Should an act of expression be a crime?

scott adams once wrote at the very start of this whole thing that he thought trumps powers of persuasion were so great that he could cause the people in a foreign country to overthrow their leader just by playing their media instead of sending in the army or cia.

Im beginning to believe it.
 
I apologize if I missed it in the thread bit did Jarod complain about Hillary's proposed legislation to make flag burning illegal in 2005 and up to a $100K fine for doing so?
 
scott adams once wrote at the very start of this whole thing that he thought trumps powers of persuasion were so great that he could cause the people in a foreign country to overthrow their leader just by playing their media instead of sending in the army or cia.

Im beginning to believe it.

 
I apologize if I missed it in the thread bit did Jarod complain about Hillary's proposed legislation to make flag burning illegal in 2005 and up to a $100K fine for doing so?

Please note my above comment. I disagreed with Hillary's legislation but at least it addressed constitutional concerns.it made like burning illegal only in the primary purpose was to incite a riot. If the primary purpose was to convey or express an opinion or idea flagburning would have remained perfectly legal.

Intent is always a relevant issue.
 
Bill Clinton mainly criticized chemical weapons. bush upped the ante by talking about nukes.

However, it’s important to note that Clinton focused on chemical weapons and did not bring up nuclear weapons, as Bush would later do.

"The Senate will vote on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention," Clinton said. "By voting for this treaty, the Senate can help to banish poison gas from the earth, and make America's citizens and soldiers much more secure. … The treaty will increase the safety of our citizens at home, as well as our troops in the field. The destruction of current stockpiles, including at least 40,000 tons of poison gas in Russia alone, will put the largest potential sources of chemical weapons out of the reach of terrorists, and the trade controls will deny terrorists easy access to the ingredients they seek."

Bush, by contrast, would later make much more sweeping claims.

For instance, in a weekly radio address on Sept. 14, 2002, Bush said of Hussein-era Iraq, "Today this regime likely maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and is improving and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical and biological weapons. Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-bill-clinton-george-w-bush-had-basically/

Generally true, with a wee bit of left wing spin opinion....


1998 CLINTON:

Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.........
.......First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
===========================
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm


  • Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors depart - December 1998.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

  • If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.
  • Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
    • Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotor - as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools - provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
    • Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstruction is underway.
    • All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.
  • In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.



The essence of the messages are, for all practicable purposes, the same....
I guess the question remains....were they both lying or just plain wrong....
 
" Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
I apologize if I missed it in the thread bit did Jarod complain about Hillary's proposed legislation to make flag burning illegal in 2005 and up to a $100K fine for doing so?
Please note my above comment. I disagreed with Hillary's legislation but at least it addressed constitutional concerns.it made like burning illegal only in the primary purpose was to incite a riot. If the primary purpose was to convey or express an opinion or idea flagburning would have remained perfectly legal.

Intent is always a relevant issue." J #227
That's fine.
I don't disagree.

BUT !!

It makes it more complicated for DA's to have to PROVE intent in a court of law.

What shall we do when the flag burners say:
we weren't trying to start a riot.
We just showed up at the 4th of July parade, and waited until the disabled veterans marched by.

Does the name Skokie mean anything to you?

Our court's Skokie decision was about neo-nazis that wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, where there was a concentrated Jewish population, including nazi holocaust survivors.
The court ruling was that the neo-nazis had the right to march, that free speech is not dependent on geography.

So we're back to intent J.

If YOU were a juror, would you say the neo-nazi march through Skokie was NOT intended to incite a riot?
If not, why not hold the march in Chicago, Carbondale, Rockford, or Springfield??

Philosophically we are in accord.

But as a practical matter; I suspect it's a legal standard that may invite more problems than it solves.
 
This is what it said: "The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism."

Seems a lot different than simply protesting. And the bill wasn't even taken up by Congress, rightfully so.

How about a renter that refuses to rent to a black man because he don't like his 'attitude' and had nothing to do his race.....would that be racial discrimination ?

You pinheads like to spin and wiggle like worms....

The only way flag burning would not incite what could be a violent reaction is to burn it your back yard when no can see you.....and that just don't happen....

the whole purpose of flag burning is to provoke a reaction...you guys would say its ok if the burner just wanted to get warm....

In any case, Trump can have any opinion he wants to have, the SC has spoken and the matter is moot.....he can't change a thing.

the thread is just nonsense.
 
"The supreme court has ruled that taking someone's citizenship away can't be used as a punishment, that citizenship isn't a license that expires when someone commits a crime." NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams 16/11/29 commenting on President Elect Trump's notion that U.S. citizens that burn U.S. flags in protest should be subject to revocation of citizenship.
note: The proper means of disposing of damaged U.S. flags is by fire. Both veterans groups, and Boy Scouts perform this service.
So what is Trump doing?
Is Trump so undisciplined that he can't vet a nutty idea like this before he blurts it out in public?

Or does he know it'll never happen, but he's just trying to gain support among low IQ & low information citizens? (the ones that elected him)
 
scott adams once wrote at the very start of this whole thing that he thought trumps powers of persuasion were so great that he could cause the people in a foreign country to overthrow their leader just by playing their media instead of sending in the army or cia.

Im beginning to believe it.

Man - you really love Trump.

He's a narcissist, so he needs some worship. Keep up the good work.
 
Man - you really love Trump.

He's a narcissist, so he needs some worship. Keep up the good work.

I do :) he is very entertaining. Its fun to watch him do random things that look random that connect at the end.

Its like watching oceans 11

for instance the whole day the press has been bashing him as against first ammendment and dictatorial. Then at the end of the day they have to report he just saved jobs in Indiana. lololololololololol
 
scott adams once wrote at the very start of this whole thing that he thought trumps powers of persuasion were so great that he could cause the people in a foreign country to overthrow their leader just by playing their media instead of sending in the army or cia.

Im beginning to believe it.

That would be a good thing, no?
 
#237

I'm nowhere near the media star Trump is. I've never had my own TV show (though I was a cameraman on my Mom's briefly).
"....have you ever done the same?...... " PP
Have I ever not?

Please quote me.

Thanks.
 
"Complain"? Did you mean "comment", or "critique"?
" he does that which you do?...... "
I ask yet again for specifics; by exact quotation if you please.

Your vague insinuations don't provide enough substance to address constructively.
 
Back
Top