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."