Now Who's Trying To Infringe Your Constitutional Rights?

[Bullypulpit]

The government. They are the only ones who can. which is why the constitution limited its power.

Unfortunately, for us all, Chimpy and Co don't seem to understand that the Constitution limits their powers.

 

[Annie]

Dear lady, what of Chimpy McPresident's most recent signing statement?

You know, the one which grants him the power to have our mail opened without a warrant? First, it is warrant-less wire-tapping, then it is the monitoring of e-mails and other internet traffic, now this. And you ask "Who's trying to infringe on your Constitutional rights?"

It should be obvious to anyone, at this point, that the Constitution means little more to this administration than a road-block to its unbridled lust for power.

<blockquote>"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," - George W. Bush, 07/30/2001</blockquote>

<blockquote>"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush, 12/18/2000</blockquote>

<blockquote>"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. - George W. Bush, 7/98</blockquote>

He's been a bit more circumspect in his statements on this issue since 2001, but his actions, and those of members of his administration, speak volumes.

Just change the topic. So you have problems with GW, but none with this? C'mon Bully, I expect better.

 

[manu1959]

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/01/free-to-say-what.html

It's long, this is from the middle:

what happened to separation of church and state.......certianly looks like the government is promoting a religion if not then i would like to see one that says this:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives &#8212;
condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Christian faith;

declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Christian faith, should be protected;

recognizes that the Bible, the holy book of Christianity, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Christian faith.

 

[Annie]

what happened to separation of church and state.......certianly looks like the government is promoting a religion

LOL! I wouldn't go that far, but why name a single one to address the protections. That would mean I couldn't say 'thumpers', say the stuff our past infamous poster did about Jews...

It's European thinking for sure, which has no problem in France from forbidding hajib, or calling pork soup, "racist".

 

[Bullypulpit]

Just change the topic. So you have problems with GW, but none with this? C'mon Bully, I expect better.

I read the bill. The reaction to it seems to be little more than a tempest in a teapot, brewed up with the sole intent of distracting from the larger issues I mentioned.

 

[Annie]

I read the bill. The reaction to it seems to be little more than a tempest in a teapot, brewed up with the sole intent of distracting from the larger issues I mentioned.

If that were the case, who got Rangle, Kuchinich et al to go along with this conspiracy?

 

[dilloduck]

what happened to separation of church and state.......certianly looks like the government is promoting a religion if not then i would like to see one that says this:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —
condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Christian faith;

declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Christian faith, should be protected;

recognizes that the Bible, the holy book of Christianity, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Christian faith.

Agreed-----the wording seems quite specific about who it is that the bill is targeting for special protection. Where are all the theocracy concerns?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Ok people, bottom line-I would be against a flag burning law, always have, always will be. I'm also against people being victims of the so called, 'hate crimes', actually any crime at all particularly violent crime.

With that out of the way, government from all levels has been expanding their reach into our personal behavior, property, and now they are after speech. I've often heard arguments about 'in Europe it's against the law to deny the holocaust' and so it is. Not here, but this could change it.

That Islam is brought up at all is besides the point, you are trying to read something into that, perhaps because of the editorializing, which is why I said, 'read the bill'. The fact that Islam is singled out actually shows more about the author and seconds to the bill, than it does about prejudice of my own. Still you miss it.

If such a resolution made it to the law stage, all of our political speech would be threatened.

I've read the bill, I still can't see where it assigns more dignity to the Koran than the American Flag, NOR do I see where it prevents a private citizens from speaking poorly of the Koran or Muslims. PLEASE would you mind pointing these things out to me, explicitly, instead of just saying "read the bill" over and over again like a skipping record? Whether or not these things actually exist in the bill as written is CRUCIAL to me determining whether or not I support the resolution, and both you and the author claim they are there and are apparently basing you decisions on that, but I can't see where the words of the bill itself indicate what you and the author think it does.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

LOL! I wouldn't go that far, but why name a single one to address the protections.

Why not show me where in the bill it assigns more dignity to the Koran than to the Flag, as the author claims?


And considering the vast majority of right wingers support the the government using discriminatory practices against Muslims, is this bill really that big of a surprise?

 

[Annie]

Why not show me where in the bill it assigns more dignity to the Koran than to the Flag, as the author claims?


And considering the vast majority of right wingers support the the government using discriminatory practices against Muslims, is this bill really that big of a surprise?

Excuse me? Please show me where I said any such thing?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Excuse me? Please show me where I said any such thing?

Its from the article you posted

"It accords the holy book of the Muslims more respect than is owed the flag of the United States."

Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why didn't you mention that when you posted the article in the first place, since its clear you generally agree with the author?

 

[Annie]

Its from the article you posted

"It accords the holy book of the Muslims more respect than is owed the flag of the United States."

Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why didn't you mention that when you posted the article in the first place, since its clear you generally agree with the author?

Go back and read a bit, as I said 'editorial opinion' was different than the resolution.

 

[manu1959]

Its from the article you posted

"It accords the holy book of the Muslims more respect than is owed the flag of the United States."

Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why didn't you mention that when you posted the article in the first place, since its clear you generally agree with the author?

because if passed .... i can not burn the koran as it would violate the civil rights of muslims ..... yet i could burn the flag

thus more respect, by law for the koran than the us flag

 

[jillian]

because if passed .... i can not burn the koran as it would violate the civil rights of muslims ..... yet i could burn the flag

thus more respect, by law for the koran than the us flag

Finally!!! Someone who gave a good reason for not liking the bill that isn't a racist one! THANK YOU!!!

Obviously, I think the First Amendment should come before any other concerns. But maybe there's a way to balance things?

 

[Annie]

Finally!!! Someone who gave a good reason for not liking the bill that isn't a racist one! THANK YOU!!!

Obviously, I think the First Amendment should come before any other concerns. But maybe there's a way to balance things?

Hey, great minds. Just was saying to him, "I think I love you..."

 

[jillian]

Hey, great minds. Just was saying to him, "I think I love you..."

Heh! Yeah.... he's pretty cool for a conservative.

 

[Annie]

Heh! Yeah.... he's pretty cool for a conservative.

If only not for the wife... lol!

 

[manu1959]

Heh! Yeah.... he's pretty cool for a conservative.

my family is heavy into politics....they call me a "california conservative" which puts me pretty far left of them

 

[SpidermanTuba]

because if passed .... i can not burn the koran as it would violate the civil rights of muslims ..... yet i could burn the flag

Do I seriously have to teach you the civics you didn't learn in High School?

This is a simple resolution. A simple resolution does NOT Have the force of law, it is used merely to express the opinion of one chamber - in this case, the House - or, to establish the rules by which that chamber operates. A simple resolution cannot have any force of law outside of that.

You may have it confused with a JOINT resolution, which does have the force of law.


So you will still be able to burn a Koran once every Sunday after Church.

 

[manu1959]

Do I seriously have to teach you the civics you didn't learn in High School?

This is a simple resolution. A simple resolution does NOT Have the force of law, it is used merely to express the opinion of one chamber - in this case, the House - or, to establish the rules by which that chamber operates. A simple resolution cannot have any force of law outside of that.

You may have it confused with a JOINT resolution, which does have the force of law.


So you will still be able to burn a Koran once every Sunday after Church.

do you insult everyone you speak to.....

is there a similar resolution for the us flag?

no

therefore the koran has greater protection than the flag