Can't We Just Shoot Them?

[seer]

LOL, how appropriate...

[Jedidiah]

I haven't been following the thread much, but it SEEMS he's pretty much alone in his assessments.

None existence seems to me to have seriously hampered his ability to relate to honesty. He used to at least seem to be a better man.

[Jedidiah]

Liberals like to act like their opinions are widely held and enforce this idea vigorously lest someone realize only about 20% of the population is actually liberal.

The problem is that around 50% of USA citizens seem to be unable to see anything but what they find in the liberal controlled media. That is why the USA is spiraling down the toilet so fast.

[Cow Poke]

"We" is accurate, and it has no inherent or implied scale.

Whatever you say.

[Juvenal]

If they hadn't attacked the flag and pride in our country, then nobody would be ticked off at them. Therefore they started it and caused the problem in the first place. To try to blame the people defending the flag and country as the cause is wrong.

I remember a time when even illegals WANTED to be American and that is why they came here. Nowadays, they come here from whatever crap-hole they are escaping, and then bitch about the USA. If they can't be proud of where they live, they should just go somewhere else and not act like pride in our country is hurting their wittle feewings.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment was never intended to protect popular speech, and more directly, was never intended to protect popular speech in support of the country. That kind of speech never has needed and never will need protection.

Now there are ways to answer these kids ... they have what I'd call a "little bit of knowledge." They understand that nationalism can lead to some unpleasant things, but don't understand that without it, we wouldn't have the secure borders necessary to complain about its excesses. That's the lesson they need to learn.

But we don't get to teach them that lesson now, because a bunch of nitwits have instead decided they'd rather teach them a bit more about the excesses of nationalism.

Well done.

[jordanriver]

people who violate another's free speech should be prosecuted and punished.

...now,
....that being said, if you say something that you know is going to be TOO unpopular, don't be surprised when you get a butt whuppin ...., be willing to take your whipping if you believe what you have to say is that important.

....otherwise, take my dear dad's advice: "watch your &**%$# mouth"

[Jedidiah]

The problem with this analysis is that it is those trying to ban the display of the flag who are suppressing free speech, not those objecting to the ban.

[Juvenal]

The problem with this analysis is that it is those trying to ban the display of the flag who are suppressing free speech, not those objecting to the ban.

That's a false dichotomy. Both parties have free speech rights.

More directly, this argument neglects the fact there are any number of flags on campus, and this proposed action involved only the flag on display at their meeting place, where only the freedom of their speech would be under question. No one has a right under free speech grounds to put their words in someone else's mouth.

[Darth Executor]

I don't much care for folks disrespecting the flag, either. But neither will you catch me supporting violent suppression of their free speech in response. That's lunacy. And blaming folks for doing so isn't just right; isn't just justified; it's real patriotism — the patriotism that goes beyond support for our flag to support for the ideals of our country as a whole as codified in our Bill of Rights, starting with the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment was never intended to protect popular speech, and more directly, was never intended to protect popular speech in support of the country. That kind of speech never has needed and never will need protection.

Now there are ways to answer these kids ... they have what I'd call a "little bit of knowledge." They understand that nationalism can lead to some unpleasant things, but don't understand that without it, we wouldn't have the secure borders necessary to complain about its excesses. That's the lesson they need to learn.

But we don't get to teach them that lesson now, because a bunch of nitwits have instead decided they'd rather teach them a bit more about the excesses of nationalism.

Well done.

How delusional can you get:

The bill, R50-70, was authored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, and accuses all flags, especially, the American flag, of being “symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism.”

“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,” the bill reads.

The legislation argues that flags may be interpreted differently; the American flag, for example, can represent “American exceptionalism and superiority,” as well as oppression.

“[T]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the bill continues, arguing that “symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.”

The anti-flag hanging bill adds that free speech, such as flags in inclusive spaces, can be interpreted as hate speech.

“[F]reedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible[,] can be interpreted as hate speech,” the bill reads.

“Let it be resolved that ASUCI make every effort to make the Associated Students main lobby space as inclusive as possible.”

“Let it further be resolved that no flag, of any nation, may be hanged on the walls of the Associate Student main lobby space.”

These people reject your claim that you need secure borders to complain about its excesses (let's ignore for now that you don't actually believe in secure borders since you think every Mexican invader should be rubber stamped in). The separation you think is necessary forms the basis of their rejection. National borders are by definition exclusive which is antithetical to their desire inclusive prime directive.

[Cow Poke]

people who violate another's free speech should be prosecuted and punished.

I think this post should be deleted and the poster tortured.

[JonathanL]

I think this post should be deleted and the poster tortured.

Why would you want your own post to be deleted?

[rogue06]

I think this post should be deleted and the poster tortured.

The post that you cite and your own?

[Cow Poke]

The post that you cite and your own?

EGGzackly!

[Jedidiah]

That's a false dichotomy. Both parties have free speech rights.

More directly, this argument neglects the fact there are any number of flags on campus, and this proposed action involved only the flag on display at their meeting place, where only the freedom of their speech would be under question. No one has a right under free speech grounds to put their words in someone else's mouth.

Banning something is in no way an exorcize in free speech. They certainly have a right to speak up, but if a ban is put in place it would amount, not to a success for free speech, but a success for shutting down free speech - this of course assumes that there are those who wish to retain the flag. There is no requirement to have a flag there, but over shouting those who want it is not free speech, it is suppressing free speech. This argument is pointless unless there are those who wish to keep the flag.