• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-First Amendment Senator Feinstein shoo-in for reelection

Art Vandelay

Illuminator
A
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
4,787
Two days from now, California will almost certainly reelect Diane Feinstein to the senate, despite the fact that she has said that it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government. Apparently fascism is okay, as long as it's the Democratic Party that's supporting it.
 
If you're going to accuse her of saying:

that it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government.
Click to expand...

you should provide an in-context link so people know you're talking about something real.
 
What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim? Or even have any passing relevance to your claim?

Are we dealing with one of those parallel universe situations here?
 
As fishbob noted, your links don't support your assertion. More specifically, please provide evidence that Feinstein believes that, "the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government."
 
fishbob said:
What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim? Or even have any passing relevance to your claim?

Are we dealing with one of those parallel universe situations here?
Click to expand...
'fraid I have to agree with this. I have no idea what she is supposed to have to do with Larry whatsisname from Idaho or how her point of view (which I don't agree with but is well thought out and refers to only one item) on flag desecration guts the 1st Amendment (one of my personal favorites!):)
 
fishbob said:
What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim? Or even have any passing relevance to your claim?

Are we dealing with one of those parallel universe situations here?
Click to expand...

No, it means you are dealing with a Libertarian Party Loony. Art was a rabid supporter of Michael Badnarik in 2004. That explains it all.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Two days from now, California will almost certainly reelect Diane Feinstein to the senate, despite the fact that she has said that it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government. Apparently fascism is okay, as long as it's the Democratic Party that's supporting it.
Click to expand...
From the op-ed by Feinstein that you cited.
Diane Feinstein said:
Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First Amendment. I strongly disagree.
There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe.
Click to expand...
The amendment is to give Congress the right to set the rules for the flag. I oppose it, but it is far down my list of important things to worry about. In fact the whole purpose of the bill is to give Congresspeople a chance to wave the flag without actually doing anything significant.

Maybe you should focus your anger on education issues, Art, since school has obviously failed you as far as reading comprehension goes.
 
Tricky said:
Maybe you should focus your anger on education issues, Art, since school has obviously failed you as far as reading comprehension goes.
Click to expand...
How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?

The Central Scrutinizer said:
No, it means you are dealing with a Libertarian Party Loony. Art was a rabid supporter of Michael Badnarik in 2004. That explains it all.
Click to expand...
You're a lying piece of *****.

fuelair said:
'fraid I have to agree with this. I have no idea what she is supposed to have to do with Larry whatsisname from Idaho or how her point of view (which I don't agree with but is well thought out and refers to only one item) on flag desecration guts the 1st Amendment (one of my personal favorites!):)
Click to expand...
She voted for a resolution approving of government-led recitation of the pledge. The core of the First Amendment is that people should not be jailed based on their political views. Feinstein disagrees with that premise, saying that those that show disrespect for the flag and those who express their opposition to the government through flag desecration should be put in jail.

And her position is not "well thought out". Flag "desecration" involves a lot more than just burning the flag. Back before the Supreme Court started to grow a spine, they allowed Jehovah Witnesses to be jailed for refusing to say the Pledge. I guess Feinstein is okay with having people say the Pledge at gunpoint, as long as they are allowed to complain about it on their blog? That's not gutting the First Amendment? Bullsh*t. The idea that it is consistent with the First Amendment to cut away braod swaths of political expression, as long as some forms remain, is absurd.

fishbob said:
What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim?
Click to expand...
What does it mean when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that has been presented?
 
Tricky said:
From the op-ed by Feinstein that you cited.

The amendment is to give Congress the right to set the rules for the flag. I oppose it, but it is far down my list of important things to worry about. In fact the whole purpose of the bill is to give Congresspeople a chance to wave the flag without actually doing anything significant.
Click to expand...

Like pr0n, the battle must be fought on the "insignificant" areas so that it cannot encorach on the significant ones.

If you give in on this, tomorrow it'll be something else, something closer to significance.

And if you don't want to think of it as significant, imagine this: This ammendment is approved. Congress outlaws flag burning. Immediately someone will deliberately violate that law and demand to be put in jail.

Then what?

Then the United States has a true political prisoner. Someone is in jail for expressing a political viewpoint. This is not a proud thing, nor something trivial.

I remember a few years back when England gave up on the principle of a prisoner keeping silent "cannot be used against you in a court of law". Wonderful.

It's OK for politicians to blowhard about things, then let the Supreme Court strike down their stupid laws. But that only works as long as the Constitution doesn't get modified.
 
All such legislation is purely political in nature. It's complete BS.
 
Supporting a ban on flag burning and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance are stupid and unjust positions to hold, but they're the pandery sort of position that most politicians will express at some point, so it's wrong to single her out in particular.
 
Art Vandelay said:
How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?
Click to expand...
Well ya know, I did actually. In fact, the main part of my post was showing where you had misread or misinterpreted the op-ed piece by Feinstein. Then I expressed my own opinion.

The insult, mild in comparison to the one you gave Scrut, was internally referential to my post, indicating that you apparently didn't read your own links very carefully.

You didn't read my post very carefully either since you missed everything but the insult, so I think my comment on your comprehension skills is validated. QED.

You really should be careful, what with all the rabies scares recently. Atticus Finch may have his eye on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom