posted 11-06- 08:53 PM               

i) privitization and subsequent vaporization of social security... oh well, who cares... all the people who matter have their retirement money in the stock market anyway

Wow, how did Amricans ever survive and become a world power without mr. governmant taking care of their smelly baby asses. I am surpised that man did not die out after the bronze age without social fucking security. I hope it vaporizes, damn commie program. I am glad it helped us out of the depression and all, but where the hell is today's depression, the 90's recesion?

j) less money to the military

Money solves everything, MY money! Get your fucking hands off my money! The military is a hell of allot cheaper when your not building Goreland ad Goreberia - US military for the US please. Wow, so the liberals are the big fighters now?

l) assloads of debt

You get debt by SPENDING money, remember how that works? Yea, Gore won't create government debt, just put me in personal debt - sounds great.

m) an incomprehensible foreign policy

What the fuck is this about? So you do not understand the term "nation building?" Or how about the concept of "America's interests?" Maybe you can disagree, but not understand??

n) Dubya constantly telling us about his heart

I like to hear about his heart, to me he is an inspirational man.

o) Laura's fake smile

I think I will live thourgh this easier than Hillary's dreams of a communist America.

p) Dubya's creepy smile (usually seen when talking about the death penalty)

The smile of confidence and intelligence does not appear "creepy" to me.

q) an explanation of what Affirmative Access is... I can dream, can't I?

Affirmative Access means that the governemt should fight against dicrimination but NEVER implement affirmitive action which means quotas and other racist programs that unfairly persicute innocent Americans.

r) more unforgettable phrases like "fuzzy math", "mediscare", and "subliminable"

You seem to have remembered them well enough to include them as r)

s) states will be able to proudly fly the Stars and Bars... hey, it's their right!

States rights is sacred to Americans.

t) Rush Limbaugh gets to control America!

Really? Who is Rush Limbaugh?

u) the president ALWAYS has a designated driver

Bush quit drinking.

v) really, really funny press conferences

HOw so? Bush does have a good sense of humor...

w) W! as in World War 3!

I don't remember that coming up in the debates...

x) Voodoo Economics!

Is that like a voodoo card? Cool!!!!

posted 11-06- 09:10 PM               

Eliminate trickle-down economics and big business, and you are a life that is, at best" like "Little House on the Prarie." A libertarian's dream, freedom - A religous right's dream, high morals. But a modeern conservative's nightmare, dirt low standard of living for all - rich and poor alike.

posted 11-12- 07:12 AM               

SV, I've always thought of welfare as society being compasionate to there fellow man.

Yes sometimes people do NEED welfare, They are not all bums.

It is a very over abused system though, That I will admit. I've been on the Canadian welfare system and they pretty much just hand out checks, They are slowly starting to realize that the only way to get people to work again is to help them and require more out of them. Hopefully this will countinue.

Why is it that everytime there is a social programme mentioned you americans right away think the whole country is going commie?

Its called helping your fellow man.

I think the average income in canada is somewhere around 35-45 thousand but i might be wrong.

The amount you get as a single person on welfare in ontario is 6240 a year, not exactly high on the hog, thats NO spending money unless you don't want a phone nor any food to eat.

A crappy apartment at 400 and a phone at 25 and theres not much left to eat on.

And its not exactly a great way to pick up women.

Belive me Thats a great incentive to find a job.

Whats wrong with social security anyways? Doesn't every one pay into it?

When you turn 65 will you refuse yours?

I've never agreed with nation building. ALways trying to make every country america.
Who made you god?

Oh yeah you never actually quit drinking, you just don't drink that day, Your ALWAYS an alchoholic, for the rest of your life. If you take one small drink your off again on a huge binge. Any day bush could have a bad day and take one drink to calm his nerves and then you have a drunk pres, Yep that will be a great day.

About big business, Tell your great system to the peope of flint michigan.

Big business isnt' all bad but it sure ain't the best thing since sliced bread that you make it out to be either.

posted 11-14- 01:42 PM               

>States rights is sacred to Americans.

LOL... by your argument, states could legally reinstate slavery tommorrow. Hey, their rights are sacred!

posted 11-14- 02:18 PM            

You went a little far out on the branch on that one bud\dy... it's a good to have it snaped out from under ya!

There is a huge difference between a state having the right to fly the flag of their choice and slavery. One is a freedom of expression. The other is a human/civil rights issue. Freedom of expression, whether for individuals or groups has always been a part of the foundation of freedoms in this country. This is why we allow groups like the KKK (not that I like em, I'm disgusted by em, but it is their right to exist). If we didnt allow them to exist we couldnt allow the NAACP, NOW, or any other group that pushes it's own agenda through the use of free expression.

Slavery is an entirely different issue. The freedom of individuals from slavery was guaranteed by the 13th Amendment(1865) - which was ratified by 2/3 of the states as is required by the Contitution. Thus the states surrendered the right to allow slavery within their confines. Actually, it was the 14th Amendement (1868) that finally made sure that the rights guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution superceeded all state laws... once again, the states themselves voted to do this.

The difference here is that no state ever voted to allow the federal government to dictate what it can or cannot run up a flag pole. If a flag being flown over a capitol is offensive to a significangt portion of the popluation there is a mechanism to deal with that. It's called (at least in California) a Proposition. Get enough signatures to put it on the ballot and make a state law banning that flag. But don't tell me that the federal gov't has the right to do so. They don't.

posted 11-14- 02:44 PM               

Yes, that's why I said...

"Hey, it's their right!"

It IS their right to fly the flag. That doesn't make it right, though.

They should NOT have the right to fly it over the state capitol. Put it in a museum or put it in your house if you like, but DO NOT fly it over the state capitol.

posted 11-14- 03:20 PM               

Let me get this straight... You think that the state ought to be able to fly whatever flag they want over the state capitol building?

posted 11-14- 03:22 PM            

We are a nation of free individuals. This means that no one person is more or less free, or important than another. Political correctness is the greatest threat freedom has ever, or will ever face. It is an insidious slow devourer of individual freedoms. If the PC movement continues (and thank the lord it seems to be slowing) the rights of individuals will slowly become supplanted by the "rights" of those who are easily offended. The PC road, in its most extreme, can lead to "re-education" camps for those that don't conform and dare to think differently.

Of course I am exagerating in that last run-on paragraph... but just to illustrate the point. Individual/group freedom of expression MUST come before the concerns of the PC pundits. The Constitution guarantees freedom from unwarranted prosecution, not being offended.

posted 11-14- 03:44 PM               

If states should be allowed to fly any flag they want, which of course means that they can claim allegiance to whomever they choose, then why have a United States? Are you saying we should break up the union and become a country of loosely associated, sovereign and autonomous territories?

posted 11-14- 04:23 PM               

And yes, you have it right...an individual or a state government has the right, until expressly forbiden by law, to fly the Nazi flag. Would it be tasteless? Yes. Would it cause protests and maybe riots? Yes. Would it be political suicide? Yes. Would you have to be insane to do it? Yes. Is it politically correct? No. It it legal? YES!!! Where do you draw the line saying that an unpopular opinion can not be expressed? "Can" not and "should" not are the differences between legal and PC. Unfortunately PC is becoming legal and that's not right.

Until a law prohibits it, the "right" exists...despite your personal feelings against it.

posted 11-14- 04:36 PM               

How else should we interpret the flying of a non-US flag over the state capitol? Heritage? I think not.

When you fly a flag over the state capitol that sends a clear message... this is the flag we acknowledge and pledge allegiance to. It's not about heritage and it's not about political correctness. It's about who we pledge our allegiance to.

posted 11-14- 05:20 PM            

Where the hell are you from, and what method of brainwashing did they use on you in summer camp?

You say the most ingorent ass shit. I hope your not serious about your colidascope of views.
Your like a donut. You have no center.

If you are serious, there is no help for you. You are a lost cause.

posted 11-14- 06:02 PM               

Typical Propwash hogwash... avoid the debate and the issues and attack your opponent personally.

And since you did, I might as well strike back in the same manner... you may want to refrain from calling people ignorant until you learn how to spell the word.

posted 11-14- 06:06 PM               

You put way too much store in symbolism. Most, if not all, states fly their state flag over their capitols. Does that mean they aren't part of the US?

posted 11-14- 06:17 PM               

Um, hate to throw cold water on you, but that is NOT the South Carolina state flag.

In fact, it is interesting to note that while other state flags contain elements of the stars and bars, the South Carolina flag contains no elements of nor bears any resemblence to the stars and bars.

>Give me just one example of the state government NOT showing allegience to the US.

Flying the Rebel Flag... that IS the example.

[This message has been edited by JT (edited 11-14-2000).]

posted 11-14- 06:32 PM            

Every state in the US flys the Stars and Stripes over it's capitol. They also tend to fly their state flag (which, in at least one case IS the Stars and Bars). In California we even fly the flag of visiting dignitaries countries and have on occasion flown the Mexican flag in observance of Cinqo de Mayo. I know this first hand as for 3 years I worked approximatly 300 yards from the Capitol building in Sacramento and could see the flags from my office window (16th Floor).

Flying a flag does not signify allegience when in the context of flying it over a capitol building, it signifies respect. On a ship is signifies allegience. On a battle field its just a handy way to keep your own people from blowing your head off. But on a capitol building its merely a matter of respect. There is in fact no federal law that requires a state to fly the Stars and Stripes.

And JT, if you bone up on your history oif the US you would realize that in many respects we are federation of semi-autonomous territories. It was the only way we could survive as a country when the country was formed... and still is. That is why we in fact have state level laws that override federal statutes... a unique condition in the entire world to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Theoretically a state could declare allegience to another Gov't or even to itself... they just have to manage to win the civil war.

BTW - another example of the "losers" flag flying over a state is right here in my home of California. The Bear Flag of California was raised by settlers in 1846 when they revolted against Mexico. Their goal was to create an independant country. The US military stepped in to lend aid to the settlers and the Mexico ended up surrendering California... but to the US, not the Californians. They Californians fought briefly with the US military before deciding it was futile and agreed to become a US territory (not yet a state). So, the Bear Flag, which was the flag of the revolt and was flown while fighting US soldiers still flies over Cali today... and we don't consider ourselves a seperate country.

posted 11-14- 06:38 PM            

The flag that flies over the S.C. capitol building is *not* the Stars and Bars but the Southern Cross. It should also be noted that all of the southern states have passed laws preventing hate-groups from using any of the 7 different flags of the confederacy.

posted 11-14- 06:42 PM               

In many respects, yes... but NOT in the respect that should allow you to fly a defeated battle flag over a state capitol.

Face it, the only way you can keep that flag up there is through some tortured legalistic argument about free speech... it's absurd. The flag belongs on people's personal property or in a museum, not over a state capitol. You can't talk around that.

posted 11-14- 07:09 PM               

The Southern Cross and the Stars and Bars are essentially the same flag. In fact, the Southern Cross was a design that was specifically intended to replace the Stars and Bars on the battlefield since it was difficult to distinguish the Stars and Bars from the flag of the Union.

Same flag. Same problem.

posted 11-14- 07:17 PM               

Nope. The Stars and Bars is not a state flag. There are certain state flags that use elements of the stars and bars, which incidently is fine by me, but no state flys THE stars and bars as their state flag.

posted 11-14- 07:43 PM               

Now there's a good place for that flag... put it on a car, not a state capitol building!

posted 11-14- 08:36 PM               

I never said that the Confederate flag over the SC state house was the SC state flag. I merely pointed out that most other states do fly their own state flag over their capitol.

Since you seem to believe that whatever flag is up there announces the allegiance and political beliefs of that particular state's government, then you are also saying that any state house that flys any flag other than Old Glory must be disloyal to the US.

It must really piss you to see Pipers in a 4th of July parade wearing kilts. How dare they declare their allegiance to Scotland right in the middle of such a sacred American day.

"tortured legalistic argument"? So where's the law that limits what states can fly over their capitols? Again, you are confusing PC and common sense with "rights". I thought liberals were supposed to be so tolerant of others exercising their "rights".

Let's here it for the right to suck the brains out of a near term baby. Let's here it for the right to assisted suicide. Let's here it for the right of someone to get a job ahead of better qualified people just because of their gender or race. Let's here it for the right of someone to suck on the national nipple for their whole life and never contribute to society. And speaking of sucking, let's here it for the right of the President to get blow jobs from subordinates at the work place during work hours, while you or I would get fired for the same thing. These are the "rights" that liberals hold dear. But boy, you better not fly the wrong flag or they'll be all over you like flies on shit!

posted 11-14- 09:14 PM            

For some reason, the flag is a big deal. I say, who cares. War's been over for 150 years...we lost..big deal.

But it is freedom of speech. To some, the flag represents heritage, to others it represents hate and oppresion. To me, it represnets Rosco Picole Train and Daisy Duke. I could care less. Should they be able to fly it over the capitol building? Sure, why not. Let the voters of the state figure it out. If they wanna look like rednecks to the world, then let them. Sure, you are gonna offend people...but its the year 2000, and you can't say anything without hurting someones feelings. I mean, if I flipped off every guy in a Ford truck that has one of those Calvin stickers where he's peeing on a Chevy, I'd get my ass kicked every day by some tabacco chewing redneck. (What kinda sticker do you have on your 4x4 Prop?)

People in the south are silly like that. I'm supposed to hate Aggies cause I'm a Longhorn. In Texas, if you don't like dubya, you are a tax happy liberal....

Bah, let the flag fly. Don't impose gun control. Don't limit abortions. Don't change the electoral college for the loser. Don't limit anything. Let doctors kill people that wanna die.

This country is going to shit. We are arguing about a flag found on top of a 78 Dodge Charger in a redneck TV show. Gimme a break.

posted 11-14- 11:56 PM               

Actually, I think he should have been removed for that... automatic.

Instead you guys went for yet again a tortured and protracted legal war... and guess what... you lost.

Back to the flag. It is the battle flag of the Confederacy. They lost. It comes down. Simple. Done. Period.

It's YOU guys who are touchy-feely and PC about this. You talk about respect. What about respect for the people that fought against that flag?

posted 11-15- 12:04 AM               

Um... now I'm really confused. If most states fly their state flag over their capitol building, then what on Earth is South Carolina doing flying the Stars and Bars over it's state capitol?

posted 11-15- 01:02 AM               

1) You think Clinton should have been removed but condemn the Republicans for a "tortured and protracted legal war". How do you propose he be removed if not through the legal process? Maybe a ride through Dallas in an open convertible?

2) You say the Confederate flag should not be flown because...they lost? What's that got to do with it being legal or even appropriate? Are you saying that the flag of any country or ex-country that ever lost a war should never be flown? I hate to tell you but we lost the Vietnam war. Maybe we shouldn't fly our flag either?

3)You claim to be confused because South Carolina didn't fly it's state flag, like most (all?) of the other states. Well excuuuuuuse me. Let's all get in lock step and be mind-numbed robots. What ever happened to that great liberal support for diversity? Oh, I forgot...Democrats are for diversity as long as the diverse groups vote Democrat.

Really JT, it's just a fucking flag. If South Carolin want's to hang Monica's cum stained dress over their capitol building that's their business and the business of the citizens of South Carolina, not your's, not mine, not Clinton's and not Jesse Jackson's. Period.

posted 11-15- 01:42 AM               

Vietnam

Last I checked, we haven't made any attempts to fly our flag in Vietnam over Vietnamese government buildings. I can't imagine that would go over too well.

Furthermore, we were defeated IN Vietnam and thrown out. We were not conquered. Our land was not taken. Your analogy is simply not applicable.

South Carolina

So, even though most states fly their state flag over their capitol building, South Carolina flys the Stars and Bars. The reasoning? Some vague and unexplained notions about respect and heritage. Who's heritage? Cetainly not EVERYBODY'S heritage in South Carolina.

Believe it or not, I have no problem with the flag itself. I'm quite ambivalent about it. It stands for a lot of good things and it stands for a lot of bad things. Regardless of all that, when you put it atop a state capitol, that stands in defiance of and mocks our current flag, which in part, represents our victory over the Stars and Bars.

[This message has been edited by JT (edited 11-15-2000).]

posted 11-15- 01:48 AM               

States can't do whatever the hell they want. We are the United States. Not the Divided and Sovereign States.
Then again, look where we're headed.

posted 11-15- 02:12 AM               

Your country was formed not to long ago in terms of civilized history.

ever notice how most other continets are split up into small countrys? yet NA is 3?

I could see states spliting off from the US, provinces from Canada. and forming new countrys.

God knows I sometimes wish Quebec would just leave and get it over with.

Its just a matter of time in my eyes. We just havn't gotten the 400-1000 years of hatred ingrained yet like some european countrys.

Course with the european union they might be heading more towards a united states like system, not that i can ever see it going all the way.

posted 11-15- 04:43 AM               

As to the flying of the CSA battle flag, or any other flag, over a State Capitol; technically, I suppose, as in the suggested scenario of a Nazi flag, yeah, it might be in poor taste....but if a flag can be considered as indicative of part of a State's history either singly or as part of a United action ( such as any outstanding or memorable performances in any wartime situation ) then it should be the right of that State's legislature to allow it to be flown. There is a suggested heirarchy for this, I think, though I am not totally familiar with it...something to do with the US flag taking 'center stage', so to speak.

I have to agree that it is well within a state's right to do this with no interference from the US gov't. As was said, it may not always be easy to support, but our right to expression is totally important. Too much erosion into our original freedoms has occurred already...I am in total agreement that the 'PC' movement is one of them. I try to look at it this way...I have the right to be offended, if I wish. Also, though, I have the right to offend, if I wish. Inclusive within that right...if I am offended and have the right to say so, then also if I offend, others have the right to tell me. That doesn't mean either side has the right to make the other's opinions illegal, unless it leads to physical harm.

While I may not like that, it is a principle that is part of our heritage and our history, and I have some obligation - and the right - to defend it as a action. And here I have to say that I am proud to see that one State has the courage to honor that flag...this is just my opinion, but it represents to me a pivotal point in our country's History, and thus should be proudly displayed and not hidden away. I do not make the same association with it as others do, in regards to slavery; if I did, our own flag would carry that connotation, as would the British and God knows how many others. Our Civil conflict actually was not fought with slavery as a issue, but States' rights to choose their own destiny. It actually was the Federal Government in Washington that made it a issue, when the North was faced with the very real possibility of losing the war, and needed something to arouse the 'Patriotic Fervor' that was so very absent at that time.

Dang...where the heck did all that crap come from? I really need some sleep!

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 11-15- 11:02 AM            

It does not change the fact that your views are shit.

Thank you,

posted 11-15- 12:44 PM               

This is where we differ I guess. I think the federal government ought to have the power to step in and say what flags get flown over state capitols. Like I said before, I'm ambivalent about the meaning of the Stars and Bars. It stands for good things and bad things. My problem with it is that it is a defeated flag that's flying high within the country that fought it. That's not right. Not by a long shot.

Furthermore, I see no good reason to leave it up. There are many ways to respect the dead. Flying a flag over a state capitol is not the best way. Flying a flag over a state capitol carries a lot of political baggage that should not be attached to respecting the dead and concepts of heritage.

This flag lies in stark contrast to every other state-- states which have the sense to fly their state flag, not some battle flag from a past war.

The fact that by your argument you can fly a Nazi flag over a state capitol building should raise a red flag in your mind and show you that you're on the wrong side of this argument.

Anyway, this argument is getting circular. With you people, I think I might have had better luck proving that George Dubya's smile is indeed creepy. :-)

posted 11-15- 01:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Propwash:
Excuse the typo JT,

It does not change the fact that your views are shit.

Thank you,

Prop out

---