Dear Senator Specter, bite me!
Jun. 26th, 2006 07:29 pmAccording to to Senator Specter, burning the US Flag is comparable to child porn. No really:
> A vote is expected this week, before the Fourth of July congressional recess.
>
> Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared the measure to Supreme
> Court decisions banning so-called "fighting words," slander, libel, obscenity and pornography
> involving children. As such, he said, it has no "social value."
And here's another enlightened comment from Senator Facist:
> "Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful," the five-term Pennsylvania
> Republican said. "It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade."
...and your point is? It's called free expression, dumbass. The First Amendment doesn't stop at things that offend you, you narrow minded twit!
But I will give the Republicans credit where credit is due. Senator McConnell has the right idea:
> The amendment, however, does not have the support of the Senate's No 2. Republican,
> Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
>
> "I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it
> needs to be altered," McConnell said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
And Senator Leahy hits the nail on the head:
> Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that burning
> the American flag was precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment is meant to protect.
>
> "The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," the six-term
> Vermont senator said Monday. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."
Okay... so who are the morons who elected Specter? Aw, crap. He's from my state! Okay, who's running against this guy in the next election?
> A vote is expected this week, before the Fourth of July congressional recess.
>
> Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, compared the measure to Supreme
> Court decisions banning so-called "fighting words," slander, libel, obscenity and pornography
> involving children. As such, he said, it has no "social value."
And here's another enlightened comment from Senator Facist:
> "Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful," the five-term Pennsylvania
> Republican said. "It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade."
...and your point is? It's called free expression, dumbass. The First Amendment doesn't stop at things that offend you, you narrow minded twit!
But I will give the Republicans credit where credit is due. Senator McConnell has the right idea:
> The amendment, however, does not have the support of the Senate's No 2. Republican,
> Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
>
> "I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it
> needs to be altered," McConnell said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
And Senator Leahy hits the nail on the head:
> Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that burning
> the American flag was precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment is meant to protect.
>
> "The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech," the six-term
> Vermont senator said Monday. "It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-26 11:48 pm (UTC)What does this teach us? That term limits on legislators are a fucking necessity.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-26 11:51 pm (UTC)You sure it's 98%? That seems really high, and I'm pretty sure there was >2% turnover the last election...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 01:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 04:20 am (UTC)But since you probably don't trust that, here's (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060222-085118-1810r.htm) the Washington Times Op/Ed column that cites specifics. Proving his statements true is just a matter of checking records of elections for these last four terms. Do I really have to go get them as proof?
Trust me, this is a fucking problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 04:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 04:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-26 11:54 pm (UTC)Okay, who's running against this guy in the next election?
I'd run if I were 30. ;)
Seriously though, I'd fell more represented if we randomly picked people for office. Better to have just some of the barrels loaded when playing Russian Roulette, then to have all of them loaded.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-26 11:56 pm (UTC)Anyway, he's very ill, so he won't be around much longer.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 01:16 am (UTC)I feel dirty now.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 03:39 am (UTC)That link is awesome! You're my new hero!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:20 am (UTC)that's all I'll say on that, save for that education is the key, and it's been broken in the lock.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:28 am (UTC)You sound like a terrorist! We better search and seize your property with out a court issued warrant!
What's a 4th Amendment anyway?Then detain you for years on end without a trial, let alone a jury!What's a 5th and 6th Amendment?It's only in the best interests of the
Military-Industrial Complexpeople, so we can protect people fromfalse-flag government sponsoredterrorism!(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 01:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 04:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 04:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-27 12:49 pm (UTC)Sadly, he is also leading the charge to shine the light on Bush's abuses of power. See the KYW report.
So, angel or demon?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-28 02:04 pm (UTC)