http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040726/i/r4086761383.jpg

... LOL

Rofl!!!

Jesus! LOL The things politicians will do...LOL

Haha. What the hell?

I dunno, I'd put on a suit like that to go inside the space shuttle. That would be awesome!

Leads to a flashback of Dukakis riding around in that tank.

Riding around in a tank, is seriously over-rated...


back on topic .. wtf?

http://home.millsaps.edu/~mcelvrs/Dukakis_tank.jpg

Hmmm...

Space man is definately worse.....

So Kerry took a looksie into a space shuttle or what?

No, he came back down from the Planet of Politicians.

They came from space.. didn't you know?!

Thought they came from France?

Just the French ones, oddly enough.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040727/capt.sge.qhn56.270704071914.photo00.default-384x281.jpg


The more "intelligent" choice.
ROFL

<boggles> what exactly is the problem with those pics? He is visiting some space center and using the clothes they all use?

I mean you could find a ton of pic of bush looking like a moron too /shrug.

the sound of air going over kinu's head...

On the other hand, we have Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/bush.bike.ap/index.html) attempting to ride a bicycle. Says the President:

"This is like running except I don't feel bad afterward...You can cover a lot more, and you can go very fast on a bike."

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/bush.bike.ap/vert.bush.bike.ap.jpg



Sorry, doesn't look as funny.

Very lame attempt Thormir. You can do better.

Bush falls down going cross country on a mountain bike, while making his Secret Service detail sweat like a bitch trying to keep up. Kerry rides down the middle of a paved street on his $8k bicycle and falls down, and has the audacity to ask if Bush had his training wheels on. :rolleyes:

What kind of bike is it? That's one major endorsement/advertisement =)

Lol.. cmon he looks stupid. Bush has plenty of dorky moments too thats for sure.

He does look way stupid I m just saying using it as a political arguement to not vote for him is stupid too.

Thinking that you have to say that its a stupid reason not to vote for him is stupid too.

Obviously, no one needs pictures or sports comparisons to know Bush is much more a manly man than Kerry (no matter how many custom tailored jogging suits he buys). I did think it was funny in that article about Bush, when he pointed out the dangerous trail to everyone... and then fell down on it himself.

Like in college when I was dropping a friend off at his dorm on my motorbike and I was explaining to him why I thought I was safer on my motorbike than in my car. Pulled a wheely on the service road between the dorms as I was leaving and proceded to lay it down when I tried to stop and there was sand on the road. Luckily there happened to be about 100 people gathered around the basketball court who got to see the whole thing.

If CNN had a better picture, it'd be a better post. But ridiculing Kerry's intelligence when Bush can barely speak the English language is weak. I don't think Kerry has anything to prove when it comes to basic athleticism. The entire thread is pretty weak, really.

LoL. Got to love those priceless moments

Actually the funniest part of the thread is Thormir and Kinu who can't find a sense of humor.

Oh Christ...Dukakis...man that brings back memories. I was 8 at the time and -I- felt more intelligent then that guy.

'Actually the funniest part of the thread is Thormir and Kinu who can't find a sense of humor.'


- Or Akipt who's actually trying to make it political instead of it just being funny.

http://www.newyorkslime.com/bush-goofy2.jpgbecause we are fair and balanced...
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/gel7/images/goofy_strategery.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/omelette/captainn/bush_monkey.jpg

- Or Akipt who's actually trying to make it political instead of it just being funny.
LMAO

Lighten up. Who hasn't used training wheels? :p

Oh noz..... George Bush looks like LLs boyfriend! How embarassing.

Ok, how many times has that very same picture been posted on these boards? If one takes a slo-mo cam at anyone speaking, you're going to get some funny pictures, so this isn't anything special.

Luckily if Kerry's elected, there won't be any more chimp comparisons to be made. He's far too lifeless and drab to make such emotive faces. Kinda like a wooden totem pole... with fake porcelain teeth (and three purple hearts for shooting at little kids).

Did you just attack Kerry's patriotism?

Yep. His wife might tell me to "shove it", right before she outsources my job to India, huh?

haha, something about that last line really struck the funny bone

Yep. His wife might tell me to "shove it", right before she outsources my job to India, huh?
Awesome, L:) L .

But then after your job is gone she'll tell ya to stop putting words in her mouth.

Oh noz..... George Bush looks like LLs boyfriend!

Gay jokes? umm wow.

Oops sorry... your girlfriend I meant. I think I got you confused with that bowler guy.

Just to balance things out a little bit (----->all in good fun<-----):

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_botox.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~lightloch/Kerry.jpg

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_tank.jpg

http://img24.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Tomguy/Freep/FlushJohns.jpg

http://www.usvetdsp.com/ban_stp_hanoi_john2.jpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Please, don't be a weenie and take away my rep points for posting these.

kerry in the tank, pure golden

those are great, Cados :)

Hahaha, oh my god that Kerry in the tank thing is funny as hell! :)

I'm heading up towards Racine tommarow...I'll have to take a look. 8/

I can't tell, but it looks like a beer can or something in front of the display. By the time you pass it, it'll probably be vandalized or something worse, lol.

(Psst, Sweet Home Alabama!)

right before she outsources my job to India, huh? Would probably have been funnier if she had anything at all to do with the Heinz Company.
She is not in any form or fashion involved in any way with running the company, who.. btw is a MAJOR donor to republican causes. Her involvement is 4% shareholder.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040421-104424-5131r.htm

Its Web site prominently includes a feature titled "Heinz Confirms Its Widely Held Public Ownership and Its Non-Partisan Status." The text begins: "In light of some misleading speculation, the H.J. Heinz Company would like to make clear that neither Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry, Senator John Kerry nor any member of their family is involved in the management or board of the H.J. Heinz Company."

In case that wasn't clear enough, company executives have been telling reporters a few other facts. For one, its political action committee has contributed $5,000 each to President Bush's reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee (since Kerry doesn't accept PAC donations). And of the roughly $150,000 the PAC has contributed since 1998, two-thirds has gone to Republicans.
Keep telling lies, the truth always comes out.

Hmmm the Dolt you know,or the Dolt you don't. We will see democracy at it's finest soon enough.

So defensive.

Whoever called me a jackass (which is definitely not my party's emblem) and left me a negative rep. point without signing, kudos to ya.. lol. :mad: :p

P.S. No, I don't leave comment-less neg. reps ever since the rule was implemented so stop blaming me for comment-less ones. Those get removed anyway.

It doesn't matter. The outsourcing issue is just a way for the democrats to scare ignorant people into voting for them. I was so happy to see Kerry and Edwards using it so liberally. It confirms my feelings about them.

I came across this and just had to post it:


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/TNS_Dustjacket.jpg (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/TNS_Dustjacket.jpg)

Cover of Kerry's book with upside down flag and mockery of Iwojima.



You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.

That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.


Kerry's acceptance speech.

Voted against a constitutional amendment on flag desecration.

http://www.adaction.org/KerryEdwardsVR.htm
Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy according to the ADA. Nice accomplishment.

Have you looked at any of the anti-flag desecration amendments?

Sorry, but taking away the right (and it is a right) to use the Symbol of this country in a form a protest is exactly what that symbol stands against. Saying that someone can't burn The Flag in protest is like saying a person can't vote against the incumbent. And the worst part is if a flag desecration amendment will ABSOLUTELY increase the occurance of it happening.

Just because I disagree with the actions of someone doesn't mean there should be law against them doing it. Flag Desecration is insulting, but I'd never want to live in a United States where doing so is against the Constitution.

Check out = http://thomas.loc.gov/ (awesome site)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:14:./temp/~c108vRHZGn::

Really doesn't seem unreasonable. However, it doesn't define the line between 'political verse' and intent to 'incite to action' which is a huge problem for me and probably a lot of other people.

Look....

You want to burn the flag that stands for all that give you the right to burn the selfsame flag??

You need to get out.....

I catch ya doing it? I'll stomp a mudhole in yer ass and then proceed to stomp it dry. I didn't miss the first 8 months of my son's life serving this country, protecting it , and loving it to watch some pissant child who's never done a damn thing for this county piss on it.

You can't understand this merely due to the fact you can't see past the silver spoon shoved firmly up yer ass.....

The one thing I can respect about Kerry is, at least he served. Aye he fucked that up when he threw someone elses medals on the Lawn, but still he served.

You, lil one , haven't a fucking clue.

Serve, shut it, or fuck off......

But by gods respect the flag me and mine bled for.

Fandros

You cant legislate respect.

when some jackass burns the flag, he is making such a statement of the ironic that any point he is trying to make is lost in his own stupidity. The whole point of America is that this the land where you can protest, where you can be heard.
To paraphrase Chris Rock
"I get patriotic every time I see someone burning a flag, it lets me know Im in the right place. You GOTTA be doing something right if some people hate you enough to burn your flag. Its like sports, who HATES the Montreal Expos? nobody, But how many people HATE the New York Yankees?"

And remember this, we need to add an amendment to the Constitution to stop this, under the original work of the founding fathers, its inherantly legal. Sure its the outer bounds and on the frindges, but its the frindges that let the center live free lives.

If a few hundred years from now, people are looking back and making a timeline about how america lost its freedom or lost its way, it wont be
"On Aug 2004, some dipshit burned a flag"
It will be
"In 2004, the congress for the first time amended the Constitution to limit free speech for the first time in US history, this created a precedent, and slowly and in small increments, the right was eroded until it reached a point where nobody could say anything against it"

Freedom of Speech, impressive thought eh?

Try saying this is a Hijack on an airline, or better yet I dare ya to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

There are freedoms and then there are freedoms. This one crosses the line into an area where the individual burning deserves the ire of the person, such as I, watching.

You burn the flag infront of me? I'm putting you down and putting you down hard, that's my freedom of expression. I'll gladly pay the 250 bucks that gets me bailed out.

It's more than a damn piece of fabric to me, it's more than red, white and blue, it's the world to me.

More need to step up and let those that would tred on us and our way of lives.

Again, there's Freedom of Speech and then there's freedom of speech.

The latter gets you 2 weeks with a wired jaw and sipping apple sauce. Too many in my family tree have been buried, too much of my own time invested and far too many in the future will give inorder for some pissant prick with the intelligence and the honor of a rock to burn my pride.

Fandros

To paraphrase Chris Rock
"I get patriotic every time I see someone burning a flag, it lets me know Im in the right place. You GOTTA be doing something right if some people hate you enough to burn your flag.


Right on. We're right on track in the middle east then. Chris Rock is a political genius.

Kerry used that cover on his book and has conspired to keep Americans from having access to it. Try to find other references to it on the web. He's had lawyers systematically attacking anyone who dares show the pictures in the book. It goes along witht he theme of his life. Say anything, do anything, whatever is popular at the moment, we can deny it and explain it away later. They didn't have flags flying from their swiftboats in battle by the way. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

I'll bail you out Fandros. LL, not having the right to burn or desecrate the flag is not going to trigger a massive erosion in civil rights. What the heck though, you have liberal protest groups that get away scott free with what is technically terrorism all the time.

I'm going to assume you were drunk when you posted those personal attacks, Fandros, so I'll ignore them.

NO WHERE in what I posted did I say I participate Flag Burning, infact I think I mentioned that it was insulting to me. You absolutely will not see me standing on the steps of the Capitol building with a charred flag.

But one of the things that makes this Country so fucking great is that people have the freedom to disagree with the government. This isn't some dictator-led hellhole that gets you imprisoned for political activism. If someone feels strongly enough about an issue that they'd go far enough to burn or desecrate in any way the symbol of freedom for the country in which they live (the legislation can't control foreign desecration in anyway) - there MUST be a good reason for it.


The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of defending the right to use the flag as a tool to protest.
http://www.oyez.com/oyez/resource/case/379/
(this site is really good for giving you a quick overview of landmark cases)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/491/397.html
(this site will give you -everything- about the case - long read)
if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

The thing is that you're not prohibiting the expression of an idea by prohibiting flag burning. Hate crimes legislation prohibits the expression of ideas. If you feel so strongly about the preservation of our freedoms, why don't you attack hate crimes legislation instead.

It would be freedom of expression to go to a school and take my pants down and dance around yelling fuck off teachers. It's a crime though. Should it not be?

Because the difference between hate crimes and flag burning is often the ideology behind it.

When you commit a hate crime, the goal is to hurt a specific person or group of people.

When you burn a flag, the goal is to demonstrate your dislike of whatever - not to hurt other people.

Your example is ludicrous, you're exposing yourself to children - completely different than burning a flag because the government is oppressive (in your eyes)

Try to find other references to it on the web.

Or...for a more recent example...try to find video of the celeb fundraiser for Kerry with the infamous Whoopie blunder.

They're hiding it under wraps because it shows Kerry laughing and nodding(written reports from journalists there, NY Post for one, confirm this), making it sorta hard for him to stick to his "respectful" campaign line.

The thing is that you're not prohibiting the expression of an idea by prohibiting flag burning. Hate crimes legislation prohibits the expression of ideas. If you feel so strongly about the preservation of our freedoms, why don't you attack hate crimes legislation instead.

That's an extremely invalid analogy. If you really want to run with that, then all laws are wrong, because hey, criminals are just 'expressing themselves.' The difference between a hate crime and flag burning is this: in a hate crime, someone gets hurt or killed. When someone burns a flag... someone burns a flag. That's it. Sure, it might hurt someone's feelings, but there are millions of ways to hurt someone's feelings; should those be outlawed as well?

Take away that freedom by adding such an amendment, and you have desanctified a document infitely more important and symbolic than this country's flag. This country was founded on free speech and rebellion, or have you forgotten?

Freedom of speech is a simple right to understand. It ends for you when you encroach on anothers rights.
So the example of the kid creating a disturbance in a school, or a person on an airplane are invalid because they infringe on anothers rights. And additionally they occur in a place where people cannot leave to avoid it. A third reason is that they are both not in the control of the protester and are regulated by rules which such displays may be against set rules.

The hate crime analogy is even worse and more obvious. The KKK can march downtown if they choose. This is not illegal. They are not infringing on anyones rights. The KKK CANNOT burn a cross on someones lawn. This is a hate crime. It is an action on another person. The core element of 99% of crimes are that they have an effect on another person.
So lets make burning the flag illegal. Because its we dont like it. And lets then ban the KKK from marching and organizing. Because we dont like that either.
How can you POSSIBLY argue in favor of the KKK? And we have the precedent from the Flag Amendment.
The "spirit" of a amendment says that the government has the innate right to make illegal any type of speech that "the people" find offensive and unamerican. Slam Dunk!
Ok, so lets ban the American Nazi Party while we are it.
And the Black Panthers now...
dont forget The Nation of Islam.
Shit, we almost forgot to ban the American Communist Party. lets get them.

Anything that makes us uncomfortable.. BAN! Make it illegal. We will fix this country and make people happy through legislation. The government will make it alllllllll better.
Arent there any REAL republicans anymore?

So the example of the kid creating a disturbance in a school, or a person on an airplane are invalid because they infringe on anothers rights.


In what way does it infringe on another's rights?


So lets make burning the flag illegal. Because its we dont like it. And lets then ban the KKK from marching and organizing. Because we dont like that either.


I'm all for both.

The issue of flag burning is that you're making a statement that can be made in many other ways. It's not limiting free speech, its making illegal the desecration of the symbol of free speech. I'm totally sympathetic with that feelings of people who believe that free speech should include flag burning. I just disagree.

However... if you're a presidential candidate and you want to try to talk about "Old Glory" and your supreme love and blah blah blah in it, it seems pretty disingenuous to put an upside down flag and mockery of Iwojima on the cover of your book. I actually have never strongly supported a ban on flag burning although if I knew of someone doing it I'd immediately place them in my second class citizen list.

Hate crime legislation is the same in that it penalizes people for their ideas and feelings. You take a crime that is a crime in the first place, then apply a cultural bias against the person based on your perception of their motivation and your dislike of that motivation. It's not a perfect analogy but it's also not that far off. If you burn something in the middle of the street it's a crime... so why not say that if you commit the crime of public endangerment by burning something in the middle of the street and it happens to be an American Flag, then you get an added penalty.

So the example of the kid creating a disturbance in a school, or a person on an airplane are invalid because they infringe on anothers rights.
_______________________________________
In what way does it infringe on another's rights?


You're infringing on the other peoples' right to an education in the first part and the right to safety in the second because the natural reaction to the danger of a hijack is hysteria.

Anything that makes us uncomfortable.. BAN! Make it illegal.
Like firearms?

Riiiiiiight.

its making illegal the desecration of the symbol of free speech.
We call that "Irony"

You're infringing on the other peoples' right to an education in the first part and the right to safety in the second because the natural reaction to the danger of a hijack is hysteria.
Huh? How can those kids take away my freedom to dance around naked and yell profanity? Maybe I'm protesting and that's how I express myself.

We call that "Irony"
Yes it's irony to burn the symbol of your freedom of speech. There are plenty of ways to make the same statement without burning the flag of your country. A ban on flagburning is not impinging on freedom of speech its a protection of the symbol of that freedom.

Huh? How can those kids take away my freedom to dance around naked and yell profanity? Maybe I'm protesting and that's how I express myself.
Wrong.
You interfere with the teachers ability to teach by creating an atmosphere where you become a distraction and a hinderance. Additionally, you are not in a place where people have the ability to choose not to be, you are in a place of business AND in a place where people are mandated by law to be.

Thomas Jefferson, 1786
Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

James Madison, 1798
The Sedition Act was unconstitutional. ... The First Amendment was intended to supersede the common-law on speech and press. Freedom guaranteed by the amendment was absolute as far as the federal government was concerned because it could not be abridged by any United States Authority.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

Calvin Coolidge, 1925
It is the ferment of ideas, the clash of disagreeing judgments, the privilege of the individual to develop his own thought and shape his own character which makes progress possible.

Harry S Truman, 1950
There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.

John F. Kennedy, 1962
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is afraid of its people.

Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966
Opinion and protest are the life breath of democracy - even when it blows heavy.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1919
While the experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
...but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free [279 U.S. 644, 655] thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.



"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." -Charles Bradlaugh

"I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson

Now.. explain to me again why you being 'bothered' (because, really, thats all it is.. it bugs you) by someone burning a flag outweighs all of that..

Thomas Jefferson, 1786
James Madison, 1798
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Calvin Coolidge, 1925
John F. Kennedy, 1962
Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1919

Now.. explain to me again why you being 'bothered' (because, really, thats all it is.. it bugs you) by someone burning a flag outweighs all of that..

Because each one of those people, upon seeing a degenerate burning the red white and blue to make a "protest", would have found the nearest sword or pistol and killed the mother fucker.

ROFL.

Next week, on Patriots Gone Mental.

Because each one of those people, upon seeing a degenerate burning the red white and blue to make a "protest", would have found the nearest sword or pistol and killed the mother fucker.

You should read up on the "Alien and Sedition Acts".
Your knowledge of American history is shameful.

The burning of the Flag, wether you like it or not, is a political statement. It has ABSOLUTE protection under the law. It is more than the letter of the law, it is the spirit, it is the core and it is the heart.

And MAYBE one of those people would have gone after someone defacing a flag.... (I doubt it, as I feel most men of that time would have considered it idolotry) but they would not have EVER tried to get the government to do it for them. As such they wouldnt try to get the government to stop people from desicrating a church or a crucfix. Or should that be illegal as well?
The flag isnt the important thing... what is a flag? clothe and dye. The flag represents something you cannot burn. It represents an idea, and a concept that you maim and possibly destroy if you abridge anothers POLITICAL speech because you find it offensive.
There is nothing more core, more sacred and more protected than that right. To advocate its limitation and the use of government to control it is to piss on concept of America.
Yet people advocate the erosion of free speech in the name of patriotism. The REAL danger is people who think like that.
They pervert patriotism in the same way these muslim facists pervert Islam. They are ideological brethern.

It is equally well settled that certain methods of expression may be prohibited if (a) the prohibition is supported by a legitimate societal interest that is unrelated to suppression of the ideas the speaker desires to express; (b) the prohibition does not entail any interference with the speaker's freedom to express those ideas by other means; and (c) the interest in allowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting the prohibition.
Fortunately things in the real world aren't so black and white as LL's.

Fortunately things in the real world aren't so black and white as LL's. First of all... whats your source for that? Oh, nm, you dont have to tell me that, because I know what it is. It was the dissenting, or MINORITY opinion (re: losing side) of US v. Eichman.

The majority (re:winning) side said
If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. The judgments are Affirmed. It is black and white, it has been affirmed by the supreme court. Therefore a FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE CREATED TO MAKE FLAG BURNING ILLEGAL.

And make no mistake about how the Supreme Court works. These men and women are VERY VERY careful about the messages that come out from there. Everything has meaning and is coordinated. They work together in way that most pepple do not realize to weave a fabric of law and understanding about the Constitution. This is why the Chief Justice included this section in the majority opinion
The idea that there is no right in American society that is pure and unlimited is an established concept in American jurisprudence. The rights of the individual are always being weighed against the interests of the society as a whole as represented by the Government. The limits of free speech was the focus of the dissenting opinion of the court in this case."

I have to agree with you LL on the surface. However Law is a restriction of freedom, and a protection of freedom. Dancing around naked yelling obscenities is free speech just as much as burning a flag, and we deem it illegal. In my opinion, flag burning falls under the same category. For all the people that sacrificed to keep that flag waving, seeing a misguided punk burn it is a bitter pill. You have defended your view well, but I still disagree. Maybe I'll change my mind on my 3 day hiking vacation.... BYE.

Actually the principle comes from Texas v. Johnson (majority opinion since that seems to matter to you) and a long line of Supreme Court free speech jurisprudence cited therein. Though as you point out (perhaps mistakenly so), Judge Stevens does a nice summary of it in U.S. v. Eichman.

If you'd actually read more than one free speech case you will realize that the principle I cite (the fact that the government can restrict speech and the different standards to judge such restriction) is valid.

Judge Stevens and others simply disagreed with the application of the standard; no one disagreed as to what the standard was.

Oh, and also...

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE CREATED TO MAKE FLAG BURNING ILLEGAL.
Wrong. At the time of the Eichman decision it would have only taken 2 more votes.

Since the Supreme Court has shown that stare decisis no longer means anything, you will might very well see Eichmann overruled (just look at Bowers v. Hardwick).

Wrong. At the time of the Eichman decision it would have only taken 2 more votes Would have, could have, DIDNT...
The court affirmed the legality of the action in the most plain and simple terms.
You dont get to go back to Supreme Court with the same issue. There are no "rubber matches" or best 2 out of 3's. The court spoke, and NO MATTER WHAT the make up of the Supreme Court, any law passed by congress banning Flag Burning would be immediatly struck down as illegal by a lower court acting on the prior ruling of the Court. For the case to pass up through the ranks it would have to have a significant appealable facet. The nature of the Supreme Court is that its rulings are permanent and eternal.
As a matter of principle, respect and tradition, and quite honestly, stability of our nation, the Court NEVER rehears a case because the ideological make up of the judges changes. 5-4, 7-2, 9-0. It is now LAW, it is how our Constitution has been defined for ALL TIME.
I think you should go read up on how our Supreme Judicial body works.

Maybe then youll understand why the Lacy Peterson law was voted down. Because it wasnt a bill to protect preganent women, it was a bill capitalizing on the death of the woman to gain public support and to attempt to create a situation where the bill could possibly allow anti abortion forces another bite at the apple by heading back to the Supreme Court though the back door, in a blatent subversion of the system.

though the back door, in a blatent subversion of the system.
When conservatives get legislation passed through Congress, it's a "blatent subversion of the system" but when liberals want to rewrite the Constitution or make up new laws, it becomes "a living, breathing document."

LOL

Thanks L2, I needed that laugh this morning.

The nature of the Supreme Court is that its rulings are permanent and eternal.Bowers v. Hardwick....ever heard of it?

and

Lacy Peterson law was voted downRead the news much?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115825,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115825,00.html)

When conservatives get legislation passed through Congress, it's a "blatent subversion of the system" but when liberals want to rewrite the Constitution or make up new laws, it becomes "a living, breathing document."

any comparitive examples?

Bowers v. Hardwick
Good point, but the massively rare exception to the rule, and one ONLY possible because the original case made use of an incorrect factual basis (http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history02.htm) for the decision.

Law cannot be based on misinformation.

And fuck about that bill... thought for sure it was toast.

massive protests in 5..4...3...2...

"Im a uniter, not a divider" GWB
All hail the religious right, masters of the GOP

http://forums.ayonae.ro/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif Spaceman Kerry (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?p=67406#post67406) 08-11-2004 12:28 PM Tibbert (http://forums.ayonae.ro/member.php?u=33) enough with the monkey pictures we have seen 1000 times. damn your a commie idiot
LOL.. tooo funny

http://ch.indymedia.org/images/2003/01/3711.jpg