Flag Burning

[Dr Grump]

If someone is in your mom's face calling her a c*&@sucking slut, would you stand there and let him do it because he is bigger than you and can kick your ass or are you going to do whatever you can to stop him?

Two completely difference scenarios...

 

[CSM]

Sorry, but you are wrong again. The Constitution isn't law. It is a blueprint for our government. It is simply a set of guidelines that the goverment should follow. The Amendments aren't laws either. The are a list of rights and amended guidelines that are attached to the Constitution. Laws can be repealed, the Constitution can't. It can only be amended. A high school civics class should have covered this with you.

Say what???

 

[CSM]

Sorry, but you are wrong again. The Constitution isn't law. It is a blueprint for our government. It is simply a set of guidelines that the goverment should follow. The Amendments aren't laws either. The are a list of rights and amended guidelines that are attached to the Constitution. Laws can be repealed, the Constitution can't. It can only be amended. A high school civics class should have covered this with you.

Article VI, para. II:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If you are going to make statements regarding the Constitution, you really should read the thing!

 

[GotZoom]

Two completely difference scenarios...

Not to those who feel the American Flag is as sacred as the feeling they have towards their families or loved ones.

 

[Nuc]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by subversive speech. If you mean speeches about a plan to overthrow the government, then yes that's treasonous (although in some cases, it's not necessarily a bad thing; see the american revolution, texas war for independence, and war for southern independence). On the other hand, there are some around here who consider statements like "Bush should be impeached" or "Bring our troops home, now" to be subversive speech.

The "war for southern independence" was not necessarily a bad thing? A bunch of hillbillies who wanted to own and fuck slaves is not a bad thing? :chains: :nine:

 

[CSM]

The "war for southern independence" was not necessarily a bad thing? A bunch of hillbillies who wanted to own and fuck slaves is not a bad thing? :chains: :nine:

Way too simple an explanation for the reasons this country was torn apart by a civil war. I understand that you are trying to be inflammatory, though.

 

[Nuc]

Way too simple an explanation for the reasons this country was torn apart by a civil war. I understand that you are trying to be inflammatory, though.

As time marches on I think they should have let the South secede and remain independent. Then at least we wouldn't have this pathetic parade of southerners occupying the Oval Office. It seems that only Southerners can get elected and usually they're the only ones who get their parties nomination.

 

[007]

As time marches on I think they should have let the South secede and remain independent. Then at least we wouldn't have this pathetic parade of southerners occupying the Oval Office. It seems that only Southerners can get elected and usually they're the only ones who get their parties nomination.

"Pathetic parade of southerners"... hmmm... you're taking a chance making a statement like that aren't you? There are "southerners" here on the board.

But if you must, yeah, and Jimmy Carter is leading the parade.

 

[GotZoom]

"Pathetic parade of southerners"... hmmm... you're taking a chance making a statement like that aren't you? There are "southerners" here on the board.

But if you must, yeah, and Jimmy Carter is leading the parade.

I was actually amused by his statement. The south is considered the Bible Belt.

I guess he has a problem with Presidents who believe in God and don't have a problem professing their belief.

 

[Nuc]

"Pathetic parade of southerners"... hmmm... you're taking a chance making a statement like that aren't you? There are "southerners" here on the board.

But if you must, yeah, and Jimmy Carter is leading the parade.

I think it's an obscenity that Northerners set aside regionalism on a regular basis and vote for Southerners, but it appears the opposite does not happen. Or both parties wouldn't always have to put at least one southerner on the ticket. We could just nominate the best candidates without having to "balance the ticket" Face it we are living in the Confederacy now.

 

[Nuc]

I guess he has a problem with Presidents who believe in God and don't have a problem professing their belief.

Stupid assumption. Anyway all presidential candidates must profess this stuff or they don't stand a chance.

 

[GotZoom]

I think it's an obscenity that Northerners set aside regionalism on a regular basis and vote for Southerners, but it appears the opposite does not happen. Or both parties wouldn't always have to put at least one southerner on the ticket. We could just nominate the best candidates without having to "balance the ticket" Face it we are living in the Confederacy now.

If you ask a lot of people, the "best" candidate is nominated. Where they are from has no bearing on it.

 

[Nuc]

If you ask a lot of people, the "best" candidate is nominated. Where they are from has no bearing on it.

Then why is it that when a northern Presidential candidate is nominated the parties "must" balance the ticket with a southerner like Edwards, for example?

 

[GotZoom]

Then why is it that when a northern Presidential candidate is nominated the parties "must" balance the ticket with a southerner like Edwards, for example?

Ask the party.

Yes...it is obvious. Get the "northern" and the "southern" vote.

At what point do you decide it is more important to present the "best" pair, regardless of where they are from; over the fact that they just need to do what it takes to win the election?

 

[CSM]

Ask the party.

Yes...it is obvious. Get the "northern" and the "southern" vote.

At what point do you decide it is more important to present the "best" pair, regardless of where they are from; over the fact that they just need to do what it takes to win the election?

Well, when the "northener" is someone like Kerry or Dukakis I can't blame folks for voting for the southern guy.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Article VI, para. II:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If you are going to make statements regarding the Constitution, you really should read the thing!

I have read it. Read that paragraph again. The Constitution is stated seperately. It is never refered to as "law." It is considered higher than that. The majority of the framers don't refer to the Constitution as a set of laws. They held it in higher regard.

 

[Nuc]

Ask the party.

Yes...it is obvious. Get the "northern" and the "southern" vote.

At what point do you decide it is more important to present the "best" pair, regardless of where they are from; over the fact that they just need to do what it takes to win the election?

That's my point. Clinton and Gore won and obviously got a lot of the northern vote. That can't happen if both the presidential and VP candidate are northern because southerners won't vote in sufficient numbers to elect a northern candidate. Therefore we have acquiesed to being annexed by the Confederacy.

There should be no "northern vote" and "southern vote". There should be the American vote.

 

[GotZoom]

That's my point. Clinton and Gore won and obviously got a lot of the northern vote. That can't happen if both the presidential and VP candidate are northern because southerners won't vote in sufficient numbers to elect a northern candidate. Therefore we have acquiesed to being annexed by the Confederacy.

There should be no "northern vote" and "southern vote". There should be the American vote.

You are assuming that southerns "won't vote in sufficient numbers to elect a northern candidate."

I guess the northeners are superior in that they obviously don't let that whole north/south thing cloud their judgement.

 

[Nuc]

You are assuming that southerns "won't vote in sufficient numbers to elect a northern candidate."

I guess the northeners are superior in that they obviously don't let that whole north/south thing cloud their judgement.

I realize you are dripping with sarcasm, but yes that's what I'm saying. Not superior per se but more open minded.

 

[GotZoom]

I realize you are dripping with sarcasm, but yes that's what I'm saying. Not superior per se but more open minded.

Any evidence to back this claim?

Statistics, etc?

I'm live in the south now but don't necessarily claim to be a "southerner." I was born in California, lived overseas for 12 years, then Florida for three years before moving to Tennessee.

I would be asking the same questions if you or someone else had posted that about northerners.