Brit Hume: Flag-burning ban fails by one vote (to be discussed on the "All Star" panel)

FoxNewsChannel ^ | 6-27-06 | DTogo

[DTogo]

Brit Hume just mentioned it.

[muawiyah]

You should have notified the prosecutor who picked the law to nail the guy with.

Why didn't you? That way we'd all been saved this grief.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Your resort to accusing a debate opponent of being a bald faced liar is rather more like what we'd expect from the guys up in the hills than the gentlemen down in the Tidewater, but it's still very Souvr'n."

1) You ARE a prevaricator, because you said I had views in line with the antebellum south but you can't back it up with a shred of evidence. You made it up completely.

2) You keep making moronic attacks on the south, thereby insulting all southerners as you flail around trying to hit me with insults, all the while digging yourself ever deeper into a hole. I'll let you keep digging.

[muawiyah]

The specific problem was your claim (implicit in the argument) that the flag was just a piece of cloth, and its disposition should lie entirely in the control of its "owner".

I am surprised you don't know the history of the call to "property rights" in the South. Maybe they don't teach that part in school anymore eh?!

You should have cringed and slunk away when I called you on it.

[muawiyah]

Try post 8 where you led off with: "A victory for private property rights ...."

Jeff Davis couldn't have put itmore succinctly.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The specific problem was your claim (implicit in the argument) that the flag was just a piece of cloth, and its disposition should lie entirely in the control of its "owner"."

My argument was about flags in general. If someone steals another's flag and burns it, they should be punished for theft and destruction of property, not for *flag-burning*.

"I am surprised you don't know the history of the call to "property rights" in the South. Maybe they don't teach that part in school anymore eh?!"

So, if some people at one time made a stupid argument about property rights (in regard to slavery), all invocations of property rights are now crap? Did they ever teach you logic in your school?

"You should have cringed and slunk away when I called you on it."

You were making way too much of an ass of yourself for me to have you stop. I need to have some amusement in life.

[mathurine]

Close, but no cigar this time. Sooner or later there will be a constitutional amendment to overthrow some Supreme Court decision which pisses off most Americans. It will only take one amendment for the ultraliberals to reconsider their constant bombardment of the majority with their pandering to every sentiment and constituency except the majority as they try to hijack America and ram some brave new world down our throats.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Try post 8 where you led off with: "A victory for private property rights ....

Jeff Davis couldn't have put itmore succinctly."

How about this guy?

“Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands…are properly his. Whatsoever he removes out of the state nature has provided, and left it in, he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (New York: New American Library, 1963), Section 27, pp. 328-329.

I guess Locke was really just pushing for slavery when he defended private property.

[ArrogantBustard]

"Us"????

You got a gerbil in your pocket?

Speak for yourself, boy. You've done nothing but discredit yourself and whatever political position you might have been trying to support.

[glorgau]

Guess you didn't learn anything in school.. Do you know the Pledge of Allegiance?

Yeah, I know the Pledge. It doesn't say anything about throwing people in jail for making a statement. See if you know who came up with this saying: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That's what I learned.

[muawiyah]

No, Locke was obviously trying to take a false belief of the times, that a right to property superceded all other rights, and attach it to the natural right (of a person to himself) to demonstrate that those natural rights supercede any property rights.

I'm sure that for the intellectual class of his day that this was considered very radical. After all, feudal standards were still very much alive in those days.

Folks who participated in slavery tended to ignore Locke and his friends. It would take sterner stuff than mere argument to bring them about to a more progressive point of view.

[jaime1959]

Good. It should have failed 100-0. Flag burning amendments are shiny political beads (and a Constitutional abomination) for the slack-jawed and dim-witted.

[muawiyah]

Look, you flew off the handle without the slightest knowledge of what Justice Scalia had done. For many Americans (for MOST Americans) Scalia betrayed us in that decision.

He also demonstrated that he only the most tenuous grasp of Constitutional law when he joined the majority ~ turning "criminal behavior" into "protected political speech".

Even Scalia knows there are people in this country quite angry with him for his stupid decision, and rightly so.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, Locke was obviously trying to take a false belief of the times, that a right to property superceded all other rights, and attach it to the natural right (of a person to himself) to demonstrate that those natural rights supercede any property rights."

You're joking right? The whole point of the Locke passage was that a person has a natural right to property.

Your attacks on private property are very telling of how little you actually care about the constitution. Why have an amendment to a document you care so little for?

[muawiyah]

You have to read the whole statement in light of the common beliefs of his time, not ours.

His was a time of class and privilege, both based on concepts of birthright, not natural rights.

[Dimensio]

If burning a cross as a symbol is "hate speech" then burning the flag of my country, a sacred symbol to me is not, explain that.

Your question presumes that those opposing the flag desecration amendmentt universally believe that burning a cross should be criminally punished. That is not the case, thus your premise is faulty.

[Irish Eyes]

That is one GREAT flag!

[ArrogantBustard]

Look, you made a foul, bigoted, repulsive, and reprehensible remark about Mr. Justice Scalia. For that, I reprehended you, and will continue to reprehend you. If you had even the slightest smidgen of honour and integrity, you would disavow those remarks.

As for your pretense and presumption to speak for "MOST" Americans, again I say "speak for yourself". Even the gerbil in your pocket doesn't want your representation. Your remarks are a disgrace to you, to this forum, and to these United States, and a complete discredit to whatever point you were trying to make.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You have to read the whole statement in light of the common beliefs of his time, not ours.

His was a time of class and privilege, both based on concepts of birthright, not natural rights."

You have to read the passage with your eyes shut to see anything but a defense of private property. He was specifically calling the right to property a natural right.

Your disgust with private property rights is telling.

[fuzzthatwuz]

" The original document of the Constitution is the property of the federal government. It's not privately owned. Did you not know that?"

Gosh, I knew that! What IS the federal government in two words or less? "THE PEOPLE".Did you not know that?

[Dimensio]

You should have notified the prosecutor who picked the law to nail the guy with.

It is not my responsibility to verify that prosecutors apply all applicable laws in a criminal case.

Your attempt to suggest that US Supreme Court ruled that theft of a flag is legal if that stolen flag is to be burned is thus far not supported on any evidence. The US Supreme Court ruled only on the statue prohibiting desecration of the flag, their ruling did not cover crimes against theft of federal property.