• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flag burners get attacked by bikers[W:634]

Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Actually, I'm notoriously sarcastic and unserious in my day to day life. I guess turning it into a personal attack means you have no argument.

What was I supposed to be doing exactly? Anyway, the impression I get from you on DP is that you take offense to things easily and want to control how people respond to things so that everyone acts exactly the way you want.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

What was I supposed to be doing exactly? Anyway, the impression I get from you on DP is that you take offense to things easily and want to control how people respond to things so that everyone acts exactly the way you want.

If you insist.

Is violence against people legally exercising their first amendment rights justifiable? Yes or no.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

What makes you think Jesus was a hippie?

What makes you think he wasn't?

Appearance: Long hair, sandals, beard, robe...

Message: Anti-materialism, non-violence, peace, love, religious reform. Even on social issues, Jesus was far more liberal than his father-self.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

If you insist.

Is violence against people legally exercising their first amendment rights justifiable? Yes or no.

I really don't care if hippies get beat up nor do I care what happens to bikers. Are you offended yet?
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

I really don't care if hippies get beat up nor do I care what happens to bikers. Are you offended yet?

Thank you for affirming everything I've ever thought about you.

"Libertarian." HA.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Over used cliche. I've had better hospitality in Wisconsin and lawd knows how much I detest Wisconsin.

It can't suck as much as Minnesota.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Well, mainly just when its hippies. :D

How old were you during the 1960's when us hippies were around? Were you even born then?
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

I'm blown away that any American would tolerate their fellow Americans' rights to free speech and assembly being abridged by anyone!

I (very begrudgingly) supported Pam Geller's little Texas art exhibition and the gun-toting biker's encircling the Phoenix mosque - and trust me, those we're pretty dayem heavy lifts! And not because I liked it, either!

But that's just the way I feel about the Constitution & my fellow Americans, even the ones I don't particularly like.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Thank you for affirming everything I've ever thought about you.

"Libertarian." HA.

Being a libertarian just means I'm for leaving you alone. Now go off and save some hippies. I have popcorn, you have a cause and dammit we have a show. Go my warrior and slay the dragon!
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Being a libertarian just means I'm for leaving you alone. Now go off and save some hippies. I have popcorn, you have a cause and dammit we have a show. Go my warrior and slay the dragon!

I accept your concession.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Alright.

I think I see what you're getting at, here.

Firstly, no definition of Liberal Democracy in today's context would ever allow for the enslavement of it's citizens. It's just not going to happen.

Now, if we'd like to say 'in the context of the times' or some-such, that Liberal Democracies had slavery, fair enough - though I have issues with that, and at best might call them 'flawed'.

But we've got to remember, we're no longer in 1861.

You're graph is comparing an archaic era (Civil War era), with a modern one (WWII era), and then presented to us in today's context.

Which era's definition is correct?

As I said before, I'd define the concept more in terms of structure and underlying ideology than anything else. For example, even if the C.S.A. and early U.S.A. did not extend these rights or liberties universally, they certainly did believe in the concept of fundamental human rights and liberties, and base their governments upon those ideas. Likewise, even if the vote was not extended universally, or the exact structures in play differed from their contemporary versions, both governments absolutely were founded as Representative Democratic Republics, build around the idea of the consent of the governed being the fundamental basis for the right to rule.

Now, it's entirely possible that, if the C.S.A. had survived, it would have gradually started drifting towards a less "Liberal" and more overtly authoritarian model as the need to suppress basically half of its population became more pressing. However, at the time of its founding, and for the duration of the war, there can be little doubt that it was, in fact, a "Liberal Democracy."
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

I laughed, I cried, I fell down. I was entertained.


Yeah I know; free speech, fairness, law and order, blah blah blah.

The bikers didn't give a ****, though. They saw something they loved under attack and acted. I have to respect that, even if they were technically in the wrong.


And I loved seeing the flag burners outed as cowardly ******s lacking the courage to stand up.


Yup. Highly entertaining.



Almost as much fun as this was...


View attachment 67187178






Oops, am I being unfair again? Yeah I am. I don't much care. I don't like hippies. They're just lame. They're the wimpy, whiney annoying kid with "kick me" stuck to his back. It's sort of like stepping on cockroaches, it's just hard not to.





View attachment 67187180

You don't have to respect violence. Violence should be condemned, and dragged through the mud whenever it's drugged out by barbarians who can't respect a differing opinion. This kind of mindset is no better than the Muslims who thought they should shoot an art gallery in Texas. Shame on you, and shame on anyone who "respects" morons who resort to violence against free speech.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

How old were you during the 1960's when us hippies were around? Were you even born then?


Yup. Had some next door.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

You don't have to respect violence. Violence should be condemned, and dragged through the mud whenever it's drugged out by barbarians who can't respect a differing opinion. This kind of mindset is no better than the Muslims who thought they should shoot an art gallery in Texas. Shame on you, and shame on anyone who "respects" morons who resort to violence against free speech.



Did anybody die? No. Anybody seriously hurt? No.... not much more than their feelings really.


Don't know where your sense of humor went either. :D



After all, it's just hippies.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Right because bike gangs are really the image of "patriotism" we need to regale... NOT! They're quite often criminals, murderers, drugs dealers, .... really, this is somehow good?

And protesting police brutality is saying that the police should do their jobs properly, not that police should disappear. The only way these protesters would be hypocrites is if after the bikers were in hand cuffs or detained, the protesters suggested they should be mistreated, artificially set up to appear guilty, tased, shot, sodomized with inanimate objects, .... I don't think they did that. People protest abuses by police, not the concept of police over all.

You folks are just so black and white in your thinking... police can do no wrong, and anyone who wants the police to obey the laws and honorable conduct somehow want the police to disappear and do nothing.

Such childish perspectives.

Black and white thinking would be profiling all bikers as being bad people.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Did anybody die? No. Anybody seriously hurt? No.... not much more than their feelings really.


Don't know where your sense of humor went either. :D



After all, it's just hippies.

Sorry I don't share in the sentiment that censorship is funny if it's done to hippies.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

If you give a rat's ass about the law or the Bill of Rights, you'd side with the flag burners. There is literally no rational argument that the bikers were in the right here.

Bahh, there are more important things to worry about than a bunch of mentally challenged drama queens on both sides. As a matter of fact this is about the most mentally challenged thread I have seen on DP. It also has been one of the most entertaining. Hell, people are dying and you folks are arguing about bikers and flag burners. What damage did it do in the whole to anyone except the idiots that were involved? NONE LOL. Really, this is a hoot. And for someone to INSIST that I take a side is even funnier. Which idiots do I want to enter into an argument about? None. I have to say, legally the flag burners should nave not been attacked. I also have to say, burning a flag around a bunch of bikers was not the smartest move. The bikers were legally wrong. It doesn't mean I am not amused by the idiocy on both sides. There isn't any significant damage/event/issue here. Just lots of amusement.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

As I said before, I'd define the concept more in terms of structure and underlying ideology than anything else. For example, even if the C.S.A. and early U.S.A. did not extend these rights or liberties universally, they certainly did believe in the concept of fundamental human rights and liberties, and base their governments upon those ideas. Likewise, even if the vote was not extended universally, or the exact structures in play differed from their contemporary versions, both governments absolutely were founded as Representative Democratic Republics, build around the idea of the consent of the governed being the fundamental basis for the right to rule.

Now, it's entirely possible that, if the C.S.A. had survived, it would have gradually started drifting towards a less "Liberal" and more overtly authoritarian model as the need to suppress basically half of its population became more pressing. However, at the time of its founding, and for the duration of the war, there can be little doubt that it was, in fact, a "Liberal Democracy."
Fair enough, you present a logical argument.

At the very least, I find the graph misleading, especially comparing different eras - but if you'd like to stick with the definition in the context of the individual era, I'll go along with that.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

You don't have to respect violence. Violence should be condemned, and dragged through the mud whenever it's drugged out by barbarians who can't respect a differing opinion. This kind of mindset is no better than the Muslims who thought they should shoot an art gallery in Texas. Shame on you, and shame on anyone who "respects" morons who resort to violence against free speech.

Burning a flag isn't really speech. It's an action and those veterans reacted. I don't like violence much either. People should stay out of your personal space I reckon.

But think about it, do these politicals even know what they want? These people spend their lives psychologically bullying any one whos vulnerable, goodhearted and sensible. I think they got their just desserts.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

As I said before, I'd define the concept more in terms of structure and underlying ideology than anything else. For example, even if the C.S.A. and early U.S.A. did not extend these rights or liberties universally, they certainly did believe in the concept of fundamental human rights and liberties, and base their governments upon those ideas. Likewise, even if the vote was not extended universally, or the exact structures in play differed from their contemporary versions, both governments absolutely were founded as Representative Democratic Republics, build around the idea of the consent of the governed being the fundamental basis for the right to rule.

Now, it's entirely possible that, if the C.S.A. had survived, it would have gradually started drifting towards a less "Liberal" and more overtly authoritarian model as the need to suppress basically half of its population became more pressing. However, at the time of its founding, and for the duration of the war, there can be little doubt that it was, in fact, a "Liberal Democracy."

If the C.S.A survived the Civil War it was doomed to start a new one between the Confederate States. They would have seceded from the C.S.A. lol
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Burning a flag isn't really speech. It's an action and those veterans reacted. I don't like violence much either. People should stay out of your personal space I reckon.

But think about it, do these politicals even know what they want? These people spend their lives psychologically bullying any one whos vulnerable, goodhearted and sensible. I think they got their just desserts.

What people are "bullying" who?
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Burning a flag isn't really speech. It's an action and those veterans reacted. I don't like violence much either. People should stay out of your personal space I reckon.

An action is certainly free speech. You have a right to act like a jackass in public. You have a right to do a whole of actions thanks to free speech. Flag Burning has happened to be an action that is ruled as free speech whether the bikers like it or not.

But think about it, do these politicals even know what they want? These people spend their lives psychologically bullying any one whos vulnerable, goodhearted and sensible. I think they got their just desserts.

No, the protesters most certainly did not get their just desserts. They didn't attack anybody, they didn't harm anyone for speaking out against them or what they stand for. They were attacked and forced into silence by a group of stupid men and the fact you don't want to speak out against that but rather victim blame is rather telling of your character.

But you know what, lets say you're right. Burning a flag totally warrants hairy men in leather jackets slapping you around. Do you think a Muslim is in the right to slap a person around if that individual mocked Mohammad? Do you think a gay man or woman can attack a priest for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? Where do you draw your moral line against free speech?
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Violence is a funny thing. Being bullied and getting my butt kicked when I was a fat kid was not fun and cause a lot of scars. When I learned to use my weight and size to stop bullies from kicking my butt it was a good thing. It is like anything else. It can be terrible or it can be a most useful tool. Karma can be a bitch. I guess you have to experience it to understand it. When someone says "all violence is bad" I recognize someone that has led a very sheltered lice or a person that has chosen to roll over and accept what is being done to them. The only fight I have ever lost in my life was the one that I started and I deserved that one. I am excluding the times I got my butt whipped when I didn't stand up for myself.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

Yup. Had some next door.

Let me assure you I, alive as a hippie during this time, never burned a flag, never spit in the face of a soldier, never protested our military and showered daily. Me and my hippie friends also held a job, bought houses and had families. I guess all stereotypes don't always work.
 
Re: Flag burners get attacked by bikers

If the C.S.A survived the Civil War it was doomed to start a new one between the Confederate States. They would have seceded from the C.S.A. lol

Yup, most likely. Frankly, that's evident just from each of the different states' declarations of secession.

Some of them, like Mississippi and Texas, waxed high and mighty about the "nobility" of slavery and white domination of lesser races, before diving into Constitutional and economic manners. Some others, like Georgia and South Carolina, gave slavery passing mention, but mostly stuck to economics, or legal and political grievances concerning property rights, trade, and alleged Northern tyranny. Virginia, for its own part, didn't even mention slavery at all.

It's fairly clear that, economically, socially, and ideologically speaking, every state in the Confederacy wasn't "on the same page," so to speak, where the issue was concerned. While it's possible that economic developments might have simply rendered the plantation system too inefficient to be profitable after a certain point, the transition was always going to be rough (they had it written into their Constitution that no law against slavery could be passed, for God's sakes).

Frankly, even if it was done away with, it's exceedingly likely that the South might have simply wound up with a system like South African Apartheid. Hell! The Segregation that existed in our own timeline was basically akin to what South Africa possessed already.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom