicians? Sounds an awful lot like a straw man to me. Not much "logic" there.

1- When Matthew Shepherd's (and other) funeral(s) were harassed, nobody proposed any law.

2- When the military got harassed, a law was proposed.

3- You claim that law is a law to "restore balance".

4- I'm pointing out that no such laws to "restore balance" by making groups into people with special rights (or against whom free speech is less free) were made for other groups.

5- I'm also pointing out that the creator of said law is very likely to use it as an electoral platform for his party, the Republican Party.

6- Said party is very much against gays and other minorities, and very much pro-military.

7- Applying that knowledge to his decisions, the congressman created and proposed that law, which is known as pandering.

Got it now?

1- When Matthew Shepherd's (and other) funeral(s) were harassed, nobody proposed any law.

2- When the military got harassed, a law was proposed.

3- You claim that law is a law to "restore balance".

4- I'm pointing out that no such laws to "restore balance" by making groups into people with special rights (or against whom free speech is less free) were made for other groups.

5- I'm also pointing out that the creator of said law is very likely to use it as an electoral platform for his party, the Republican Party.

6- Said party is very much against gays and other minorities, and very much pro-military.

7- Applying that knowledge to his decisions, the congressman created and proposed that law, which is known as pandering.

Got it now?
1. True

2. True

3. No. What I said was that there is a small but loud and obnoxious minority in America who despise the military. Those who defend the military are attempting to restore what they see as balance.

4. Making a law to protect military families whose members have been killed in service to their country takes nothing whatsoever away from other groups.

5. Possibly, although there are many Democrats who are just as patriotic as many Republicans.

6. Specious and inaccurate. The Republicans have far more minorities on their senior staff than the Democrats have ever had. Why do you say that Republicans are "very much against gays and other minorities?" And where is your proof of this rather outrageous statement?

7. Then all politics is pandering?

1. True

2. True

3. No. What I said was that there is a small but loud and obnoxious minority in America who despise the military. Those who defend the military are attempting to restore what they see as balance.

Then why wasn't said "balance" restored when Matthew Shepherd was being harassed post-mortem?

4. Making a law to protect military families whose members have been killed in service to their country takes nothing whatsoever away from other groups.

When a group becomes privileged, by comparison all other groups get something taken away from them. Unequality is harmful.

5. Possibly, although there are many Democrats who are just as patriotic as many Republicans.

The guy didn't do it out of patriotism, or else he'd be proposing a law that benefitted the WHOLE nation, not a small part of it.

6. Specious and inaccurate. The Republicans have far more minorities on their senior staff than the Democrats have ever had. Why do you say that Republicans are "very much against gays and other minorities?" And where is your proof of this rather outrageous statement?

Bush's proposition of a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Cheney's vote against MLK becoming a holiday? Scores of anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-etc that favor the Republicans, beginning by Jerry Falwell and the Defense of Marriage Coalition, and others?

7. Then all politics is pandering?

This one case is. Because he uses this as a platform to benefit ONLY the groups that would vote for him.

1. Then why wasn't said "balance" restored when Matthew Shepherd was being harassed post-mortem?

2. When a group becomes privileged, by comparison all other groups get something taken away from them. Unequality is harmful.

3. The guy didn't do it out of patriotism, or else he'd be proposing a law that benefitted the WHOLE nation, not a small part of it.

4. Bush's proposition of a constitutional ban on gay marriage? Cheney's vote against MLK becoming a holiday? Scores of anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-etc that favor the Republicans, beginning by Jerry Falwell and the Defense of Marriage Coalition, and others?

5. This one case is. Because he uses this as a platform to benefit ONLY the groups that would vote for him.
1. I have no idea. We're talking about protecting the families of dead military personnel, remember?

2. LOL! What ... EVER!

3. Why? That wasn't the issue.

4. Oh, God. Where to start? Shall I begin by listing all the weird-o, demented little groups that support Democrats? Sigh.

Proposing a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a specific definition does not imply unlawful discrimination against any other group. And voting against a new holiday does not imply that you hate or even dislike those for whom the holiday was proposed. Holidays are very expensive for businesses, and I rather suspect that's what Cheney was voting against, although I have no way of knowing for sure.

5. And this makes him different from other politicans how?

1. I have no idea. We're talking about protecting the families of dead military personnel, remember?

2. LOL! What ... EVER!

3. Why? That wasn't the issue.

4. Oh, God. Where to start? Shall I begin by listing all the weird-o, demented little groups that support Democrats? Sigh.

Proposing a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a specific definition does not imply unlawful discrimination against any other group. And voting against a new holiday does not imply that you hate or even dislike those for whom the holiday was proposed. Holidays are very expensive for businesses, and I rather suspect that's what Cheney was voting against, although I have no way of knowing for sure.

5. And this makes him different from other politicans how?

1, 2 and 3 - The same person harassing the funerals of soldiers harassed also the funerals of gays, blacks and so on. Why couldn't the congressman also protect these other groups? Why the decision to keep everyone ELSE unprotected?

4- By all means, you can. But I'm pointing out that even the not-so-little groups that support republicans have in common the fact that they'd NOT LIKE a law to protect the funerals of gay people and others. That's the point this congressman pandered to. He could have proposed the law applying to every funeral. He chose not to.

5- That makes it ok how? "smoke some crack, kid, all the cool kids are doing it" logic, now?

Not bad, not bad.

Part of the problem is that a small, but rather loud and obnoxious percentage of Americans disrespect the military. This provokes a reaction among certain others who veiw their own acts as an attempt to redress the balance.

How dare anyone disrespect the military! That must not be allowed!

We must redress the balance by depriving those who would disrespect the military of freedom of speech.

We could pass a content-neutral law against harrassment at all funerals, but that would just be constitutional and wouldn't show enough respect for the military.

:headbang:

We could pass a content-neutral law against harrassment at all funerals ...
Something I happen to support, which you would know had you read my earlier posts in this thread.

How dare anyone disrespect the military! That must not be allowed!

We must redress the balance by depriving those who would disrespect the military of freedom of speech.

We could pass a content-neutral law against harrassment at all funerals, but that would just be constitutional and wouldn't show enough respect for the military.

:headbang:

Makes sense, after all, the Military is there to protect the Constitution, so the Constitution should be revoked to protect the Military... *Sarcasm*

Something I happen to support, which you would know had you read my earlier posts in this thread.

You most certainly make a poor work of it, considering you support the law as it is. But you have learned not to let the facts prevent you from speaking against them. QED your claims that I hate the US when I'm trying to uphold its Constitution, but, by all means, do go on.

Something I happen to support, which you would know had you read my earlier posts in this thread.

*sigh*

But that is certainly not the only approach you've supported in this thread. I've nowhere seen you declare that the law proposed in the OP is unnacceptable. To the contrary, you've been defending it.

Among other things, you were just telling Heikoku that: "We're talking about protecting the families of dead military personnel, remember?"

A law intended to silence disrespect of the military is not content-neutral.

Proposing a Constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a specific definition does not imply unlawful discrimination against any other group.

If the specific definition was (as used to be in many states) that the couple had to be of the same race, would that discriminate on the basis of race? If so, why doesn't a definition that the couple has to be of different gender discriminate on the basis of gender?

And voting against a new holiday does not imply that you hate or even dislike those for whom the holiday was proposed. Holidays are very expensive for businesses, and I rather suspect that's what Cheney was voting against, although I have no way of knowing for sure.

Keeping telling yourself that. I'm sure Cheney was equally opposed to Veteran's Day.

*sigh*

But that is certainly not the only approach you've supported in this thread. I've nowhere seen you declare that the law proposed in the OP is unnacceptable. To the contrary, you've been defending it.

Among other things, you were just telling Heikoku that: "We're talking about protecting the families of dead military personnel, remember?"

A law intended to silence disrespect of the military is not content-neutral.
It's not intended to "silence disrespect of the military." It's designed to create a space apart from idiotic "demonstrations" where the family of a dead soldier can mourn in peace.

EDIT: How does my defending a law intended to prohibit disruption of the funerals of soldiers equate to my being unwilling to defend a law prohibiting disruption of all funerals?

It's not intended to "silence disrespect of the military." It's designed to create a space apart from idiotic "demonstrations" where the family of a dead soldier can mourn in peace.

Why not "the family of a dead PERSON", regardless of profession? Why?

EDIT: How does my defending a law intended to prohibit disruption of the funerals of soldiers equate to my being unwilling to defend a law prohibiting disruption of all funerals?

The fact that you're settling for soldiers ONLY proves that you care much less for everyone else.

If the specific definition was (as used to be in many states) that the couple had to be of the same race, would that discriminate on the basis of race? If so, why doesn't a definition that the couple has to be of different gender discriminate on the basis of gender?

Keeping telling yourself that. I'm sure Cheney was equally opposed to Veteran's Day.
Uh ... perhaps because there are only two genders? Or has that somehow changed? Don't back me into the position of trying to defend such a thing as a "marriage amendment." I don't support it and never will.

Veterans Day, as I recall, was officially designated in 1954. Dick Cheny's public service began in 1969.

It's not intended to "silence disrespect of the military." It's designed to create a space apart from idiotic "demonstrations" where the family of a dead soldier can mourn in peace.

EDIT: How does my defending a law intended to prohibit disruption of the funerals of soldiers equate to my being unwilling to defend a law prohibiting disruption of all funerals?

I never said it did. But you just admitted to "defending a law intended to prohibit funerals of soldiers." Such a law is an unconstitutional limit of free speech, seeking to limit speech on the basis that you don't like its content.

You've never said "no, wait, that would be wrong. Instead, we should ..."

Uh ... perhaps because there are only two genders? Or has that somehow changed? Don't back me into the position of trying to defend such a thing as a "marriage amendment." I don't support it and never will.

If there were only two races it'd be ok to prevent or force interracial marriage, then? Such logic...

Veterans Day, as I recall, was officially designated in 1954. Dick Cheny's public service began in 1969.

Would he have voted against it then?

1. I never said it did. But you just admitted to "defending a law intended to prohibit funerals of soldiers." Such a law is an unconstitutional limit of free speech, seeking to limit speech on the basis that you don't like its content.

2. You've never said "no, wait, that would be wrong. Instead, we should ..."
1. Is the refusal to allow demostrations against globalization to be held within a certain distance from a conference on globalizaion an "unconstitutional limt on free speech?

2. Uh ... perhaps because I don't think it would be wrong?

1. Is the refusal to allow demostrations against globalization to be held within a certain distance from a conference on globalizaion an "unconstitutional limt on free speech?

No, but it would be an unconstitutional limt on free speech to arrest them and only them for being specifically against the globalization while the demonstrators against, say, homosexuality are not arrested. A distinction based on who the target is, that you, as you said,

don't think it would be wrong

By the way, you never suggested creating spaces, you suggested arresting. But you have yet to suggest that regarding protesting anything BUT the Military. Your respect for the Constitution is touching, Eutrusca. I begin to think you are the one who hates America.

1. Is the refusal to allow demostrations against globalization to be held within a certain distance from a conference on globalizaion an "unconstitutional limt on free speech?

2. Uh ... perhaps because I don't think it would be wrong?

*sigh*

You bristle that I have wrongfully accused you of supporting something, and then you support that very thing. You support a discriminatory law that violates freedom of speech.

Read your first question carefully. Yes it would be wrong to have a law that refused to allow demonstrations "against globalization" to be held within a certain distance from a conference on globalization. The law must be neutral as to what the demonstrations are about. Pro-globalization demonstrations must also be banned within the same distance. (Not to mention that you have to have a neutral good reason for the law to begin with, but we're assuming that in your question.)

1. No I'm not saying that. I'm saying don't dismiss everyone's claimed experience just because you haven't experienced. The problem with the internet is that any one can get anonymity and make all kinds of bogus claims and pop up a link or fake a bibliography and people think they are telling the truth whereas a person who doesn't give a link or a bibliography is automatically lieing.

Not lying. Just unreliabe. If we're talking about circumcision, for example, obviously the studies presented by the AMA in support of their official position is more reliable than my story about my circumcision. Anecdotal evidence doesn't make you a liar, it's just not useful evidence.

2. Yet that's all that is available on a forum like this: subjective truth, not objective truth. Cause in political discussions people are only capable speaking opinions. I was raised that all opinions are equal.

Not everything we discuss is opinion. And we often make verifiable or falsifiable assertions. Again, if one makes an assertion like claiming that something is the law, then it is not an opinion, it's something that can objectively verified.

All opinions are not equal. A person of the opinion that black people are genetically predisposed to violence who bases it on the number of black people convicted of violent crimes (a spurious link) is not equal to the opinion of someone who is an expert in genetic research and has researched that very subject for several decades.


3. I agreed with you repeatedly in the post that he was wrong in his claim that it was CURRENTLY legal. Are you sure that every single law in the United States is found on the internet? Whittier had a law that banned parking on public streets on Sundays. But Whittier's laws are not posted on the internet.
I speak of the rl cities, not my nation.

I know what you mean. I'm sure there are some laws that are unavailable, but much of the laws, particularly controversial laws can be verified from the internet. He gave no specifics. I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence is not compelling evidence.

4. I agree with you on that. Even though I know you want to disagree with me on it.

5. It is possible. Not all history can be found on the internet.

The point is that on the internet most evidence can be uncovered. I have never argued anything I couldn't find evidence related to. We were arguing in a thread here once about whether Norse mythology developed as a result of Christianity or not and found very detailed information supporting my point. When making claims, evidence is generally necessary to be convincing. It's not unfortunate. Otherwise, I would be constantly changing my opinion based on the claims of random people.

6. yeah there should be a couple of them.

7. You're rehashing old stuff from old threads. Again, as I've told you in that other thread. You're no authority on who is or who is not the voice of God. You haven't the training for it. But that is seperate from the politics. That you reject my advise, is well, on you.

I have found you to be an unreliable source for political advice and religious advice. One is based on performance alone, the other is based on performance and scripture. Yes, if scripture tells me not to listen to you, I'll accept it.


8. Actually most Americans don't even know who their congressional reps are. The names aren't familiar until election time when the incumbents use their positions to get pork barrel projects passed. These projects, if approved, make it into the local paper with the Congressman's name who supported it. Hence they are using their position to campaign by pretty much using pork barreling to buy votes. Do you know why Congress has never done anything about pork barrel spending? Because no one gets reelected on cutting pork. But everyone gets reelected if they vote in favor of pork. Unless they've done something else seriously wrong.

As I said, from what I could evidence, people recognized the names of the people they previously voted for but couldn't actively remember them. Conduct a test yourself. I'll bet you money you get the same results.

9. hey you can take advice from whoever, but it is best to listen to people from the district you are actually running in. All politics is local. What happens in District 1 won't work in district 2. And what works in california won't work in Illinoise.

Again, I'm quite aware of what it takes. You make a lot of assumptions in your generally condescending posts. Save your advice for someone who doesn't know better.

10. Belittling? I was merely and innocently showing them the error of their ways. I am a martyr of a just cause.
Ha. Would you like to me post a few hundred posts of you making widely belittling posts?

Well maybe the people you know but certainly not of the electorate. Most voters don't even vote on issues. They vote along party lines cause that's what their families have done for generations.
Most people think that elected officials know about every single issue when the fact is that they don't.
The people are, as a whole, ignorant.
And people don't always check facts.
Two assumptions you made that are wrong.

Reread what I wrote and reply to what I wrote. I don't use hyperbole like ALWAYS, etc. I said "more and more". The knowledge of the electorate is increasing. People used to have to rely on what information was given them. Now people can search the internet for information on the subject and find out for themselves. The generation that is reaching voting age (the age at which they start voting, not the age where they are permitted to vote) is a much more internet savvy generation than previous generations. Expect the access of the electorate to the issues to increase.

I never claimed the voters generally vote on issues. Again, try replying to what's there instead of what you make up.

Mmm... a good reading! "The Prince" was the favourite book of Stalin, after all.
Well, to be honest, I never read the Prince, though I bought a copy just before my deployment, but I've yet to read.

I prefer the book of Whittier instead from what other people told me about "The Prince"

Machiavelli: "Sneak around people's back and talk shit about them and trick people into supporting your usurpation of power".

Book of Whittier: "Stop sneaking around like a coward and if you got something to say about someone, say it to their faces. If someone talks shit to you, talk shit back. "

Machiavelli: "If someone wrongs you, pretend to be nice but stew with hatred and be sure to plan your revenge, and do everything you can to make other people hate them too, in this way you will get what you want" or some shit like that.

Book of Whittier: "If someone wrongs you badly, tell them to knock it off. If they continue, flame them, and if that don't work, whoop their candy asses."

Machiavelli: "In the quest for power when your view is highly unpopular, pretend to agree with the other person, make them think you are their friend, that way when the time comes, you can overthrow them, humiliate them, and impose your own policies"

Book of Whittier: "If people disagree with you, tough shit. Make it known that you disagree with them. Don't be a f ing wuss. If someone tries to convert you or talk shit about you for your views, make clear you don't agree with them and strongly make every effort to convince them they are wrong. And if they resort to talking shit out their mouths, whoop their f ing asses."

Machiavelli-sneaky and conniving. They pretend to be your friend, they pretend to care about the people. But then they stab in the back and they make policies that hurt the people.

Book of Whittier: you know where everyone stands and there ain't know sneaking around and stabbing people in the back crap.

Well... what can I say? Machiavelli is a better writer than Whittier. :D

Well... what can I say? Machiavelli is a better writer than Whittier. :D
perhaps.

Uh ... perhaps because there are only two genders? Or has that somehow changed? Don't back me into the position of trying to defend such a thing as a "marriage amendment." I don't support it and never will.

Veterans Day, as I recall, was officially designated in 1954. Dick Cheny's public service began in 1969.
Don't hermaprodites count as their gender? Though there are few of them.

No, but it would be an unconstitutional limt on free speech to arrest them and only them for being specifically against the globalization while the demonstrators against, say, homosexuality are not arrested. A distinction based on who the target is, that you, as you said,



By the way, you never suggested creating spaces, you suggested arresting. But you have yet to suggest that regarding protesting anything BUT the Military. Your respect for the Constitution is touching, Eutrusca. I begin to think you are the one who hates America.
That's what the law does. It creates a space. A seperation between the protestors and the grieving families of dead soldiers.

Before you claim that because it "only protects soldiers" it is unconstitutional to create such spaces, then all these anti abortion protest laws that protect only abortion clinics from protests and impose a spaces that the protestors can't enter, is more unconstitutional becuase it only protects one segment of society which you said, repeatedly throughout this thread, makes such a law unconstitutional.

Not lying. Just unreliabe. If we're talking about circumcision, for example, obviously the studies presented by the AMA in support of their official position is more reliable than my story about my circumcision. Anecdotal evidence doesn't make you a liar, it's just not useful evidence.



Not everything we discuss is opinion. And we often make verifiable or falsifiable assertions. Again, if one makes an assertion like claiming that something is the law, then it is not an opinion, it's something that can objectively verified.

All opinions are not equal. A person of the opinion that black people are genetically predisposed to violence who bases it on the number of black people convicted of violent crimes (a spurious link) is not equal to the opinion of someone who is an expert in genetic research and has researched that very subject for several decades.




I know what you mean. I'm sure there are some laws that are unavailable, but much of the laws, particularly controversial laws can be verified from the internet. He gave no specifics. I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence is not compelling evidence.



The point is that on the internet most evidence can be uncovered. I have never argued anything I couldn't find evidence related to. We were arguing in a thread here once about whether Norse mythology developed as a result of Christianity or not and found very detailed information supporting my point. When making claims, evidence is generally necessary to be convincing. It's not unfortunate. Otherwise, I would be constantly changing my opinion based on the claims of random people.



I have found you to be an unreliable source for political advice and religious advice. One is based on performance alone, the other is based on performance and scripture. Yes, if scripture tells me not to listen to you, I'll accept it.




As I said, from what I could evidence, people recognized the names of the people they previously voted for but couldn't actively remember them. Conduct a test yourself. I'll bet you money you get the same results.



Again, I'm quite aware of what it takes. You make a lot of assumptions in your generally condescending posts. Save your advice for someone who doesn't know better.


Ha. Would you like to me post a few hundred posts of you making widely belittling posts?
I respect your position. Just a couple of comments:

1. On the religion issue, we have vast differences. We already know from exprience that we aren't going to convince each other. It doesn't mean either of us are bad people.

2. I always thought that Norse mythology developed before there was a christianity. Who said it came from christianity?

3. I have my own personal experience and my experience agrees that if people are active voters they do remember who they voted for. I've had people walk up to me at the store and say they voted for me, 7 months after the election. I was referring to nonactive voters. The ones who register but then rarely ever vote, then forget who they voted for.
But also, during my campaigns when I talked to voters, they would say "I'm voting for this person to stay in office because he or she voted to bring a million dollar swimming pool into my neighborhood or give my business a hundred thousand dollar lightbulb all at taxpayer expense."
Name recognition is a big factor in them getting reelected but its not the only major factor. Their pork barrel projects have equal weight in getting them reelected.
Said one guy in the local paper from Whittier, "I know Senator Boxer has been bashing our country and our troops and that she voted to give nuclear technology to China to help them make their nukes more accurate to better hit our cities but I'm voting for her anyway cause she gave my neighbor a million dolllar swimming pool at taxpayer's expense and she gave the local business and 250,000 lightbulb."
Nevermind that he didn't know what he was talking about, he was saying he he didn't care if she was hurting our country or not as long as she bringing many national debt increasing pork barrel project spending back to her district that don't have anything to do with national security or making America a better place. All he cared about was whether he or his close neighbors were getting free shit at taxpayer expense.
That is how the majority of voters are. And, well, I guess you can already tell I have much contempt for that kind of strategy. I think the term is pandering to prurient interests or something like that. Yet both parties do it.

Reread what I wrote and reply to what I wrote. I don't use hyperbole like ALWAYS, etc. I said "more and more". The knowledge of the electorate is increasing. People used to have to rely on what information was given them. Now people can search the internet for information on the subject and find out for themselves. The generation that is reaching voting age (the age at which they start voting, not the age where they are permitted to vote) is a much more internet savvy generation than previous generations. Expect the access of the electorate to the issues to increase.

I never claimed the voters generally vote on issues. Again, try replying to what's there instead of what you make up.
If that people are actually researching the issues and basing their votes on what they find that is a good thing. The problem is that not everyone has computer and not everyone who has a computer has internet access. Most Americans still don't have internet access. I know there most kids, when they access the internet have to do so either from their friends house or from school because they don't have it at home.

The ones most likely to have internet are the wealthy, and the upper and middle middle classes.

When I did my own campaign, I ignored the wealthy and the upper middle class. I tried to target the lower classes to get them involved in the process and I found that to be a waste of time becuase poor folk just won't vote no matter what you do. I found people like to complain but nothing you do or say will get actually get them involved in the process. They bitch but they will never ever vote. My efforts were nothing but wasted time.

Military families mourning the loss of a loved one killed in the defense of our nation deserve the right to say their final goodbyes in peace.

Whittier, whilst it is disgusting and offensive for anyone to disrupt the funeral of anyone who has died or been killed, these loved ones were not killed defending the nation of America.

These protestors were wrong to attack the funeral as the soldier is just doing as he's told, sure more soldiers should stand up to the lies of their governments, but at the end of the day, they have to put bread on the table.

This soldier should never have been put in this situation, sent to a war aimed at lining the pockets of the government.

That bullshit propaganda that stinks out the media about the so called war on terror is designed purely to make you think that America faced a threat from Iraq. At what time in history did Iraq look like attacking America? Never. It's bullshit and im sick of seeing misguided soldiers and innocent Iraqis being killed because of right wing jews and right wing neo cons.


EDIT: the comment about right wing jews is in no way anti semetic.

That's what the law does. It creates a space. A seperation between the protestors and the grieving families of dead soldiers.

Before you claim that because it "only protects soldiers" it is unconstitutional to create such spaces, then all these anti abortion protest laws that protect only abortion clinics from protests and impose a spaces that the protestors can't enter, is more unconstitutional becuase it only protects one segment of society which you said, repeatedly throughout this thread, makes such a law unconstitutional.

I'm also against a law that protects only abortion clinics, Whittier. A fair law would draw a line between protest and harassment in ANY case. So there. And this law doesn't "create a space", it also makes it a crime to protest.

I believe that no protests should be held anywhere near a funeral. There's freedom of speech and then there's respect. If we allow people to insult those who have lost someone dear to them, then where do we draw the line? Will we allow students to curse at their teachers now? Will we allow racism to be openly expressed in school? Where do we draw the line if we allow people to disrespect the dead?

I'm also against a law that protects only abortion clinics, Whittier. A fair law would draw a line between protest and harassment in ANY case. So there. And this law doesn't "create a space", it also makes it a crime to protest.
The law, as I read on the congressman's website, creates a space between the funeral and the protestors that the protestors are banned from entering. Show me where it specifically bans protesting funerals?

As for the abortion clinics, you may hold that view from your own experience in your own country, but the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that such zones are constitutional as long as there is no attempt to put in an abosolute ban on the right to protest. As long as they are able to protest the issue somewhere, their rights are not being violated.

The other problem is that you see a simple protest when these protestors are not simple protesting. They are engaging in abusive behavior. Your right to protest ends when you begin to violate the rights of another citizen.

All citizens have the right to not be abused. The "protestors" are guilty of abuse. That is what the law addresses.

I believe that no protests should be held anywhere near a funeral. There's freedom of speech and then there's respect. If we allow people to insult those who have lost someone dear to them, then where do we draw the line? Will we allow students to curse at their teachers now? Will we allow racism to be openly expressed in school? Where do we draw the line if we allow people to disrespect the dead?
If we draw a line can we really call it free speach?

Personaly I can see drawing a line where saftey is concerned (Ie yelling fire) but sense when was respect manditory?

The law, as I read on the congressman's website, creates a space between the funeral and the protestors that the protestors are banned from entering. Show me where it specifically bans protesting funerals?

As for the abortion clinics, you may hold that view from your own experience in your own country, but the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that such zones are constitutional as long as there is no attempt to put in an abosolute ban on the right to protest. As long as they are able to protest the issue somewhere, their rights are not being violated.

The other problem is that you see a simple protest when these protestors are not simple protesting. They are engaging in abusive behavior. Your right to protest ends when you begin to violate the rights of another citizen.

All citizens have the right to not be abused. The "protestors" are guilty of abuse. That is what the law addresses.

The bold part is either a contradiction to EVERYTHING you said so far or the final admission that making the law just for the military is wrong.

I don't see a "simple protest", I see it as harassing, but it's harassing when it's against the civilians as well! Simple like that!

If that people are actually researching the issues and basing their votes on what they find that is a good thing. The problem is that not everyone has computer and not everyone who has a computer has internet access. Most Americans still don't have internet access. I know there most kids, when they access the internet have to do so either from their friends house or from school because they don't have it at home.

snip
Have you done your research? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_hi_te/internet_population_1
73 percent of all adults have access to the internet


Hell 53 percent of households under 30 k of year have adults that use the internet

Now I am not saying it is a representitive resource (or whatever you were trying to argue its use for) but claming someone else has not done their homework while making claims like "Most americans still dont have internet access" is silly

The law, as I read on the congressman's website, creates a space between the funeral and the protestors that the protestors are banned from entering. Show me where it specifically bans protesting funerals?

As for the abortion clinics, you may hold that view from your own experience in your own country, but the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that such zones are constitutional as long as there is no attempt to put in an abosolute ban on the right to protest. As long as they are able to protest the issue somewhere, their rights are not being violated.

The other problem is that you see a simple protest when these protestors are not simple protesting. They are engaging in abusive behavior. Your right to protest ends when you begin to violate the rights of another citizen.

All citizens have the right to not be abused. The "protestors" are guilty of abuse. That is what the law addresses.


Sense when has there been a right to not be offended?

Not bad, not bad.

Part of the problem is that a small, but rather loud and obnoxious percentage of Americans disrespect the military. This provokes a reaction among certain others who veiw their own acts as an attempt to redress the balance.

Let me put not too fine a point on this. There will always be people who hate the military, just like there will always be people who hate gays. In a world of uncertainty, hatred seems to be a constant.

I don't need protection from people that despise my service to my country. They can kiss my butt as far as I am concerned. Neither I nor my family need protection from the idiots that protest at a military funeral. Ignore the cretins and like the Beastie Boys they will toddle off into obscurity after their five minutes of fame.

I don't need protection from people who despise me because I am gay. They can kiss my ass too.

I consider Congressman Rogers to be exacerbating the problem by bringing unneeded attention to it. Most of the time just ignoring the cretinous bastards accomplishes the mission and after discovering that neither the press nor families are going to react to them, adn they aren't going to get famous for being jackasses, they go away and hopefully are forgotten.

But, you see Congressman Rogers NEEDS to draw attention to how loyal an American he is, and by drawing up this legislation he gets to score some political points that just might insure his reelection.

I do not trust his motives, nor do I respect either his party or the Democratic party. They are all spineless users. It seems no one goes into public service anymore to serve the public, they go into public service to enrich themselves.

Write a better law that protects privacy at funerals for everyone and I might consider supporting it. But not this bit of feel-good bullcrap.

Write a better law that protects privacy at funerals for everyone and I might consider supporting it. But not this bit of feel-good bullcrap.

I was saying the same thing as you are, and Whittier decided I was a socialist America-hater. Whittier, any such remarks on Scwarzchild? Because, by extension, since he espouses the same idea I do, he is a socialist America hater too...

The bold part is either a contradiction to EVERYTHING you said so far or the final admission that making the law just for the military is wrong.

I don't see a "simple protest", I see it as harassing, but it's harassing when it's against the civilians as well! Simple like that!
The US federal government only has constitutional authority to protect funerals on federally owned cemetaries. Only states and local governments can pass laws regarding non federal cemetaries.
The law, as it is written, does not bar protests of military funerals on nonfederal cemetaries. Hell, it doesn't even ban protests on federal cemetaries. It creates a no protest zone on federal cemetaries.

You keep claiming you know more than Americans about the American constitution. Then you should have known that.

Have you done your research? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_hi_te/internet_population_1
73 percent of all adults have access to the internet


Hell 53 percent of households under 30 k of year have adults that use the internet

Now I am not saying it is a representitive resource (or whatever you were trying to argue its use for) but claming someone else has not done their homework while making claims like "Most americans still dont have internet access" is silly
As that is a recent article, seeing as it is dated April 26, rather than say April 2005 or April 2004 (meaning it was published only a couple of days ago) let's look at it more closely.

The first sentence says 73% of Americans now use the internet.
The sentence does not say where they use or what they use it for. It alone cannot be used to support a claim that most Americans use the internet for research.

If we look at the third paragraph at the article it says:

"But only 42 percent of all adults, or 84 million, have the home high-speed connections important for viewing video and treating the Internet as an always-on reference."

Only 42% of Americans are able to use the internet a reference for every issue. 42% does not equal a majority of Americans.

I propose that the majority of Americans use the internet, not for research, but for things like games, news, chatting, and stuff like MySpace, and email.

Further, from the same article:
"In a report Wednesday, Pew noted that Internet use still varies with age and income."

For the statement that "most Americans use the internet for issue research" to be true, it would require that there be no great variance in internet use on the basis of age or income.

"Eighty-eight percent of adults under 30 go online, compared with 32 percent for those age 65 and older."

Who makes the majority of the US population? People under 30? No.
It is the babyboomers who are reaching retirement age which is about 65ish though it will likely be raised. Though the majority of young people use the internet, that does not mean the majority of the American people use the internet for such purposes.
Notice it says nothing about middle agers, those between 30 and 65.

"Only 53 percent of adults in households earning less than $30,000 a year use the Internet, compared with 91 percent in households with annual income exceeding $75,000."

The problem here is that the US poverty level is $20,000 a year, not $30,000.
If you make $30,000 a year, you are not poor you are middle class.

Those who make about $25,000 a year are far less likely to use the internet for researching than those with higher incomes.

Sense when has there been a right to not be offended?
Where in my post did you see a "right to not be offended"? I did not say that.


I said there was a right to not be abused. You think people have a right to be abusive of others because its part of free speech?

The law is targeting the abuse, not the protest itself. The right to protest does not give you the right to be abusive.

As for this right to respect people claim on here, people have a right to respect in that they have a right to be free from abuse.

The US federal government only has constitutional authority to protect funerals on federally owned cemetaries. Only states and local governments can pass laws regarding non federal cemetaries.
The law, as it is written, does not bar protests of military funerals on nonfederal cemetaries. Hell, it doesn't even ban protests on federal cemetaries. It creates a no protest zone on federal cemetaries.

You keep claiming you know more than Americans about the American constitution. Then you should have known that.

He has yet to make a recommendation for non-military funerals in other cemeteries in that law (not requiring, but suggesting). Or to include veterans that were discharged but are still buried in federal cemeteries. Or, basically, anyone ELSE that happens to be buried in a federal cemetery.

And I never claimed to know more than Americans about the Constitution. It seems I do know more than you. Not only you have yet to prove you're an American (this is a sweet memento of the time when you suggested I might not be Brazilian, enjoy Newton's Third Law of Motion at work), you are also supporting a law that abolishes equality under the law, which is, yes, in your Constitution. And which is far more serious than the 14th Ammendment.

I was saying the same thing as you are, and Whittier decided I was a socialist America-hater. Whittier, any such remarks on Scwarzchild? Because, by extension, since he espouses the same idea I do, he is a socialist America hater too...
Scwarzchild is a US citizen who proved his loyalty to his nation by serving in the military.

His views and his remarks differ dramatically from your own where you have referred to the US military as evil and full of dupes (stupid people).
In other threads, you made remarks that indicated you viewed America as an evil empire.

His view of America can hardly be said to be the same as yours.

Scwarzchild is a US citizen who proved his loyalty to his nation by serving in the military.

Schwarzchild is an admirable person on several accounts, but loyalty is NOT measured by serving.

His views and his remarks differ dramatically from your own where you have referred to the US military as evil and full of dupes (stupid people).
In other threads, you made remarks that indicated you viewed America as an evil empire.

Prove I said these things or admit defeat. Link to whatever I said that indicated ANY of these things, or admit defeat. NOW!

He has yet to make a recommendation for non-military funerals in other cemeteries in that law (not requiring, but suggesting). Or to include veterans that were discharged but are still buried in federal cemeteries. Or, basically, anyone ELSE that happens to be buried in a federal cemetery.

And I never claimed to know more than Americans about the Constitution. It seems I do know more than you. Not only you have yet to prove you're an American (this is a sweet memento of the time when you suggested I might not be Brazilian, enjoy Newton's Third Law of Motion at work), you are also supporting a law that abolishes equality under the law, which is, yes, in your Constitution. And which is far more serious than the 14th Ammendment.
1.The bill contains a suggestion that the STATES pass laws to protect funerals in other cemetaries to cover all other people besides just military.

You seem to be implying the US Constitution gives the federal government the right to into Arizona and say "this is how you are going to run your state from now on". The US Constitution gives the fed no such power.

2. touche

3. The law does nothing to abolish equality. And where it speaks of equality, it speaks of equality of the races and gender. Not income equality, not occupational equality.
Giving some protection to one occupation that has been the target of abuse is destroying equality.

The idea that all occupations are equals is an argument laden with socialism. That is why I, earlier, referred to you as socialist. You were making a socialist argument: all occupations are equal.

The US constitutions says all RACES and EThnicities, and GENDERS, and AGES, and RELIGIOUS CREEDS, are equal. It NOWHERE says all occupations are equal.

It is people as individuals who are equal under the US Constitution. Not groups, not corporations, not unions, not occupations.

1.The bill contains a suggestion that the STATES pass laws to protect funerals in other cemetaries to cover all other people besides just military.

You seem to be implying the US Constitution gives the federal government the right to into Arizona and say "this is how you are going to run your state from now on". The US Constitution gives the fed no such power.

2. touche

3. The law does nothing to abolish equality. And where it speaks of equality, it speaks of equality of the races and gender. Not income equality, not occupational equality.
Giving some protection to one occupation that has been the target of abuse is destroying equality.

The idea that all occupations are equals is an argument laden with socialism. That is why I, earlier, referred to you as socialist. You were making a socialist argument: all occupations are equal.

The US constitutions says all RACES and EThnicities, and GENDERS, and AGES, and RELIGIOUS CREEDS, are equal. It NOWHERE says all occupations are equal.

It is people as individuals who are equal under the US Constitution. Not groups, not corporations, not unions, not occupations.

The idea that military occupations are inherently superior is a fascist idea. For that matter, the Nazis also applied that principle. Would it be right of me to call you a nazi for what you spew? Wait, don't answer that.

Also, as you "touché"d the point that not EVERYONE on federal cemeteries is protected, though they COULD BE, the point remains. For that matter, equality under the law is an idea that comes from the Burgeois French Revolution. In which not a one person was a socialist.

Schwarzchild is an admirable person on several accounts, but loyalty is NOT measured by serving.



Prove I said these things or admit defeat. Link to whatever I said that indicated ANY of these things, or admit defeat. NOW!
1. Serving is a measure of loyalty to your country. People who have no loyalty to their country do not serve.
You don't have to serve in the military to be loyal to your country, but the fact that you do serve is the ultimate sign of loyalty.
The fact that gays are officially banned is an unfortunate historical holdover.

IE: the construction worker who dies when he falls to his death from a skyscraper, did not die for his country, he died for a few measly dollars.
Hence, his occupation is not equal to the military occupation.
The occupation that comes closest to the military is the police and this has been recognized.

Doctors, do their thing not out of loyalty to their country but either for the money or out of compassion for their patients. Loyalty to country has nothing to do with their jobs.


I will qoute you but know I don't give into temper tantrums like the one you showing in that particular remark.

1. Serving is a measure of loyalty to your country. People who have no loyalty to their country do not serve.
You don't have to serve in the military to be loyal to your country, but the fact that you do serve is the ultimate sign of loyalty.
The fact that gays are officially banned is an unfortunate historical holdover.

IE: the construction worker who dies when he falls to his death from a skyscraper, did not die for his country, he died for a few measly dollars.
Hence, his occupation is not equal to the military occupation.
The occupation that comes closest to the military is the police and this has been recognized.

Doctors, do their thing not out of loyalty to their country but either for the money or out of compassion for their patients. Loyalty to country has nothing to do with their jobs.


I will qoute you but know I don't give into temper tantrums like the one you showing in that particular remark.

Cops die protecting the citizens. Civilian FBI agents die protecting the country as well. For that matter, doing it "for the country" means nothing. Doing it for the PEOPLE means something. MLK helped the USA. So did Coretta Scott King, whose funeral was picketed. And, by all means, quote me. Make my day, or admit you lost. You will not beat me by making baseless claims.

The idea that military occupations are inherently superior is a fascist idea. For that matter, the Nazis also applied that principle. Would it be right of me to call you a nazi for what you spew? Wait, don't answer that.

Also, as you "touché"d the point that not EVERYONE on federal cemeteries is protected, though they COULD BE, the point remains. For that matter, equality under the law is an idea that comes from the Burgeois French Revolution. In which not a one person was a socialist.
Looks like I need to number my responses since you look like you are getting confused.

1. A fascist idea eh? All nations do it. I'm sure your own nation recognizes that the contributions of the military to the national good is a better meaure of loyalty than other occupations. Would you call your own nation's government fascist? Americans have always held their nation's military in higher regard than other occupations. Are you saying Americans are fascist?

2. I touched your comment that I had not proved I was American, where you referred to a post I made you not having proved you were Brazilian. It not in reverence to the cemetary issue.

3. Ah, you refer to the French Revolution. Not exactly the same as the American revolution as we all recall. Just because the French support something does not mean it is the same in America, or anyother nation for that matter. In fact I recall that our nation at the time rejected the French revolution.

4. In America, we do things in steps. We don't try to do things all at the same time. We give them a little bit at time, to make ideas digestable and more acceptable. It took about a hundred years for women to gain the right to vote. The federal government was not a leader on that issue. Rather it was done state by state. Within states it was done county by county city by city. Why? Because if you suddenly throw something at someone, that goes against tradition, they will react against it. They won't accept it.

That is why we have never had coup in America. When Americans think something needs to be changed, they tend to do slowly and gradually one bit at a time. We know, from history, that when you try to change everything over night you have coups and bloody revolutions and instability and anarchy.

Take Hugo Chavez. When he got elected he set about trying to change everything at the same time. What happened? People got scared and tried to overthrow him in a coup. If Chavez tried to be more gradual about his changes, that coup would never have happened and he probably would had the support of the people who tried to oust him.

Cops die protecting the citizens. Civilian FBI agents die protecting the country as well. For that matter, doing it "for the country" means nothing. Doing it for the PEOPLE means something. MLK helped the USA. So did Coretta Scott King, whose funeral was picketed. And, by all means, quote me. Make my day, or admit you lost. You will not beat me by making baseless claims.
The concept of doing it for the people is means something whereas doing it for the country means nothing is, well I can't say its socialist cause socialist wouldn't support that idea either, anarchist.
Doing it for the country is the best sign of loyalty to the country. FBI agents don't die protecting the country, they die enforcing the country's laws. A difference there. An FBI agent would not say that his job is equal to that of someone in the military. You do realize, that in the event of great national uprising, the military would technically have the power to tell the FBI what to do? They can also tell civilian police what to do in such situations.

LA riots 1992? The police had to do what the military told them.

Hurrican Katrina? The civilian police had to do what the military told them.

That would not be the case if the those occupations were equal.

How about I will qoute when I am damn good and ready. In fact I am thinking I won't do it right now, I think I will wait until tommorrow to do it.

Looks like I need to number my responses since you look like you are getting confused.

1. A fascist idea eh? All nations do it. I'm sure your own nation recognizes that the contributions of the military to the national good is a better meaure of loyalty than other occupations. Would you call your own nation's government fascist? Americans have always held their nation's military in higher regard than other occupations. Are you saying Americans are fascist?

2. I touched your comment that I had not proved I was American, where you referred to a post I made you not having proved you were Brazilian. It not in reverence to the cemetary issue.

3. Ah, you refer to the French Revolution. Not exactly the same as the American revolution as we all recall. Just because the French support something does not mean it is the same in America, or anyother nation for that matter. In fact I recall that our nation at the time rejected the French revolution.

4. In America, we do things in steps. We don't try to do things all at the same time. We give them a little bit at time, to make ideas digestable and more acceptable. It took about a hundred years for women to gain the right to vote. The federal government was not a leader on that issue. Rather it was done state by state. Within states it was done county by county city by city. Why? Because if you suddenly throw something at someone, that goes against tradition, they will react against it. They won't accept it.

That is why we have never had coup in America. When Americans think something needs to be changed, they tend to do slowly and gradually one bit at a time. We know, from history, that when you try to change everything over night you have coups and bloody revolutions and instability and anarchy.

Take Hugo Chavez. When he got elected he set about trying to change everything at the same time. What happened? People got scared and tried to overthrow him in a coup. If Chavez tried to be more gradual about his changes, that coup would never have happened and he probably would had the support of the people who tried to oust him.

1- No, not all nations do the "making the military affected by laws that are different from the rest of the people" idea you're proposing. In fact, the two examples I can think of right now are Germany 1939 and Brazil 1964.

2- Then I must point out that there is still an unequality in that law.

3- I was pointing out that the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution had nothing of socialist.

4- This one change is nothing like a revolution. And te "people that got scared" were supported from outside in this case. Also, "gradual change"? Is that what you did in Iraq? What fallacy.

The concept of doing it for the people is means something whereas doing it for the country means nothing is, well I can't say its socialist cause socialist wouldn't support that idea either, anarchist.
Doing it for the country is the best sign of loyalty to the country. FBI agents don't die protecting the country, they die enforcing the country's laws. A difference there. An FBI agent would not say that his job is equal to that of someone in the military. You do realize, that in the event of great national uprising, the military would technically have the power to tell the FBI what to do? They can also tell civilian police what to do in such situations.

LA riots 1992? The police had to do what the military told them.

Hurrican Katrina? The civilian police had to do what the military told them.

That would not be the case if the those occupations were equal.

So people that give orders should get more rights? That's precious.

How about I will qoute when I am damn good and ready. In fact I am thinking I won't do it right now, I think I will wait until tommorrow to do it.

You have nothing. That's why you're stalling.

You lose.

If that people are actually researching the issues and basing their votes on what they find that is a good thing. The problem is that not everyone has computer and not everyone who has a computer has internet access. Most Americans still don't have internet access. I know there most kids, when they access the internet have to do so either from their friends house or from school because they don't have it at home.

The ones most likely to have internet are the wealthy, and the upper and middle middle classes.

When I did my own campaign, I ignored the wealthy and the upper middle class. I tried to target the lower classes to get them involved in the process and I found that to be a waste of time becuase poor folk just won't vote no matter what you do. I found people like to complain but nothing you do or say will get actually get them involved in the process. They bitch but they will never ever vote. My efforts were nothing but wasted time.

Again, you are arguing against absolutes and I am not arguing absolutes. The internet is a growing resource and is more often used in the generation that is coming into their voting prime. That fact is undeniable. That doesn't require that all or most voters are using it, but simply that the number of voters who are using the internet to do research is increasing. When you can actually reply to MY points rather than points you made up, come back, we'll have a discussion. As long as you keep speaking to this imaginary point, it does neither of us any good to continue.

How about I will qoute when I am damn good and ready. In fact I am thinking I won't do it right now, I think I will wait until tommorrow to do it.
well from the looks of it, this thread will still be here if you want to wait until next week. :rolleyes:

4. In America, we do things in steps. We don't try to do things all at the same time. We give them a little bit at time, to make ideas digestable and more acceptable. It took about a hundred years for women to gain the right to vote. The federal government was not a leader on that issue. Rather it was done state by state. Within states it was done county by county city by city. Why? Because if you suddenly throw something at someone, that goes against tradition, they will react against it. They won't accept it.

That is why we have never had coup in America. When Americans think something needs to be changed, they tend to do slowly and gradually one bit at a time. We know, from history, that when you try to change everything over night you have coups and bloody revolutions and instability and anarchy.

america doesn't go in for sudden change because there's no infrastrstructure to do so... hence the united 'States'. a military coup would not work in the US because the country is too big and the federal government does not have enough direct power.

... the babyboomers who are reaching retirement age which is about 65ish though it will likely be raised.
Baby Boomers: people with birth years from the span 1946 to 1964.

3. The law does nothing to abolish equality. And where it speaks of equality, it speaks of equality of the races and gender. Not income equality, not occupational equality.
Giving some protection to one occupation that has been the target of abuse is destroying equality.

The idea that all occupations are equals is an argument laden with socialism. That is why I, earlier, referred to you as socialist. You were making a socialist argument: all occupations are equal.

The US constitutions says all RACES and EThnicities, and GENDERS, and AGES, and RELIGIOUS CREEDS, are equal. It NOWHERE says all occupations are equal.

It is people as individuals who are equal under the US Constitution. Not groups, not corporations, not unions, not occupations.

What nonsense. The U.S. Constitution says all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Amendment XIV, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supporting equal rights and opportunities is not necessarily socialist. To the contrary, it consistent with meaning and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Were our Founders a bunch of socialists for saying "all men are created equal"?

You, on the other hand, appear to believe: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

What nonsense. The U.S. Constitution says all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Amendment XIV, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supporting equal rights and opportunities is not necessarily socialist. To the contrary, it consistent with meaning and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Were our Founders a bunch of socialists for saying "all men are created equal"?

You, on the other hand, appear to believe: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Aaaand he has yet to prove anything he said about my posts being "hateful towards America". Poor, poor Whittier. He lost.

You, on the other hand, appear to believe: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Ooh... Animal Farm strikes again! :p

Ooh... Animal Farm strikes again! :p

I think Whittier would be comparing the Military to pigs then? :p

What nonsense. The U.S. Constitution says all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Amendment XIV, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supporting equal rights and opportunities is not necessarily socialist. To the contrary, it consistent with meaning and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Were our Founders a bunch of socialists for saying "all men are created equal"?

You, on the other hand, appear to believe: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."You continue to completely miss the mark.
If you even read what I posted, instead of making assumptions, I never said any "people" were unequal. The argument is over whether all "jobs" are equal or whether there is unequality of jobs.
All people are equal. But not all jobs are of equal value. Its the issue of whether all jobs have equal value that is being argued, not whether people are equal.

A black man and a white man are both equal and hence both have the same rights.

The job of soldier or even a politician is not equal to that of a carpenter or a mechanic but are, rather, of more value to the nation. Hence, not all jobs are equal. Heikoku was arguing the opposite, that all jobs were of equal value.

What nonsense. The U.S. Constitution says all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Amendment XIV, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Supporting equal rights and opportunities is not necessarily socialist. To the contrary, it consistent with meaning and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Were our Founders a bunch of socialists for saying "all men are created equal"?

You, on the other hand, appear to believe: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
But doesn't that mean "equal before the law?"

You continue to completely miss the mark.
If you even read what I posted, instead of making assumptions, I never said any "people" were unequal. The argument is over whether all "jobs" are equal or whether there is unequality of jobs.
All people are equal. But not all jobs are of equal value. Its the issue of whether all jobs have equal value that is being argued, not whether people are equal.

A black man and a white man are both equal and hence both have the same rights.

The job of soldier or even a politician is not equal to that of a carpenter or a mechanic but are, rather, of more value to the nation. Hence, not all jobs are equal. Heikoku was arguing the opposite, that all jobs were of equal value.

That value is measured, ideally, in capitalist systems by the money they get paid to do the job, not by making laws that turn them into a quasi-nobility. But far be it from you to back up any of your claims with evidence, QED your assertion of my "messages of hate towards America". Which, no, I will not let go until you prove them or admit defeat. I plan to keep reminding everyone of how you don't back up your claims with any evidence whatsoever until you do either of those.

You continue to completely miss the mark.
If you even read what I posted, instead of making assumptions, I never said any "people" were unequal. The argument is over whether all "jobs" are equal or whether there is unequality of jobs.
All people are equal. But not all jobs are of equal value. Its the issue of whether all jobs have equal value that is being argued, not whether people are equal.

A black man and a white man are both equal and hence both have the same rights.

The job of soldier or even a politician is not equal to that of a carpenter or a mechanic but are, rather, of more value to the nation. Hence, not all jobs are equal. Heikoku was arguing the opposite, that all jobs were of equal value.

*sigh*

First, you complain that I making false asserions about what you said (a false assertion itself), and then make a false assertion about what Heikoku has said. All people are presumed to be of equal value.

Second, you made a claim about the Constitution that was wholly false. "The US constitutions says all RACES and EThnicities, and GENDERS, and AGES, and RELIGIOUS CREEDS, are equal." The Constitution does not limit the bounds of equal protection to races, ethnicities, genders, ages, or religious creeds.

Third, your rights do not depend on your occupation. All persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. A soldier, politician, carpetener, and mechanic are all entitled to the same constitutional rights.

But doesn't that mean "equal before the law?"

What "that" are you referring to?

*sigh*

First, you complain that I making false asserions about what you said (a false assertion itself), and then make a false assertion about what Heikoku has said. All people are presumed to be of equal value.

Second, you made a claim about the Constitution that was wholly false. "The US constitutions says all RACES and EThnicities, and GENDERS, and AGES, and RELIGIOUS CREEDS, are equal." The Constitution does not limit the bounds of equal protection to races, ethnicities, genders, ages, or religious creeds.

Third, your rights do not depend on your occupation. All persons are entitled to equal protection under the law. A soldier, politician, carpetener, and mechanic are all entitled to the same constitutional rights.
Surely you're not suggesting that protection from harrasment during funerals is some sort of "right?" :confused:

What "that" are you referring to?
What you quoted: "all men are created equal."

You continue to completely miss the mark.
If you even read what I posted, instead of making assumptions, I never said any "people" were unequal. The argument is over whether all "jobs" are equal or whether there is unequality of jobs.
All people are equal. But not all jobs are of equal value. Its the issue of whether all jobs have equal value that is being argued, not whether people are equal.

A black man and a white man are both equal and hence both have the same rights.

The job of soldier or even a politician is not equal to that of a carpenter or a mechanic but are, rather, of more value to the nation. Hence, not all jobs are equal. Heikoku was arguing the opposite, that all jobs were of equal value.

You don't get it. You are creating special protections for soldiers. It doesn't matter what you base the hierarchy on, you cannot create a hierarchy of people before the law. Imagine this law is protected CEOs or preachers or people on schoolboards or any such thing. You cannot create special protections for people. If some people should not be harrassed at funerals then none should. It's amusing that you would think such a thing is socialist. You appear to not understand what equality or socialism are.

Socialism is a system of producing and distibuting is owned collectively or by the government and that collect directly plans and controls the economy. It's about economic equality. This has nothing to do with it. Please before you use terms look them up so that we don't have to explain to you what they mean.

You don't get it. You are creating special protections for soldiers. It doesn't matter what you base the hierarchy on, you cannot create a hierarchy of people before the law. Imagine this law is protected CEOs or preachers or people on schoolboards or any such thing. You cannot create special protections for people. If some people should not be harrassed at funerals then none should. It's amusing that you would think such a thing is socialist. You appear to not understand what equality or socialism are.
Two words: affirmative action.

Two words: affirmative action.

Those are nice words. Care to make a point or are you just spamming?

EDIT: let me guess, you're going to claim affirmative action is something it isn't and then argue that it makes people unequal.

Surely you're not suggesting that protection from harrasment during funerals is some sort of "right?" :confused:

It may or not be, but it is or not for EVERYONE.

Two words: affirmative action.

I'm against it. And I'm pretty sure lots of Republicans that would vote FOR this one measure are as well (if for other reasons than mine). However, I'm at least coherent in my favoring equality under the law.

Two words: affirmative action.

:headbang:

Either you have no idea what those two words mean or your point is moot.

Affirmative action means equal rights and equal opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.

Or were you referring to affirmative action for veterans?

Those are nice words. Care to make a point?
I thought it did make the "point" quite well, thank you. There's no need to be snide. [ snideness deleted for clarity ]


It doesn't matter what you base the hierarchy on, you cannot create a hierarchy of people before the law. Imagine this law is protected CEOs or preachers or people on schoolboards or any such thing. You cannot create special protections for people. If some people should not be harrassed at funerals then none should. It's amusing that you would think such a thing is socialist. You appear to not understand what equality or socialism are.
Is not affirmative action creating a protection of sorts for one specific group?

Either you have no idea what those two words mean or your point is moot.

Affirmative action means equal rights and equal opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.

Or were you referring to affirmative action for veterans?
LOL! Why? Would "affirmative action for veterans" somehow be unjust while affirmative action for other groups would not be?

Socialism is a system of producing and distibuting is owned collectively or by the government and that collect directly plans and controls the economy. It's about economic equality. This has nothing to do with it. Please before you use terms look them up so that we don't have to explain to you what they mean.

You see, that won't happen. Whittier's world is the world of no-evidence, the world in which words mean what he WANTS them to mean. For that matter, where's that evidence of my posts "against America" again, Whittier? Oh, that's right, you have none. You lose...

Is not affirmative action creating a protection of sorts for one specific group?

No. It isn't.

Regardless, you are not helping yourself here. Are you arguing that some groups deserve special protection?

No. It isn't.

Regardless, you are not helping yourself here. Are you arguing that some groups deserve special protection?
No. Are you?

LOL! Why? Would "affirmative action for veterans" somehow be unjust while affirmative action for other groups would not be?

No.

Equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, etc., are just. Why are you implying otherwise?

No. It isn't.
Strange, I was under the apparently mistaken impression that affirmative action was designed to help certain groups deemed "underpriviledged" gain ground relative to other groups deemed "priviledged."

I thought it did make the "point" quite well, thank you. There's no need to be snide. [ snideness deleted for clarity ]



Is not affirmative action creating a protection of sorts for one specific group?

No, it removes one. You obviously don't understand the point.

This law gives a special right to veteran's, of which I am one, rather than giving it equally to all people or denying it equally to all people. Sorry, but there is no reason for a hierarchy of citizens of the US. Are you actually claiming that if there is a hierarchy created in the US that minorities are on top of that hierarchy because of affirmative action? Ridiculous.

No.

Equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, etc., are just. Why are you implying otherwise?
I wasn't "implying" anything, simply trying to make the point that special exemptions or exceptions are made for selected groups all the time. Yet no one yells, "unconstitutional" on here when anyone ( other than veterans ) are granted exemptions or exceptions, in this case for their funerals to be peaceful.

Strange, I was under the apparently mistaken impression that affirmative action was designed to help certain groups deemed "underpriviledged" gain ground relative to other groups deemed "priviledged."

You mean to create equality? You are creating an inequality where none exists. You're not actually claiming veterans are underpriveleged?

No, it removes one. You obviously don't understand the point.

This law gives a special right to veteran's, of which I am one, rather than giving it equally to all people or denying it equally to all people. Sorry, but there is no reason for a hierarchy of citizens of the US. Are you actually claiming that if there is a hierarchy created in the US that minorities are on top of that hierarchy because of affirmative action? Ridiculous.
You're the only one here making reference to any sort of "hierarchy." All I'm trying to show is that the point several on here are trying to make about equality before the law making it somehow unconstitutional to make exemptions or exceptions for selected groups is specious. It's done all the time for a wide variety of groups.

You mean to create equality? You are creating an inequality where none exists. You're not actually claiming veterans are underpriveleged?
LOL! Only on here.

No. Are you?

Of course not.

I specifically endorsed equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, etc.

We are back to you having no point.

You attempted to make some vague connection between affirmative action and protection of a special group. That comparison was facetious at best and borders on intellectual dishonesty.

I wasn't "implying" anything, simply trying to make the point that special exemptions or exceptions are made for selected groups all the time. Yet no one yells, "unconstitutional" on here when anyone ( other than veterans ) are granted exemptions or exceptions, in this case for their funerals to be peaceful.

LOTS of people are against affirmative action, Forrest. Myself included, because I believe that not only it doesn't withstand constitutional scrutiny here nor in the US, but also because it hurts the reputation of minority professionals later ("this black doctor was only accepted due to quota, let's visit that WASP doctor"-style discrimination). Most conservatives are against it because it benefits blacks. Regardless, your claim doesn't hold water.

Of course not.

I specifically endorsed equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, etc.

We are back to you having no point.

You attempted to make some vague connection between affirmative action and protection of a special group. That comparison was facetious at best and borders on intellectual dishonesty.
Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

Well, let's do this then: you pick a group of people who are easily identifiable by race, religion, ethnicity, region, age, sex, employment category under the FLSA, etc., and I'll check to see if they've been granted some exception or exemption where no one has screamed "unconstitutional." Affirmative action for selected groups was only one example.

I wasn't "implying" anything, simply trying to make the point that special exemptions or exceptions are made for selected groups all the time. Yet no one yells, "unconstitutional" on here when anyone ( other than veterans ) are granted exemptions or exceptions, in this case for their funerals to be peaceful.

You are acting under the false premise that affirmative action makes "special exemptions or exceptions ... for selected groups." It does no such thing. (You are also falsely assuming that everyone supports affirmative action. On these forums, there tends to be a great deal of hostility towards affirmative action.)

Affirmative action is wholly consistent with equal protection under the law and violates no constitutional rights. The same is not true for a law that seeks to restrict the freedom of speech of some on the grounds their message is anti-military.

BTW, it is interesting that you now seem to grant you are adocating for special treatment of military funerals. When I called you on that earlier you claimed it wasn't true.

Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

Well, let's do this then: you pick a group of people who are easily identifiable by race, religion, ethnicity, region, age, sex, employment category under the FLSA, etc., and I'll check to see if they've been granted some exception or exemption where no one has screamed "unconstitutional." Affirmative action for selected groups was only one example.

Since you're the one that's using that line of thought, Eut, you should be the one doing it. But only if you're working under the premise that two wrongs make a right, which you obviously aren't, right? riiiiight? :rolleyes:

You're the only one here making reference to any sort of "hierarchy." All I'm trying to show is that the point several on here are trying to make about equality before the law making it somehow unconstitutional to make exemptions or exceptions for selected groups is specious. It's done all the time for a wide variety of groups.

Uh-huh, you're avoiding making a point. You haven't shown how the law treats anyone as having special rights or priveleges. AT ALL. You simply weakly reference to a system you don't understand and act as if it makes your point for you.

This law you're supporting treats soldiers as if they deserve special protection under the law and violates the constitution. Affirmative action seeks to give minorities equal protection under the law.

BTW, it is interesting that you now seem to grant you are adocating for special treatment of military funerals. When I called you on that earlier you claimed it wasn't true.
No. I still favor making the law the same for anyone grieving for a lost relative, so that they don't have to put up with idiots "protesting." I just don't think that making a special case for soldiers' funerals would be even remotely "unconstitutional."

Oh, brother. :rolleyes:

Well, let's do this then: you pick a group of people who are easily identifiable by race, religion, ethnicity, region, age, sex, employment category under the FLSA, etc., and I'll check to see if they've been granted some exception or exemption where no one has screamed "unconstitutional." Affirmative action for selected groups was only one example.

Again, your premise is faulty. The FLSA applies equally whether you are white or black, male or female, etc.

But, pray tell, what special "exception or exemption" has been granted to blacks?

(I'm still trying to see how this helps you. Are you arguing that minorities should be entitled to special exceptions or exemptions and therefor that veterans should too? If not, you are contradicting yourself.)

Uh-huh, you're avoiding making a point. You haven't shown how the law treats anyone as having special rights or priveleges. AT ALL. You simply weakly reference to a system you don't understand and act as if it makes your point for you.

This law you're supporting treats soldiers as if they deserve special protection under the law and violates the constitution. Affirmative action seeks to give minorities equal protection under the law.
One ... more ... time: I don't support the law making the funerals of soldiers the ONLY funerals protected by law from "protesting" idiots. I favor the same protection for ALL funerals. Mmk? :rolleyes:

Actually


I think anybody protesting a funeral of a private citizen should be arrested for harassment as well.

Yea! In fact anyone who does anything that offends anyone should be arrested and imprisoned in an out of the way camp-like structure where we can concentrate these dangerous dissidents.

I'm sorry people (and by the way I am a US citizen) but these assholes have the right to do this. Course, you have the right to counter-protest right back, or loudly rev motorcycles next to them. Or any number of other things that don't require Gestapoesque tactics.

Free speech isn't just for the people that agree with you.

One ... more ... time: I don't support the law making the funerals of soldiers the ONLY funerals protected by law from "protesting" idiots. I favor the same protection for ALL funerals. Mmk? :rolleyes:

Then why are you so willing to settle for one that protects only soldiers? Wait, wait, wait... Oh, right, you were one. Whew. For a moment there I was worried that this might actually be for some logical, ethical reason.

Again, your premise is faulty. The FLSA applies equally whether you are white or black, male or female, etc.

But, pray tell, what special "exception or exemption" has been granted to blacks?

(I'm still trying to see how this helps you. Are you arguing that minorities should be entitled to special exceptions or exemptions and therefor that veterans should too? If not, you are contradicting yourself.)
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here for some reason.

Does not the FLSA ( perhaps that's the wrong law, it's been awhile since I had to bother about labor law ) stipulate that only employees in certain categories ( administrative, technical and managerial, as I recall ) can be paid on a salaried basis?

No. I still favor making the law the same for anyone grieving for a lost relative, so that they don't have to put up with idiots "protesting." I just don't think that making a special case for soldiers' funerals would be even remotely "unconstitutional."

There you go again equivocating. Do you or do you not support "making a special case for soldiers' funerals"?

(And, let us be clear, you can put content-neutral limitations on protests at all funerals, but you cannot ban protests at funerals altogether.)

Yea! In fact anyone who does anything that offends anyone should be arrested and imprisoned in an out of the way camp-like structure where we can concentrate these dangerous dissidents.

I'm sorry people (and by the way I am a US citizen) but these assholes have the right to do this. Course, you have the right to counter-protest right back, or loudly rev motorcycles next to them. Or any number of other things that don't require Gestapoesque tactics.

Free speech isn't just for the people that agree with you.
Harrasment has nothing to do with free speech.

There you go again equivocating. Do you or do you not support "making a special case for soldiers' funerals"?

(And, let us be clear, you can put content-neutral limitations on protests at all funerals, but you cannot ban protests at funerals altogether.)
Sigh. Why can you not just look back at one of the very first posts I made in this thread, or at least take my word for it that I favor restrictions ( primarily of distance and noise ) on protests at any funeral for anyone?

I do not favor "making a special case for soldiers' funerals" no.

Sigh. Why can you not just look back at one of the very first posts I made in this thread, or at least take my word for it that I favor restrictions ( primarily of distance and noise ) on protests at any funeral for anyone?

I do not favor "making a special case for soldiers' funerals" no.

Then stop arguing for such a special case. :headbang:

Then stop arguing for such a special case. :headbang:
LMAO! No! It's a vaild discussion, is it not? Why can I not take a postion on it?

One ... more ... time: I don't support the law making the funerals of soldiers the ONLY funerals protected by law from "protesting" idiots. I favor the same protection for ALL funerals. Mmk? :rolleyes:

But you said you support this law. If you support this law, what you just said is UNTRUE.

LMAO! No! It's a vaild discussion, is it not? Why can I not take a postion on it?

Because you're claiming you're not defending a position and, one post later, defending the position you claimed not to be defending. Either you lie about not defending it or you developed a multiple personality disorder.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here for some reason.

Does not the FLSA ( perhaps that's the wrong law, it's been awhile since I had to bother about labor law ) stipulate that only employees in certain categories ( administrative, technical and managerial, as I recall ) can be paid on a salaried basis?

1. You fail to answer my question.

2. You are now no longer talking about affirmative action laws.

3. What "special 'exception or exemption'" is created by minimum wage laws?

But you said you support this law. If you support this law, what you just said is UNTRUE.
Ever hear the saying "half a loaf is better than none?" :)

LMAO! No! It's a vaild discussion, is it not? Why can I not take a postion on it?

You are welcome to take a position on it.

But you keep arguing for one position and then -- whenever backed into a corner -- saying it isn't your position.

You can't validily take at the same a position for and against a special case for soldiers' funerals, but you keep trying.

1. You fail to answer my question.

2. You are now no longer talking about affirmative action laws.

3. What "special 'exception or exemption'" is created by minimum wage laws?
1. I don't think so.

2. I'm talking about cases where exemptions or exceptions are made for selected groups.

3. Under FLSA, as I indicated above, certain groups of people are granted exemption from the law because of the sort of work they do, yes???

Ever hear the saying "half a loaf is better than none?" :)

Yeah, but I like that saying "everybody is equal under the law" better. That's just me. By the way, in case you've put me on Ignore, know that I'll still point the holes in your logic.