Anti-First Amendment Senator Feinstein shoo-in for reelection

[Art Vandelay]

Two days from now, California will almost certainly reelect Diane Feinstein to the senate, despite the fact that she has said that it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government. Apparently fascism is okay, as long as it's the Democratic Party that's supporting it.

[fishbob]

Evidence?

[Art Vandelay]

For what?

[quixotecoyote]

If you're going to accuse her of saying:

that it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government.

you should provide an in-context link so people know you're talking about something real.

[Art Vandelay]

http://craig.senate.gov/releases/pr091405b.cfm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-19-oppose-flag_x.htm

[fishbob]

What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim? Or even have any passing relevance to your claim?

Are we dealing with one of those parallel universe situations here?

[SezMe]

As fishbob noted, your links don't support your assertion. More specifically, please provide evidence that Feinstein believes that, "the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government."

[fuelair]

What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim? Or even have any passing relevance to your claim?

Are we dealing with one of those parallel universe situations here?
'fraid I have to agree with this. I have no idea what she is supposed to have to do with Larry whatsisname from Idaho or how her point of view (which I don't agree with but is well thought out and refers to only one item) on flag desecration guts the 1st Amendment (one of my personal favorites!):)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim? Or even have any passing relevance to your claim?

Are we dealing with one of those parallel universe situations here?

No, it means you are dealing with a Libertarian Party Loony. Art was a rabid supporter of Michael Badnarik in 2004. That explains it all.

[CFLarsen]

No, it means you are dealing with a Libertarian Party Loony. Art was a rabid supporter of Michael Badnarik in 2004. That explains it all.

Say no more.

[Tricky]

Two days from now, California will almost certainly reelect Diane Feinstein to the senate, despite the fact that she has said that it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government. Apparently fascism is okay, as long as it's the Democratic Party that's supporting it.
From the op-ed by Feinstein that you cited.

Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First Amendment. I strongly disagree.
There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe.
The amendment is to give Congress the right to set the rules for the flag. I oppose it, but it is far down my list of important things to worry about. In fact the whole purpose of the bill is to give Congresspeople a chance to wave the flag without actually doing anything significant.

Maybe you should focus your anger on education issues, Art, since school has obviously failed you as far as reading comprehension goes.

[Tricky]

No, it means you are dealing with a Libertarian Party Loony. Art was a rabid supporter of Michael Badnarik in 2004. That explains it all.
I'm not defending AV, but this is a logical fallacy called guilt by association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html). There is no need to resort to logical fallacies to discredit AV's statements when his own words do it so well.

[Art Vandelay]

Maybe you should focus your anger on education issues, Art, since school has obviously failed you as far as reading comprehension goes.How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?

No, it means you are dealing with a Libertarian Party Loony. Art was a rabid supporter of Michael Badnarik in 2004. That explains it all.You're a lying piece of *****.

'fraid I have to agree with this. I have no idea what she is supposed to have to do with Larry whatsisname from Idaho or how her point of view (which I don't agree with but is well thought out and refers to only one item) on flag desecration guts the 1st Amendment (one of my personal favorites!):)She voted for a resolution approving of government-led recitation of the pledge. The core of the First Amendment is that people should not be jailed based on their political views. Feinstein disagrees with that premise, saying that those that show disrespect for the flag and those who express their opposition to the government through flag desecration should be put in jail.

And her position is not "well thought out". Flag "desecration" involves a lot more than just burning the flag. Back before the Supreme Court started to grow a spine, they allowed Jehovah Witnesses to be jailed for refusing to say the Pledge. I guess Feinstein is okay with having people say the Pledge at gunpoint, as long as they are allowed to complain about it on their blog? That's not gutting the First Amendment? Bullsh*t. The idea that it is consistent with the First Amendment to cut away braod swaths of political expression, as long as some forms remain, is absurd.

What does it mean when neither of the references you provide supports your claim?What does it mean when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that has been presented?

[Beerina]

From the op-ed by Feinstein that you cited.

The amendment is to give Congress the right to set the rules for the flag. I oppose it, but it is far down my list of important things to worry about. In fact the whole purpose of the bill is to give Congresspeople a chance to wave the flag without actually doing anything significant.

Like pr0n, the battle must be fought on the "insignificant" areas so that it cannot encorach on the significant ones.

If you give in on this, tomorrow it'll be something else, something closer to significance.

And if you don't want to think of it as significant, imagine this: This ammendment is approved. Congress outlaws flag burning. Immediately someone will deliberately violate that law and demand to be put in jail.

Then what?

Then the United States has a true political prisoner. Someone is in jail for expressing a political viewpoint. This is not a proud thing, nor something trivial.

I remember a few years back when England gave up on the principle of a prisoner keeping silent "cannot be used against you in a court of law". Wonderful.

It's OK for politicians to blowhard about things, then let the Supreme Court strike down their stupid laws. But that only works as long as the Constitution doesn't get modified.

[CFLarsen]

How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?

You're a lying piece of *****.

:rolleyes:

[Art Vandelay]

TCS doesn't have points, just lies.

[RandFan]

All such legislation is purely political in nature. It's complete BS.

[UserGoogol]

Supporting a ban on flag burning and "under god" in the pledge of allegiance are stupid and unjust positions to hold, but they're the pandery sort of position that most politicians will express at some point, so it's wrong to single her out in particular.

[Tricky]

How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?
Well ya know, I did actually. In fact, the main part of my post was showing where you had misread or misinterpreted the op-ed piece by Feinstein. Then I expressed my own opinion.

The insult, mild in comparison to the one you gave Scrut, was internally referential to my post, indicating that you apparently didn't read your own links very carefully.

You didn't read my post very carefully either since you missed everything but the insult, so I think my comment on your comprehension skills is validated. QED.

You really should be careful, what with all the rabies scares recently. Atticus Finch may have his eye on you.

[senorpogo]

I may be wrong, but didn't 66 Senators vote for the flag burning amendment?

If support of the amendment makes Feinstein "an anti-first amendment senator", does that mean that the other 65 Senators who supported the amendment (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189) are anti-first amendment senators too?

[CFLarsen]

Atticus Finch may have his eye on you.

The good, the bad or the evil?

[wastepanel]

I may be wrong, but didn't 66 Senators vote for the flag burning amendment?

If support of the amendment makes Feinstein "an anti-first amendment senator", does that mean that the other 65 Senators who supported the amendment (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189) are anti-first amendment senators too?

I held them to that standard, and sent a letter to both of my senators saying that they lost any chance of getting my votes in the future. I did not recieve a response.

[Art Vandelay]

Well ya know, I did actually. In fact, the main part of my post was showing where you had misread or misinterpreted the op-ed piece by Feinstein. Then I expressed my own opinion.Simply quoting with bolding doesn't show misreading. Do have any evidence that I misread/misinterpreted the piece?

The insult, mild in comparison to the one you gave Scrut, was internally referential to my post, indicating that you apparently didn't read your own links very carefully.You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between "didn't read" and "didn't agree with". And Scrut is a lying jackass who for some reason has developed a vendetta against me and is now going around spreading lies. You aren't seriously comparing an insult in response to an honest post to an insult in response to a dishonest and rrelevant personal attack, are you?

You didn't read my post very carefully either since you missed everything but the insult, so I think my comment on your comprehension skills is validated. There was nothing of substance in your post.

[fuelair]

How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?

You're a lying piece of *****.

She voted for a resolution approving of government-led recitation of the pledge. The core of the First Amendment is that people should not be jailed based on their political views. Feinstein disagrees with that premise, saying that those that show disrespect for the flag and those who express their opposition to the government through flag desecration should be put in jail.

And her position is not "well thought out". Flag "desecration" involves a lot more than just burning the flag. Back before the Supreme Court started to grow a spine, they allowed Jehovah Witnesses to be jailed for refusing to say the Pledge. I guess Feinstein is okay with having people say the Pledge at gunpoint, as long as they are allowed to complain about it on their blog? That's not gutting the First Amendment? Bullsh*t. The idea that it is consistent with the First Amendment to cut away braod swaths of political expression, as long as some forms remain, is absurd.

What does it mean when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that has been presented?

First, although I disagree with her on flag desecration, her position is well thought out - my disagreement with it (and/or yours) has no bearing on that. Second, you seem to have a problem distinguishing between beliefs/thoughts and acts - they are not the same thing. IF this law is passed, it does not prevent anyone from having whatever political view they wish and expressing it verbally, on paper, in signs, electronically, etc. (nor does it require anyone to say the Pledge of Allegience unless there are secret clauses I haven't seen) - it does not even suggest (feel free to find a quote that specifically or intrinsically does say that) that disrespect for the flag be punishable -as long as that disrespect is not a physical act of destruction. In other words, if passed, the only effect of the law is that anyone who "desecrates" the flag by physical methods that damage a real flag could be charged with a crime. Again, I do not want such a law to pass, but I do not see it's passage as major damage to the First. Obviously, you are free to disagree - but you are not free to physically attack me as a part of expressing that disagreement (same principle).

[davefoc]

Since I agree with almost everything that everybody has had to say in this thread (except AV of course) and I don't have any more thoughts on the issue than those that have been expressed I don't have anything relevant to add to the conversation. This of course won't stop me from making a post.

You don't make it to a few thousand posts if not having something relevant to add keeps you from making a post on occasion.

I am a frequent reader of Huffington Post these days and one of their policies is to use highly misleading headlines often with the intent of putting a very partisan spin on a particular piece of news. The thought occurred to me that this was AV's attempt to implement a similar practice with his thread topic titles but instead of headlines designed to give a partisan Democrat spin to news, Art was attempting the same thing except to give a pro-Libertarian spin on a subject. Actually I don't think he did a bad job considering. If he could refine his approach a bit and use it as part of a Libertarian blog analogous to Huffington Post except for Libertarians I might stop by and read it on occasion.

As to the "lying piece of *****" epithet. I could not help but notice five asterisks where I would have expected the standard four. Perhaps he intended an alternative spelling that ends in e.

ETA: If the five letter version of the epithet was intended perhaps AV could assist us with what his intentions were with regard to the use of the five letter version of the word. My own cut at this is that the five letter version is a little more gentile and refined and that perhaps AV was going for that with his use of the word. Specifically here should The Central Scrutinizer be more or less insulted to be called a lying piece of ***** as opposed to a lying piece of ****.

[fishbob]

How about actually responding to my points rather posting insults?

You're a lying piece of *****.

What does it mean when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that has been presented?

Given that I looked at what you posted as evidence and found it completely irrelevant to your claim, I think it means what you said above.

Given that you are posting insults while complaining about others posting insults, I think somebody missed his nappy today.

[Dave1001]

I held them to that standard, and sent a letter to both of my senators saying that they lost any chance of getting my votes in the future. I did not recieve a response.

bwahahahahaha:p

(I agree with you on the issue. But the ending of your post reads hilariously deadpan.)

[Ian Osborne]

Whatever problems we have with the proposed legislation, banning flag desecration is a long way from "it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government" referenced in the OP.

[brodski]

Whatever problems we have with the proposed legislation, banning flag desecration is a long way from "it's okay to have teachers insult atheists every day, and that the First Amendment should be repealed so that we can put people in jail for disagreeing with the government" referenced in the OP.
Perhaps we can expand AV's line of reasoning to other political positions. For instance if you support the teaching of evolution in science classes and also think that Kent Hovind should be in gaol for tax evasion, then you could be said to be "in favour of teachers being forced to grossly insult Christian children and their families, and support people being sent to prison just because they tried to stop a large, powerful and organised armed group from forcibly taking hard earned money from private citizens".