Flag Burning Amendment

[Easy Mac]

Seriously, I'd ask whats going on, but I think we all know this is a vote grab for the Republicans. They need to get back to painting Democrats as America haters, so what better way than to bring something up they know won't pass, or one that they knoe the Dems will almost be forced to pass... no use wasting time on important things like stem cells where we might actually have to back up our stated position.

But anyway, the best I could find on the House site, here is what was passed:

<center>1st Session</center> <center>H. J. RES. 10</center>

<center>JOINT RESOLUTION</center>

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

HJ 10 EH

<center>109th CONGRESS</center> <center>1st Session</center> <center>H. J. RES. 10</center>

<hr> <center>JOINT RESOLUTION</center>

<btitle>Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.</btitle>



Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --



`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.
Passed the House of Representatives June 22, 2005.

Attest:

Clerk.
Seriously, what does that mean, and how is that directly related only to flag burning. What denotes desecration? Does that include some guy having the flag on his shirt and the shirt getting holes through the flag or paint on it from paintball? What if I have a flag bumper sticker and I just leave it in the sun all day and it fades?

Personally, if I ever see a guy burning the flag, good for him... but he better understand I'll punch him in the face and spit on him. There's no reason for this amendment except a pure power grab.

I mean seriously guys, find something better to do with your time, like hiding dead hookers or something.

[CamEdwards]

It's a well meaning but misguided piece of legislation, IMO. Of course, I feel that way about 95% of the legislation I disagree with.

[Easy Mac]

Cam, just to make sure, you don't have nutbags call in like the Rush Limbaugh show. I was listening today at work, and some nut called in saying something about Democrats parading the flag around in public when they need it, but burning it at other times.

I know there are nutjobs on each side of the aisle, but how do these people function in normal society, and do they actually believe this stuff?

[Bearcat729]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y284/PCM72/3F16JackSheldon.jpg


There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom.
I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em.
'Cause there's limits to our liberties.
'Least I hope and pray that there are.
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

[Joe]

ehh who cares, its just a fucking flag.

[MrBigglesworth]

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
Besides the delicious irony of that, it means that the Congress will not be making laws just against the act, but rather will have to distinguish between different intents, which always gets tricky.

Besides, as Jon Stewart said, aren't most of the flags that are burnt being burnt outside the United States anyway?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Seriously, I'd ask whats going on, but I think we all know this is a vote grab for the Republicans. They need to get back to painting Democrats as America haters, so what better way than to bring something up they know won't pass, or one that they knoe the Dems will almost be forced to pass... no use wasting time on important things like stem cells where we might actually have to back up our stated position.

But anyway, the best I could find on the House site, here is what was passed:


Seriously, what does that mean, and how is that directly related only to flag burning. What denotes desecration? Does that include some guy having the flag on his shirt and the shirt getting holes through the flag or paint on it from paintball? What if I have a flag bumper sticker and I just leave it in the sun all day and it fades?

Personally, if I ever see a guy burning the flag, good for him... but he better understand I'll punch him in the face and spit on him. There's no reason for this amendment except a pure power grab.

I mean seriously guys, find something better to do with your time, like hiding dead hookers or something.

Does this apply to flags MADE IN CHINA or just made In USA?

[Tara]

Just to understand better : Are Americans really offended by a burning flag or something like that? Americans rally feel the need to write amendement about their flag? Maybe this thing is not part of european culture so is hard for me to ralize that.
I don't know if we have something like your amendement but It seem that nobody here cares so much about their own country flag...I mean, there is not shuch idealization of the object.

[MrBigglesworth]

Just to understand better : Are Americans really offended by a burning flag or something like that? Americans rally feel the need to write amendement about their flag? Maybe this thing is not part of european culture so is hard for me to ralize that.
I don't know if we have something like your amendement but It seem that nobody here cares so much about their own country flag...I mean, there is not shuch idealization of the object.
I think the word you are looking for is 'idolization', and really it is just a cheap political trick by a certain segment of the ideological spectrum. It is an issue that is hard to defend, because they just keep screaming about how you must be on the side of the viet cong/communists/terrorists if you want people to burn the flag. Having a rational discussion about free speech is impossible in that type of environment.

You see, the poll numbers for that segment of the political spectrum are low and getting lower because their policy is terrible, so instead of making good policy, they create scapegoats. That's why you see this amendment passing in the House and Rove saying things like:
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers...Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
It's all part of the greater goal of blaming everything that is going wrong on the 'liberals', all while saying how nothing is wrong. It's like living in an Orwell novel.

[sovereignstar]

Just to understand better : Are Americans really offended by a burning flag or something like that? Americans rally feel the need to write amendement about their flag?
I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the country would say no. This is not an American thing. It's more of an overly nationalistic thing. If you looked hard enough you could probably find someone in Italy that would be in favor of something like this.

[Tara]

Ok, that's what i liked to know. If we talk about overly nationalistic thing here in Europe we can find not only 'flag-related' problems but things far away worst than that.

[Tara]

I think the word you are looking for is 'idolization', and really it is just a cheap political trick by a certain segment of the ideological spectrum. It is an issue that is hard to defend, because they just keep screaming about how you must be on the side of the viet cong/communists/terrorists if you want people to burn the flag. Having a rational discussion about free speech is impossible in that type of environment.

You see, the poll numbers for that segment of the political spectrum are low and getting lower because their policy is terrible, so instead of making good policy, they create scapegoats. That's why you see this amendment passing in the House and Rove saying things like:

It's all part of the greater goal of blaming everything that is going wrong on the 'liberals', all while saying how nothing is wrong. It's like living in an Orwell novel.

Good analysis. I like it.

[Blackadar]

I'll give this legislation what it deserves. :rolleyes:

[miked]

Just to understand better : Are Americans really offended by a burning flag or something like that? Americans rally feel the need to write amendement about their flag? Maybe this thing is not part of european culture so is hard for me to ralize that.
I don't know if we have something like your amendement but It seem that nobody here cares so much about their own country flag...I mean, there is not shuch idealization of the object.

You're talking about a House and Senate that wants to write an amendment banning gay people from getting married. Not a threadjack, but amendments seem to be a tad misguided lately.

Also, I think an amendment like this has been attempted like 10 times or something in the last decade or something, so this is hardly some brand new thing.

[Subby]

Who cares what comes out of the House? That part of congress has more nutbags than a Planters Peanuts factory...

[Blackadar]

Maybe the House and Senate can make a combo Amendment?

Any gays who get married get burned at the Flag?



The whole thing is a crock of shit. Political grandstanding and fake patriotism. It's funny how the jokers are taking bribes, getting their houses bought for double the worth, getting to live free on boats, etc. and then they have the audacity to pretend they are patriots. I'm beginning to think Ben Franklin was right...a little revolution is a good thing.

[CraigSca]

...and yet, we vote the same people in over and over again. Our congressman is good, everyone else's is bad.

[larrymcg421]

This legislation is idiotic. Not only is it a bad idea, but it will not achieve it's own purpose.

Right now there is no epidemic of flag burning. However, if you make it illegal to burn the flag, there will be more flag burnings than ever before. People will use it as a means of protest since it will get them publicity. I'm sure Martin Sheen is already looking into it.

[Arles]

This is a very silly amendment. I have no problem with allowing people to burn the flag and act like idiots - isn't that why we fought "for the flag" to begin with? Plus, it's easy to see the loonbags by looking for people that do burn the flag. ;)

In the end, this is a prime case of political grandstanding. I'm just a little surprised they didn't wait until early 2006 (to get the most for re-election).

[JonInMiddleGA]

You're talking about a House and Senate that wants to write an amendment banning gay people from getting married. Not a threadjack, but amendments seem to be a tad misguided lately.

Gee Miked, you've managed to pair up two of the examples of potential amendments that I support the most intensely, nice work.

[BrianD]

I'm not so much against this ammendment. It would be nice if this could be accomplished without a constitutional ammendment, but I guess it couldn't. I'm all for free speech, but I think people should have respect for the flag and find another way to protest.

The thing that I am most uneasy about is the fact that this flag desecration stuff came up (for this round) so soon after all of the Koran desecration news. I'm not sure that is the association I would be going for.

[st.cronin]

I'm afraid the point of this is lost on me. Is there some epidemic of flag desecration that I'm not aware of?

I don't even believe that this is an effective vote grab - I think with most people this just plays as cynical and silly.

[Jon]

It's just a case of political grandstanding by the Republicans. They introduce it every couple of years when the polls are down and they need to find a way to rally their supporters to their side. Odds are, it won't make it out of the Senate.

An amendment is not needed. If the State wanted to get people who burn the flag, there are several neutral laws that can be, and have been, used, such as arson or other public safety laws. And flag burning in the U.S. is so infrequent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't even believe that this is an effective vote grab - I think with most people this just plays as cynical and silly.

I think you're underestimating it. Not so much the impact of the "pro" position but rather the impact of a "no" position. That's going to be very useful in a number of races coming up, watch & see.

[Klinglerware]

I'm not so much against this ammendment. It would be nice if this could be accomplished without a constitutional ammendment, but I guess it couldn't. I'm all for free speech, but I think people should have respect for the flag and find another way to protest.

The thing that I am most uneasy about is the fact that this flag desecration stuff came up (for this round) so soon after all of the Koran desecration news. I'm not sure that is the association I would be going for.

I think that Koran desecration has nothing to do with this, other than the fact that both should remain legal. In the GTMO thread, nobody really disagreed with the statement that private citizens of the United States can do what they please with the Koran, as is their right.

Again, I don't care if people use the flag or the Koran as toilet paper--it's legal, baby...

[BrianD]

Yes, you can imagine anyone that votes "no" will have all kinds of political ads created about them to point out this fact.

[KWhit]

Gee Miked, you've managed to pair up two of the examples of potential amendments that I support the most intensely, nice work.
Yep. That's what's wrong with this country today - the gays and the flag-burners.

[Klinglerware]

I think you're underestimating it. Not so much the impact of the "pro" position but rather the impact of a "no" position. That's going to be very useful in a number of races coming up, watch & see.

True. The Republicans are going to need more stuff like this to make up for the punishment they are going to get for overstepping on Schiavo--I see the Democratic knives sharpening on that one.

It's gonna get ugly, per usual...

[miked]

I think you're underestimating it. Not so much the impact of the "pro" position but rather the impact of a "no" position. That's going to be very useful in a number of races coming up, watch & see.

Absolutely. When I lived in ATL, everyone talked about how Sonny Purdue won the election based on the state flag issue. If you vote no against an amendment banning flag burning, then you hate america and are with the terrorists. That's a common theme these days.

I'm not really in favor of gay marriage or burning the flag, but I don't really see why we have to write these things into one of the most important documents in our country.

[digamma]

Isn't this like the 7th Congress in a row the amendment has passed in the House? It typically gets bogged down in the Senate because it can't get the 2/3 required.

[Subby]

Now, if they pass an amendment banning married gays from burning flags, I'll probably get behind it.

[Subby]

Or I'll get behind the married gays, depending on how much they love hot gay three-ways.

[Subby]

And who speaks for the gay flag?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but I don't really see why we have to write these things into one of the most important documents in our country.

Because failing to do so is no longer an acceptable option.

[Jon]

Because failing to do so is no longer an acceptable option.

Why? We don't need to add a constitutional amendment for every political issue of the moment. This is exactly what this amendment is-- an attempt to polarize people and label those opposed to the amendment, regardless of the reason, as "Anti-American."

Anti-big government people should be opposed to this amendment.

[Scissors]

Because failing to do so is no longer an acceptable option.

This irrational drivel comes as a shock, given your incessant pathetic mewling demanding that the government persecute, prosecute and execute any citizen on your behalf who fails to conform to your aberrant ideological whimsy.

You can pretend that the contempt in which you and your worthless, widely discredited turds of philosophy are held is mutual, but that does nothing to change the reality that you and your ill-conceived rantings are, in actuality, taken as seriously as the OJ Simpson juror who insisted on wearing her star trek uniform to court.

[JonInMiddleGA]

an attempt to polarize people and label those opposed to the amendment, regardless of the reason, as "Anti-American."

Jon, this isn't polarizing anybody, we're already polarized.

I'm content to accept whatever anybody thinks of my supporting this measure (or any other that I support), I just don't get this whole idea that there's any benefit in hiding your beliefs in order to maintain some false sense of "getting along". Honestly, I just don't see it. The disagreement exists, whether it's acknowledged or not, I'm of the belief that being honest about it is preferrable to expending valuable energy trying to hide it or deny it.

And how weird it is to address a post to someone who uses the same spelling of my own name.

[Klinglerware]

Ooh, another "why was x banned?" thread coming soon!

[JonInMiddleGA]

This irrational drivel comes as a shock, given your incessant pathetic mewling demanding that the government persecute, prosecute and execute any citizen on your behalf who fails to conform to your aberrant ideological whimsy.

You can pretend that the contempt in which you and your worthless, widely discredited turds of philosophy are held is mutual, but that does nothing to change the reality that you and your ill-conceived rantings are, in actuality, taken as seriously as the OJ Simpson juror who insisted on wearing her star trek uniform to court.

Welcome to FOFC, first-time poster. I'm so happy you could join us.

And I just so happy that there's no reason at all to suspect that you were somehow so familiar with me that you would post under an alias because you were too chickenshit to speak under your own name. Yeppers, I'm tickled to death that this isn't the sort of place where such a thing could even be suspected.

Alas, it's my side that's winning, hopefully that realization will soon drive you either off a short pier or to the business end of a rope. Either way, just so long as you don't procreate, it's all good.

[Subby]

This irrational drivel comes as a shock, given your incessant pathetic mewling demanding that the government persecute, prosecute and execute any citizen on your behalf who fails to conform to your aberrant ideological whimsy.
The only thing pathetic here is your posting under an alias...

Posting under your main account on a message board for text-based sports sims is bad enough. Doing it with an alter-ego...welcome to Dorksville's Annual Unicorns and Rainbows Festival....

[JonInMiddleGA]

... welcome to Dorksville's Annual Unicorns and Rainbows Festival....

Is this always the weekend for that, or does the date change each year?

[st.cronin]

This irrational drivel comes as a shock, given your incessant pathetic mewling demanding that the government persecute, prosecute and execute any citizen on your behalf who fails to conform to your aberrant ideological whimsy.

You can pretend that the contempt in which you and your worthless, widely discredited turds of philosophy are held is mutual, but that does nothing to change the reality that you and your ill-conceived rantings are, in actuality, taken as seriously as the OJ Simpson juror who insisted on wearing her star trek uniform to court.

weak, very weak

[Huckleberry]

They better repeal the first amendment at the same time or they will have two conflicting amendments.

[Subby]

Is this always the weekend for that, or does the date change each year?Weekend. You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of content at one of these things. The trade show alone...yeesh.

[larrymcg421]

I rarely agree with Jon on any political issue, but seriously if you don't have the guts to post an attack on him under your own username on a text sim message board, you might as well just slice your dick off right now. You are just pathetic and spineless. What a fucking weasel.

[HomerJSimpson]

Pretty funny that the loudest person in the thread that is for a very unpopular position is defended immediately by the very people arguing against him when an unknown party comes in to attack him. Interesting picture of group psychology (Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!). :)

[st.cronin]

The problem isn't that 'Scissors' is unkown but rather that it is obviously an anonymous attack from somebody who at the very least reads this board semi-frequently. Had scissors stuck to the topic at hand and abused Jon I think he/she would have been applauded by some.

[sterlingice]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y284/PCM72/3F16JackSheldon.jpg


There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom.
I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em.
'Cause there's limits to our liberties.
'Least I hope and pray that there are.
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
Bill!

SI

[sterlingice]

The problem isn't that 'Scissors' is unkown but rather that it is obviously an anonymous attack from somebody who at the very least reads this board semi-frequently. Had scissors stuck to the topic at hand and abused Jon I think he/she would have been applauded by some.
Wonderful. Welcome to the land of stupid FOFC hazing. Just so the none of the others make this mistake in the future, could someone tell me how many posts they need before they can start going after the ideology of an "established member".

The shout of "n00b" has to be the single stupidest rallying cry on the net. FFS, it's like HJS said: "Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!"

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the collective trio who have called out this weasel (sorry LMcG, I'm gonna borrow that) don't shame them into a revelation, I doubt anything will.

Subby, St. Cronin, LarryMcG -- we'll fight like hell against each other, and I don't believe we have any illusions about how well we'd get along IRL most likely, but I'm genuinely gratified that at least you know that what I have to say, I'll say straight & stand by it.

[HomerJSimpson]

The problem isn't that 'Scissors' is unkown but rather that it is obviously an anonymous attack from somebody who at the very least reads this board semi-frequently. Had scissors stuck to the topic at hand and abused Jon I think he/she would have been applauded by some.


I'm by no means defending this poster, and agree he is probably on the short bus heading toward banned-land, but I still think it is funny how quickly people jumped on him.

[st.cronin]

Wonderful. Welcome to the land of stupid FOFC hazing. Just so the none of the others make this mistake in the future, could someone tell me how many posts they need before they can start going after the ideology of an "established member".

The shout of "n00b" has to be the single stupidest rallying cry on the net. FFS, it's like HJS said: "Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!"

SI

I agree with you, but this is not a n00b situation. Check the language used by scissors. This is somebody who has obviously read many of JonGa's posts, and for whatever reason chose THIS thread to go off on him in his first ever fofc post. You have to admit, that's more than a little goofy.

[larrymcg421]

I really doubt it is an actual n00b. Even if it was, then yes I think someone who makes their 1st post an outright attack on someone will be seen as a possible troll, and rightly so. If you've spent some time here, without a reputation as a troll, then I think one single attack will be seen quite differently than if it is your very first post.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The shout of "n00b" has to be the single stupidest rallying cry on the net. FFS, it's like HJS said: "Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!"

SI, I believe you're missing the point here.

This isn't a "noob", it's pretty obvious that this is an alias for an existing member, since they pretty clearly are familiar with my postings.

They're certainly not being condemned for disagreeing with me, they're being condemned for not having the strength of character to stand up & do it under their own name.

Good Lord man, look at those who called him/her out, surely you don't believe that esteemed trio is going to rush to my aid just based on my longevity.
(Although that's a kinda tongue-in-cheek way to phrase that, I think the point is pretty valid).

[st.cronin]

If the collective trio who have called out this weasel (sorry LMcG, I'm gonna borrow that) don't shame them into a revelation, I doubt anything will.

Subby, St. Cronin, LarryMcG -- we'll fight like hell against each other, and I don't believe we have any illusions about how well we'd get along IRL most likely, but I'm genuinely gratified that at least you know that what I have to say, I'll say straight & stand by it.

I am not sure what you mean but I honestly think we would get along famously IRL.

[sterlingice]

SI, I believe you're missing the point here.

This isn't a "noob", it's pretty obvious that this is an alias for an existing member, since they pretty clearly are familiar with my postings.

They're certainly not being condemned for disagreeing with me, they're being condemned for not having the strength of character to stand up & do it under their own name.

Good Lord man, look at those who called him/her out, surely you don't believe that esteemed trio is going to rush to my aid just based on my longevity.
(Although that's a kinda tongue-in-cheek way to phrase that, I think the point is pretty valid).
If it's an alias for an existing member, then they'll be in the box soon enough and it won't matter. I'm sure he's been reported multiple times by now.

I will take issue with the last statement, tho. To use a political example, if someone attacks a senator on something other senators think people could attack them on, blue and red will attack in glorious harmony, united in self interest. N00b on the 'net is the same thing- sure the good ol' boys disagree with each other but they'll look out for each other from an outsider.

SI

[Glengoyne]

I hope this gets bounced hard in the Senate. I'm still a bit shocked it passed the house.

I believe that the right of citizens to burn the flag of this nation is one of the primary reasons that this is a great country. The flag as important as it is, isn't physically more important than the freedoms it symbolically represents. A flag burning amendment does more harm to what the flag stands for than burning an actual flag.

[st.cronin]

I hope this gets bounced hard in the Senate. I'm still a bit shocked it passed the house.

I believe that the right of citizens to burn the flag of this nation is one of the primary reasons that this is a great country.

I'm sorry, but I think that is a silly argument. If the flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy, then burning it or defacing it is akin to renouncing freedom and democracy.

I am not in favor of this amendment, because it is silly and pointless, but if somebody does burn the flag in protest they are pretty much renouncing their citizenship.

[albionmoonlight]

They better repeal the first amendment at the same time or they will have two conflicting amendments.
I don't know if you were just making a political point here, but I'll try to throw in some actual knowlege in case you were not. This thread has the potential to go down in infamy, so I want to preserve my place in it now.

An Amendment is just that--an amendment. It amends what is already there. This would not conflict with the First Amendment. By definition, it could not. What it will do is change the First Amendment to, in effect, create an exception to it.

Remember, constitutional amendments are where you can break/change all the rules. It is the basis on which we have a government. Nothing in our system is superior to the constitution.

[NoMyths]

I'm sorry, but I think that is a silly argument. If the flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy, then burning it or defacing it is akin to renouncing freedom and democracy.

I am not in favor of this amendment, because it is silly and pointless, but if somebody does burn the flag in protest they are pretty much renouncing their citizenship.Let's extend this further then, shall we? The office of the Presidency of the United States is a symbol of freedom and democracy. Why shouldn't we then pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting criticism of the President? After all, by your argument criticizing the symbol is akin to renouncing you citizenship.

The flag symbolizes the freedom to allow itself to be burned in order to exemplify the freedoms it stands for. When we become more interested in the symbol than those freedoms, we have a problem.

[Klinglerware]

I'm sorry, but I think that is a silly argument. If the flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy, then burning it or defacing it is akin to renouncing freedom and democracy.

I am not in favor of this amendment, because it is silly and pointless, but if somebody does burn the flag in protest they are pretty much renouncing their citizenship.

Yes it is a symbol, but, just a symbol. I always thought that the Constitution is much more important to our way of life and I've always wondered why we don't pledge allegience to the Constitution. Soldiers never say that they are defending the Constitution, even though that is more relevant than the flag to what makes our country what it is...

[Huckleberry]

albion -

It was a political point. It should be made loud and clear prior to the rest of the Amendment process if this thing gets through the Senate that they are directly modifying the power and scope of the First Amendment.

As for JIMG, two things. First, that anonymous attack was funny in its cowardice. Second, nothing he says surprises me, only when others refer to him as a conservative. He is a right-leaning totalitarian.

[st.cronin]

Let's extend this further then, shall we? The office of the Presidency of the United States is a symbol of freedom and democracy. Why shouldn't we then pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting criticism of the President? After all, by your argument criticizing the symbol is akin to renouncing you citizenship.

The flag symbolizes the freedom to allow itself to be burned in order to exemplify the freedoms it stands for. When we become more interested in the symbol than those freedoms, we have a problem.

I see your point but I would counter that the office of the presidency is only secondarily, if at all, a symbol. Primarily it is a job.

Secondly, criticizing the office of the president (or even the man in the office) is a long way from setting the presidential seal on fire, which act I would argue is also not protected under the first amendment (the burning, not the criticizing).

The first amendment is about protecting speech and ideas; the idea of freedom of speech is to create a free flow of thought, to make this nation a beacon of enlightenment. I think burning a flag as a gesture lowers the debate, and doesn't have a coherent message anyway.

I am not a lawyer, and barely understand the supreme court's various rulings on free speech, so this is all just my opinion of how it should work.

[Peregrine]

Though I think this is a silly and unnecessary amendment, my prediction is that this gets really close in the Senate, probably so close (or decided in favor) that Democrats have to jump the fence to get on record as supporting it in the final tally, it wins big.

[MrBigglesworth]

Anti-big government people should be opposed to this amendment.
JonInMiddleGA is right-wing, so people think of him as being libertarian, but in fact his views are more totalitarian. It makes sense for him to support this.

[NoMyths]

I am not a lawyer, and barely understand the supreme court's various rulings on free speech, so this is all just my opinion of how it should work.Fair enough.

[MrBigglesworth]

Alas, it's my side that's winning, hopefully that realization will soon drive you either off a short pier or to the business end of a rope.
Which side is that, exactly, and what are they winning? Your brand of totalitarianism definitely isn't in the majority, and the ruling Republicans haven't been able to pass much of any conservative legislation, and what they do pass has to be named with a liberal-friendly name (Clear Skies that does nothing to make the skies clear, Healthy Forests which does not make the forests healthy, etc.). The side that is 'winning' right now is big business and the lobbying groups: nearly every bill is a handout to some of them.

[JW]

For the record, I find burning the American flag to be a repulsive act, but, for the record, I oppose the flag burning amendment.

However, in today's politically correct America, where we are increasingly putting restrictions on what people can say or do in the name of being sensitive and tolerant and diverse, and preventing various individuals and groups from being 'offended', I think a point could be made that since flag burning is an act that is extremely offensive to many people, then flag burning comes close to fitting within the boundaries of today's hate crime laws.

And, for the record, I opposed hate crime legislation. If hate crime legislation involves limiting freedom of expression, as some does, then I think it violates our fundamental rights. If such legislation involves violent acts committed against people, then I think such crimes can be handled within the existing legal structure. After all, killing someone because he is black is not a worse crime than killing someone because he cut you off in traffic, imho.

But it seems that in this case the same people who are often on the side of hate crime legislation, including restricting what people can say if it offends someone, are coming down on the side of an act -- flag burning -- that deeply offends some people.

So I think any discussion of the merits of a flag burning amendment -- and I oppose it -- must be done with the understanding that this act is terribly offensive to many people.

So I believe this is part of a broader question: Are we going to become a nation in which anything that offends anyone is to be banned or outlawed?

The other point, that this is in part an attempt to force Democrats on record on the issue, is a good point. But then that is how the game is played in DC. Everything -- everything -- has a political angle, and both sides play that game.

I might also add that none of our rights are absolute. While seeking my journalism degree back in the last century, I took an entire course called Communication Law. I was given a very thick textbook. The entire course was essentially about restrictions on freedom of the press. So no freedom is absolute. Some of you younger folks need to understand that. The question is where we draw the line in limiting our constitutional rights. And the flag burning amendment is about that.

[HomerJSimpson]

Which side is that, exactly, and what are they winning? Your brand of totalitarianism definitely isn't in the majority, and the ruling Republicans haven't been able to pass much of any conservative legislation, and what they do pass has to be named with a liberal-friendly name (Clear Skies that does nothing to make the skies clear, Healthy Forests which does not make the forests healthy, etc.). The side that is 'winning' right now is big business and the lobbying groups: nearly every bill is a handout to some of them.


Wow! How spot-on can you get?

[JonInMiddleGA]

JonInMiddleGA is right-wing, so people think of him as being libertarian, but in fact his views are more totalitarian. It makes sense for him to support this.

Spot on observation, although I generally use the word "authoritarian" instead.

But anyone who confuses me with a libertarian has definitely not being paying close enough attention. That's about as far from any political philosophy as I can get.

Edit to add: I must have been typing when HJS posted, how odd we both used "spot-on" at the same time. That's about the 4th quirky coincidence I've run into today between the 'net & IRL.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Which side is that, exactly, and what are they winning?

The side that opposes the leftist elements in the U.S. most effectively than any other alternative. And that is more important than anything they manage to bungle (remember, I live in Georgia right now, if anyone knows what bungling Republicans looks like, it's me).

I side with the GOP a large percentage of the time because they're the most effective deterrant to policies/rules/laws I find even more odorous, not because I'm in complete agreement with their own platforms.

One step at a time Biggles, one enemy at a time ultimately.

[John Galt]

For the record, I find burning the American flag to be a repulsive act, but, for the record, I oppose the flag burning amendment.

However, in today's politically correct America, where we are increasingly putting restrictions on what people can say or do in the name of being sensitive and tolerant and diverse, and preventing various individuals and groups from being 'offended', I think a point could be made that since flag burning is an act that is extremely offensive to many people, then flag burning comes close to fitting within the boundaries of today's hate crime laws.

And, for the record, I opposed hate crime legislation. If hate crime legislation involves limiting freedom of expression, as some does, then I think it violates our fundamental rights. If such legislation involves violent acts committed against people, then I think such crimes can be handled within the existing legal structure. After all, killing someone because he is black is not a worse crime than killing someone because he cut you off in traffic, imho.

But it seems that in this case the same people who are often on the side of hate crime legislation, including restricting what people can say if it offends someone, are coming down on the side of an act -- flag burning -- that deeply offends some people.

So I think any discussion of the merits of a flag burning amendment -- and I oppose it -- must be done with the understanding that this act is terribly offensive to many people.

So I believe this is part of a broader question: Are we going to become a nation in which anything that offends anyone is to be banned or outlawed?

The other point, that this is in part an attempt to force Democrats on record on the issue, is a good point. But then that is how the game is played in DC. Everything -- everything -- has a political angle, and both sides play that game.

I might also add that none of our rights are absolute. While seeking my journalism degree back in the last century, I took an entire course called Communication Law. I was given a very thick textbook. The entire course was essentially about restrictions on freedom of the press. So no freedom is absolute. Some of you younger folks need to understand that. The question is where we draw the line in limiting our constitutional rights. And the flag burning amendment is about that.

I don't know of any hate crime statute that would include flag burning (and its not even close that I know of). I think you are mistaking the way the statutes are reported (about protecting people from being offended) with the way they are actually written (adding punishment for crimes against religous, sexual, and racial minorities).

[John Galt]

Spot on observation, although I generally use the word "authoritarian" instead.

But anyone who confuses me with a libertarian has definitely not being paying close enough attention. That's about as far from any political philosophy as I can get.

Edit to add: I must have been typing when HJS posted, how odd we both used "spot-on" at the same time. That's about the 4th quirky coincidence I've run into today between the 'net & IRL.

I was going to post the same thing - Jon is authoritarian in almost every sense of the word. He has much more in common with ideologues like Pol Pot than he does with members of the GOP like McCain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon & John In General Agreement -- World Comes To End Today
Film at 11 !

(I dunno about the whole Pol Pot thing, but I don't have much use for McCain, so I figured I'd just run with it)

[MrBigglesworth]

The side that opposes the leftist elements in the U.S. most effectively than any other alternative.
Ok, but a lot of the GOP's policies of the past several years have been what was formerly known as 'leftist': nation building, medicare expansion (through prescription drug coverage), national education standards in NCLB, etc. Meanwhile, on the social front, not much has changed: No gay marriage amendment, abortion still legal, don't ask don't tell still in effect, etc. I would make the case that though the GOP is good at winning elections, they are not good at making conservative laws, and that the country's policy is still headed in a leftwardly direction (although now more focused on big business).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ok, but a lot of the GOP's policies of the past several years have been what was formerly known as 'leftist': nation building, medicare expansion (through prescription drug coverage), national education standards in NCLB, etc. Meanwhile, on the social front, not much has changed: No gay marriage amendment, abortion still legal, don't ask don't tell still in effect, etc. I would make the case that though the GOP is good at winning elections, they are not good at making conservative laws, and that the country's policy is still headed in a leftwardly direction (although now more focused on big business).

Lemme see here, not for argument or debate, but just for the heck of it

"Nation building" ... A bit of p.r., sadly useful in today's weak-kneed environment, but more expensive than it ought to be.

"Medicare expansion" ... talk about muck & mire, trying to solve Medicare may be one of those tasks that is, ultimately, impossible. I'm not wild about the GOP plan, but haven't seen much I liked better either.

"NCLB" ... I'm about as big a proponent of this as you're likely to find I think. It's at least an attempt for accountability, more than I've seen in a long time & a beginning of the only remaining hope for the usefulness of public schools to be anything more than taxpayer-funded daycare.

"Abortion" ... I'm pretty roundly pro-choice, so their failure on that one isn't exactly a black mark in my book.

"Marriage amendment" ... it's coming. Count on it.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... a lower priority than the amendment right now, but an item to clean-up after the bigger battle is won.

[Solecismic]

If we are so weak that we consider a flag-burning "fighting words," then we have ceded far too much power to those who have very little to say.

Restricted speech of any kind is the foundation of a feeble society - one that's doomed to mediocrity.

Too many people are far too concerned with ensuring that no one does anything that could possibly bother them. In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools (their connection, by the way, not mine) has joined the far left that insists that no one ever be offended for any reason.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Restricted speech of any kind is the foundation of a feeble society - one that's doomed to mediocrity.

In this case, I see it more as one that's finally reached it's limit of patience with having to listen to fools.

In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools

Y'know, you just seem hellbent (pun only mildly intended) on making it impossible for me to have any interesting in buying your future products.
In fact, your recent tact of spouting off your displeasure regarding Christianity has pretty much made it impossible.

Don't like it? Fine, live your life.

But it's really getting to the point of being counter-productive and I've finally tired enough of thinking it just to say it to you point-blank -- you've reached the point of being shrill about it and I suspect you've lost more customers from it than you realize.

[Solecismic]

In this case, I see it more as one that's finally reached it's limit of patience with having to listen to fools.



Y'know, you just seem hellbent (pun only mildly intended) on making it impossible for me to have any interesting in buying your future products.
In fact, your recent tact of spouting off your displeasure regarding Christianity has pretty much made it impossible.

Don't like it? Fine, live your life.

But it's really getting to the point of being counter-productive and I've finally tired enough of thinking it just to say it to you point-blank -- you've reached the point of being shrill about it and I suspect you've lost more customers from it than you realize.

I guess I'm old enough to understand the difference between considering someone "shrill" for expressing an opinion and disagreeing with them. The percentage of my 1,000-or-so posts that deal with this issue is very, very small.

Of course I care if I lose customers because I'm not a Christian and am unhappy when Christians tell us this is a Christian nation and anyone who disagrees should shut up.

It's something I thought about in the past before I posted what I thought. But, then again, FOFC is a place where people from many different backgrounds post an awful lot without much consequence.

But, I decided that if I were going to be a member here, I wouldn't censor myself. That's an important part of my cultural heritage. Kristallnacht was the ultimate economic cost when people didn't speak up in the past.

Now, I'm never going to insert any of that in my games. It would be more than unprofessional to cross that line. If you're too narrow-minded to see that, I have to accept the economic loss. I just hope you're the only one here.

If not, and I see that opinion coming from more people, I will be forced to stay out of items like this on FOFC.

[MrBigglesworth]

Solecismic: I think a free society means people should be able to speak their minds.
JonInMiddleGA: Shut up! I will not buy your products now because of your shrillness!

[NoMyths]

I just hope you're the only one here.

If not, and I see that opinion coming from more people, I will be forced to stay out of items like this on FOFC.Jim, I think it's safe to assume that Jon definitely represents a minority viewpoint around here.

[JW]

If we are so weak that we consider a flag-burning "fighting words," then we have ceded far too much power to those who have very little to say.

Restricted speech of any kind is the foundation of a feeble society - one that's doomed to mediocrity.

Too many people are far too concerned with ensuring that no one does anything that could possibly bother them. In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools (their connection, by the way, not mine) has joined the far left that insists that no one ever be offended for any reason.

I agree, but the point remains that many people who would defend flag burning consider things much less than flag burning to be 'fighting words'. Those on both the left and right are often hypocritical in what they support or oppose and are often without firm principles.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If not, and I see that opinion coming from more people, I will be forced to stay out of items like this on FOFC.

I doubt you'll see much of it Jim, most people don't say anything, they just stop buying (and you know that as well as I do).

It isn't your opinion that turns me off as a customer nearly so much as the amount of animosity you display when you go off on the subject. Simply put, it's reached the point that it's more than I care to deal with, and more than I'm willing to contribute funds to.

Let's be serious here though -- you'll get along fine without my occasional purchases & I'll likely muddle through without the next whatever, neither of us are going to be miserable without the other.

But I believe you'd be better off to avoid pissing off customers on the whole, you lose more than you gain by doing so.

[Huckleberry]

Jon, I must say that your discussion with Jim goes against your stated personal beliefs. You appear to be trying to use free market concepts to convince him to stop saying the things he does. Shouldn't you be petitioning your government to outlaw his words?

[JonInMiddleGA]

You appear to be trying to use free market concepts to convince him to stop saying the things he does. Shouldn't you be petitioning your government to outlaw his words?

I'm actually in favor of whatever means works to an end in the most efficient & effective way possible.

Think out of the box Huck, don't limit your options when you don't have to.

[Klinglerware]

Why can't people seem to be able to debate each other in this country without anybody getting pissed off? Is it a cultural thing? I'm not that familiar with Europeans in general, but they sure seem to be able to engage in spirited debate without remaining angry afterwards...

I've vehemently disagreed with both Jim and Arlie on this board, but our disagreements on the Irgun, the Middle East, or even steroids won't have any impact on whether I purchase their products. Product quality that meets my needs and a fair price point is all I care about. I would figure that that marketplace dynamic overrides politics for most people as well, so I don't think Jim and Arlie should really care about self-censorship...

Than being said, Jon (and the people threatening not to buy Arlie's games) have every right not to buy for whatever reason. Once again, it is a free country...

[John Galt]

Jon, I must say that your discussion with Jim goes against your stated personal beliefs. You appear to be trying to use free market concepts to convince him to stop saying the things he does. Shouldn't you be petitioning your government to outlaw his words?

I'm not sure why some people seem to believe Jon is committed to any values like "capitalism," "freedom," "democracy," or "federalism." He is an authoritarian, plain and simple. Might makes right. Everything else is secondary. He would gladly have all the liberals rounded up and put in camps (probably not even re-education camps like the communists). As I have said before, his politics are beyond the basic political spectrum and would eventually result in the oppression of most members of this board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Product quality that meets my needs and a fair price point is all I care about. I would figure that that marketplace dynamic overrides politics for most people...

Than being said, Jon (and the people threatening not to buy Arlie's games) have every right not to buy for whatever reason. Once again, it is a free country...

I'd say it has something to do with personal priorities, as well as need/desire for product/goods, and probably a half dozen other things that aren't what I'd call "cultural" in nature.

[Solecismic]

I doubt you'll see much of it Jim, most people don't say anything, they just stop buying (and you know that as well as I do).

It isn't your opinion that turns me off as a customer nearly so much as the amount of animosity you display when you go off on the subject. Simply put, it's reached the point that it's more than I care to deal with, and more than I'm willing to contribute funds to.

Let's be serious here though -- you'll get along fine without my occasional purchases & I'll likely muddle through without the next whatever, neither of us are going to be miserable without the other.

But I believe you'd be better off to avoid pissing off customers on the whole, you lose more than you gain by doing so.

We disagree on issues that happen to be very important to you. What you're perceiving as animosity is just part of natural debate.

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

Unfortunately, there's a cost when people stand up to bullies. I have to decide whether you have enough friends standing with you to make resistence a poor decision.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I He is an authoritarian, plain and simple. Might makes right. Everything else is secondary. He would gladly have all the liberals rounded up and put in camps (probably not even re-education camps like the communists). As I have said before, his politics are beyond the basic political spectrum and would eventually result in the oppression of most members of this board.

Twice in one day we've been in basic agreement, pretty good batting average I'd say.

[BrianD]

I still say that the flag represents this country in all of its glory and all of its grime. We have a lot of room for improvement around here, but all in all, this is still a pretty good country. I can understand fighting to change laws or policy, but I don't think anyone wants to scrap the whole country. Burning the flag seems like a desire to eliminate a whole country rather than just some parts that need fixing.

My feelings aren't limited to just our flag. I would call it disrespectful to burn any country's flag.

[John Galt]

We disagree on issues that happen to be very important to you. What you're perceiving as animosity is just part of natural debate.

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

Unfortunately, there's a cost when people stand up to bullies. I have to decide whether you have enough friends standing with you to make resistence a poor decision.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

Jim, I think Jon is a VERY unique case. As much as I've pissed you off and as much as I disagree with you, I don't think that changes my opinion of your product. However, you are right that Jon is a bully (read his above post - might makes right) and he believes in doing everything possible to defeat those who disagree with him. His politics is such that you are one of many enemies to him.

Of course, I think it is kind of weak of Jon to hinge his buying decisions on whether Jim is openly anti-Jon in his views (meaning that he would otherwise by the goods if Jim was quieter about his disagreement). I'm not sure I understand that part at all.

[albionmoonlight]

We disagree on issues that happen to be very important to you. What you're perceiving as animosity is just part of natural debate.

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

Unfortunately, there's a cost when people stand up to bullies. I have to decide whether you have enough friends standing with you to make resistence a poor decision.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?
It's a line, certainly, but I think that you are comfortably on the "just fine" side of it. Indeed, I personally wish that you posted more. I don't always agree with you, but you have a polished writing style, good insights, and a sense of humor more subtle than most on this board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Of course, I think it is kind of weak of Jon to hinge his buying decisions on whether Jim is openly anti-Jon in his views (meaning that he would otherwise by the goods if Jim was quieter about his disagreement). I'm not sure I understand that part at all.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were gonna hit the trifecta.
This time though, I think you've missed the mark enough to fail to score.

I always prefer a known enemy to an unknown one, so that's certainly an advantage overall. But you overstepped on making the leap that "volume" was an overriding factor. I won't argue that it doesn't play a role, just as I said it did. The role volume plays/played is more of an "elimination of doubt" sort of thing -- anybody can come across wrong, be having a bad day & post off-key, etc -- but with Jim of late there's really not much room for any doubts.

And that sort of certainty is more influential on a buying decision (or whatever decision you have to make) than one that is more obscured.

[Solecismic]

Jim, I think Jon is a VERY unique case. As much as I've pissed you off and as much as I disagree with you, I don't think that changes my opinion of your product. However, you are right that Jon is a bully (read his above post - might makes right) and he believes in doing everything possible to defeat those who disagree with him. His politics is such that you are one of many enemies to him.


John, we disagree on many, many issues, but I don't think you've ever pissed me off. For that matter, until now, Jon hasn't, either.

Maybe that's my mistake - I don't get pissed off during debates, and in turn, that gives me a very high tolerance for controversial subjects.

Really, the only people who piss me off are the ones who try and destroy FOFC or my own work - the druezes and Stallingses of the world. That I take personally.

[John Galt]

John, we disagree on many, many issues, but I don't think you've ever pissed me off. For that matter, until now, Jon hasn't, either.

Maybe that's my mistake - I don't get pissed off during debates, and in turn, that gives me a very high tolerance for controversial subjects.

Really, the only people who piss me off are the ones who try and destroy FOFC or my own work - the druezes and Stallingses of the world. That I take personally.

Well, I guess that is good to hear, but I do remember you recently wondering if you would have to "ignore" me. :p

And strangely, Jon has rarely pissed me off - if anything I get a little grumpy at those who don't see Jon for what he is. I've always found it easier to deal with Jon because he is generally intellectually honest with himself. The one exception was a period where he kept making veiled attacks on me and I still don't understand what he was trying to accomplish. Otherwise, I think Jon is a total nut-case, but at least he is honest about it. And that counts for a lot with me in terms of having discussion.

[Jon]

Spot on observation, although I generally use the word "authoritarian" instead.

But anyone who confuses me with a libertarian has definitely not being paying close enough attention. That's about as far from any political philosophy as I can get.

Edit to add: I must have been typing when HJS posted, how odd we both used "spot-on" at the same time. That's about the 4th quirky coincidence I've run into today between the 'net & IRL.

Jon:
Although my initial response was to you, I wasn't specifically referring to you as a Libertarian. I just wanted to add that to my comment so I wouldn't make a dola post (which is one of the reasons why my post count is so low). I have been a member for a while, but primarily lurk. I apologize if it looked like I was mischaracterizing you.

In any event, I also think that flag burning is repulsive, and not the most efficient way of getting one's viewpoint across. In many instances, I think it undermines the point the burner is trying to make. But they do have the right to make whatever point they are trying to make, and the Constitution agrees with that. An amendment banning flag burning undremines those rights, and would fundamentally alter the First Amendment.

And, looking at the amendment that is being suggested, it doesn't necessarily leave the courts out of it. Congress would have to narrowly define desecration or the courts would be right back to interpreting what constitutes desecration and what doesn't.

[BrianD]

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

I'm going to vote no on this one. The only way you as an individual can hurt you as a business is to let it be known that you frequently eat babies. Short of that, it really doesn't matter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That last statement of yours is very disappointing to me - and exactly why I fight the concept that this is a Christian nation, or an anything nation, for that matter. You're just being a bully.

I'm not sure why a factual statement comes as "very disappointing" to you.
That wasn't some sort of vague threat or anything, it was a general statement that applies to you, me, or any other business -- Pissing off customers is bad for business.

Again, I hope that most people here aren't so narrow-minded they can't separate my individual opinions from my work.

I'd say your work & the ubying decision are rightfully separated if anyone chooses to do so. I'm not critical of your work, it's simply a value decision not to lend financial support that might be used toward purposes beyond game design. To use an intentionally oversized example for illustrative purposes, I don't care if Hillary Clinton is the most gifted house painter in the world, I'm not going to pay that bitch paint my house -- that's doing nothing but funding the enemy.

Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?

Umm, in all seriousness, completely aside from anything else in this whole thread -- I'm having a hard time believing that you're naive enough to think that your posts don't "stand out" nor that you are considered "just another individual". That's totally aside from whether that's good, bad, or indifferent for you personally or professionally. I just figured you had decided it was worth the risk, surely you weren't harboring any illusion that a game developer posting on (ostensibly) a gaming site was just going to blend into the crowd.

[ISiddiqui]

Damn, it's legislation like this why I'm not a Republican anymore. I'm a big free speech guy, huge. Enough that I've joined the ACLU.

And yes, I agree with the poster, the RIGHT to burn the flag is what makes this country GREAT! We tolerate people with horrid political views. We don't need to ban them or say you can't say that (ie, banning Nazi memorabilia in Germany and France). We allow them to say whatever they wish. Get it out in the open and attack their arguments.

Flag burning should always be allowed.

[sabotai]

I wonder if me and Jon would get along IRL....

He is a christian authoritarian
I am an atheist anarchist

Sounds like a sitcom. :D

[HomerJSimpson]

I wonder if me and Jon would get along IRL....

He is a christian authoritarian
I am an atheist anarchist

Sounds like a sitcom. :D


If you two would make a reality series, I'd watch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sounds like a sitcom. :D

See, even with our differences, we find at least one small point to agree on.

Coming soon to FOX & Bravo: "The Really Odd Couple"

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

That wasn't some sort of vague threat or anything, it was a general statement that applies to you, me, or any other business -- Pissing off customers is bad for business.
Well shit. Looks like .400's in trouble. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Huckleberry]

I'm actually in favor of whatever means works to an end in the most efficient & effective way possible.

Think out of the box Huck, don't limit your options when you don't have to.You could just kill him. That's pretty effective. Which, of course, you're probably cool with in your political ideology.

[MrBigglesworth]

The irony is, if Jon were to boycott everyone that disagreed with his politics, he would be forced to live in a shack in Montana devoid of material possessions, à la the Unabomber.

[JW]

I wonder if we would all feel the same about a public burning of the Koran in front of a mosque? How quickly would the ACLU rush to the defense of the Koran burner?

[MrBigglesworth]

How quickly would the ACLU rush to the defense of the Koran burner?
I would imagine very quickly. The ACLU is a very intellectually honest organization. (see: their defense of Rush Limbaugh)

[JW]

I would imagine very quickly. The ACLU is a very intellectually honest organization. (see: their defense of Rush Limbaugh)

The ACLU? Intellectually honest? I disagree. Their background is anything but, though they do take such cases sometimes for appearances sake. I have heard the head of the ACLU in Louisiana speak several times, and he is about the biggest anti-Christian bigot I have ever met. So I respectfully disagree with you.

[Klinglerware]

I would imagine very quickly. The ACLU is a very intellectually honest organization. (see: their defense of Rush Limbaugh)

I agree with this, the ACLU is pretty even-handed. In fact, back in college, I remember that the campus ACLU chapter was actually branded as a conservative group because of their stance against my college's hate speech policies...

[sabotai]

I agree with this, the ACLU is pretty even-handed. In fact, back in college, I remember that the campus ACLU chapter was actually branded as a conservative group because of their stance against my college's hate speech policies...
Really? And I thought the ACLU's sole purpose was only to attack christianity....

(sarcasm off)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Really? And I thought the ACLU's sole purpose was only to attack christianity....

You're confusing "sole" with "primary".

[sabotai]

You're confusing "sole" with "primary".
Yeah, that must it... http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, that must it... http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Roll 'em all you want Sab, it's good for the ratings on our TV show.

[sabotai]

Roll 'em all you want Sab, it's good for the ratings on our TV show.
*throws a book at Jon in slow motion*
Voice Over: Tensions boil....Tuesday at 9.

[JonInMiddleGA]

*throws a book at Jon in slow motion*
Voice Over: Tensions boil....Tuesday at 9.

And in the clip, they show me wearing a t-shirt that says:
"Gun Control = Hitting What You Aim At"

[sabotai]

And in the clip, they show me wearing a t-shirt that says:
"Gun Control = Hitting What You Aim At"
And I'm wearing my "Government is a Parasite" t-shirt. :)

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with this, the ACLU is pretty even-handed. In fact, back in college, I remember that the campus ACLU chapter was actually branded as a conservative group because of their stance against my college's hate speech policies...
Indeed. That's why I'm a member. Sure many individuals tend towards the left. But it's good enough for Bob Barr and I sure don't consider him a liberal. It is the only organization out there that defends our free speech rights and rights against unwarrented searches and seizures.

AND they are the biggest anti-PATRIOT Act group out there. That enough got me sold.

[JW]

Indeed. That's why I'm a member. Sure many individuals tend towards the left. But it's good enough for Bob Barr and I sure don't consider him a liberal. It is the only organization out there that defends our free speech rights and rights against unwarrented searches and seizures.

AND they are the biggest anti-PATRIOT Act group out there. That enough got me sold.

So you agree that the ACLU is not being overly zealous in obtaining the removal of a veteran's memorial in the form of a cross that was erected some 70 years ago in Mojave National Preserve?

http://www.desertdispatch.com/2005/111339890147316.html

And you agree with the removal of a tiny cross from the Los Angeles city official seal (but not the removal of other symbols with a religious context)?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121039,00.html

You agree that the ACLU is simply acting to preserve our freedom from religious tyranny in these cases?

Or do you agree with Mr. Cook who wants school board members in Louisiana arrested for engaging in an act of protest. Mr. Cook and the ACLU obtained an injunction preventing a Louisiana school board (elected governing body of a school district) from opening its sessions with a prayer. Board members decided as an act of protest to meet outside the board meeting room and pray before the start of the meeting, while abiding by the injunction against prayer opening the meeting. Rather than seeing this as a legitimate act of protest, Mr. Cook has demanded that the participants be arrested. One would think Mr. Cook would see the irony of his actions. But he does not.

The ACLU, some of its members anyway, have such a great anti-religious zeal that they might well be called secular puritans. And puritanism of any kind is bad for America.

[MrBigglesworth]

JW, the ACLU is principled. One such principle is keeping church and state seperate. That, obviously, does not equate to a hatred of church. And being principled, to the organization it doesn't matter if the cross on the seal of LA is tiny or humongous. It is the principle of the matter.

Consider this recent action by the ACLU:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

June 3, 2004
hxxp://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

They fight for all religious freedom, it just so happens that Christianity does not need to be fought for as often because they are the dominant religion in the country.

[Dutch]

Nobody will ever offend me for burning my flag. But I admit it never feels good to see Americans burn the flag. But I know they don't burn it because they hate America (well, not most of them anyway), they burn it to get on TV to make themselves aware of their little plight in the world.

They burn the flag for their own symbolic political gain. That is pathetic if you ask me, but yeah, I could care less if their is an amendment or not.

However, on the flip-side, I see no reason to oppose an amendment banning the desecration of our flag, either.

At least propose a federal law that states that any citizen that sees an American flag on fire is allowed to use any means neccessary to extinguish the flames (including requesting the fire department to blast the sons of bitches that wish to burn our flag :D ).

[ISiddiqui]

You agree that the ACLU is simply acting to preserve our freedom from religious tyranny in these cases?
I agree with what I've read in the link about the Mojave Desert Cross memorial. As for the LA County seal... if they can show it is just historical, then they should be able to keep it. But I can see the reason to sue for removal.

And Mr Bigglesworth is correct. There are plenty of cases where the ACLU defends churches who face state discrimination.

[dawgfan]

Jim, I wouldn't worry about JIMG being representative of the majority of people here. You contribute well-thought out arguments to the topics you choose to engage in. I don't necessarily agree with you every time, but I respect the source.

I frequently disagree with Arlie on political issues, but I don't let that affect my decision on whether to buy his products. It's all about the quality of the product he generates.

As for JIMG himself, I do give grudging respect to the fact he's quite honest with what a complete nut job he is. To the extent that he's right - that his side is "winning" - I shudder to think about what that means for the future of this country.

As for Scissors, if this is truly his first post and not and not an alias for another poster here, I don't disagree much with his assessment. If it is an alias for another poster here, what a very, very weak way to attack someone. Not that it matters much, because if it is an alias for someone else here, they'll be banned soon enough.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, I think JIMG is a crackpott in many ways, but he has a sense of intellectual honesty with himself - and he's consistent. That's more than I can say for some of the others around here.

[JW]

JW, the ACLU is principled. One such principle is keeping church and state seperate. That, obviously, does not equate to a hatred of church. And being principled, to the organization it doesn't matter if the cross on the seal of LA is tiny or humongous. It is the principle of the matter.

Consider this recent action by the ACLU:

hxxp://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

They fight for all religious freedom, it just so happens that Christianity does not need to be fought for as often because they are the dominant religion in the country.

Thanks for the reply and I appreciate the comments. I think there are principled people within the ACLU. I also think there are Christophobic people in the ACLU, such as Joe Cook of Louisiana. I repeat - he is an anti-Christian bigot. I've heard too much from his mouth to think otherwise. And I will tell you he does the ACLU great harm in Louisiana by his inquisitorial zeal in attempting to eradicate Christianity from the public forum.

I also think that many times the ACLU is overly zealous in its attempt to remove all traces of religion from government. Many in the ACLU, as in the LA city seal case, refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is an important part of America's heritage.

As for the cases cited, I think the Mojave cross case is a classic bit of overkill. There is legalism and there is common sense. Who really -- really -- is offended by a cross put up in the 1930s by some veterans remembering their comrade? Who really -- really -- is harmed by allowing that cross to continue to exist?

And, frankly, who would refuse to concede that Christianity played an important role in the development of Los Angeles, both a positive and negative role, but an important role nevertheless? I believe the ACLU has more important things to do than to attack a tiny cross, one symbol among MANY, in the LA city seal. For example, they might start fighting to force the changing of some of the Christocentric city names in California. But perhaps that is down the road.

Thanks again for your comments, though I cannot agree with you. Yu have only to look at Louisiana to find bigotry and hate in the ACLU.

[randal7]

I'm always 12 hours late for these discussions. Anyways...


In this particular issue, the far right that insists on flags remaining pristine and plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools (their connection, by the way, not mine) has joined the far left that insists that no one ever be offended for any reason.
Y'know, you just seem hellbent (pun only mildly intended) on making it impossible for me to have any interesting in buying your future products.
In fact, your recent tact of spouting off your displeasure regarding Christianity has pretty much made it impossible.

Don't like it? Fine, live your life.

But it's really getting to the point of being counter-productive and I've finally tired enough of thinking it just to say it to you point-blank -- you've reached the point of being shrill about it and I suspect you've lost more customers from it than you realize.
Jim: Shrill is probably a fair term. I've read a couple of your posts and said to myself "Wow, why does this guy dislike Christians so much?" (On a tangent - it's probably not really Christians that bother you, but religious people - not the same at all. I often feel much the same way, and I am a Christian) This opinion probably stands out more because A: you seem generally to be conservative, and B: you are an iconic figure here.

Jon: This is a message board. Jim is posting here as an individual, not officially. (Although, see below) If Jim used the official Solecismic site to put forth opinions you didn't like, that would be very different. Example: George R.R. Martin (whose books I love) used his official site to post what I felt were some rather asinine political remarks. Since he chose that particular forum, I have chosen not to purchase any more of his books. In this case, however, I think you have overreacted and should reconsider.

This is an issue I've discussed in private many times. Do posts that have "Solecismic" on them stand out so much that I can't really participate here as an individual?
In short, yes. Ideally, most people should understand that in non-FOF-related threads you are posting unofficially. However, going by "Solecismic" does leave room for misinterpretation. Fair or not, some folks probably can't separate you giving a personal opinion from you speaking as the company. Maybe SkyDog would give you an exemption and let you post unofficially under another name so there is no confusion. You usually contribute something useful to the discussion and it would be a shame if you stopped participating because of this.

[Jon]

The ACLU? Intellectually honest? I disagree. Their background is anything but, though they do take such cases sometimes for appearances sake. I have heard the head of the ACLU in Louisiana speak several times, and he is about the biggest anti-Christian bigot I have ever met. So I respectfully disagree with you.

Joe Cook is an exception to the rule (and he's really just the executive director).. The rest of the ACLU in that stare aren't anti-Christian bigots. In fact, there are two different chapters in La, one in Shreveport and Joe Cook in New Orleans. The Board is not anti-Christian in the least.

[JW]

Joe Cook is an exception to the rule (and he's really just the executive director).. The rest of the ACLU in that stare aren't anti-Christian bigots. In fact, there are two different chapters in La, one in Shreveport and Joe Cook in New Orleans. The Board is not anti-Christian in the least.

That is good to hear. Of course I don't hear much about the ACLU in Shreveport, perhaps because they have common sense. And, reading between the lines, apprently you are familiar with Joe Cook. Joe may just be the executive director, but he seems to drive the agenda in south Louisiana. And let me add that there are legitimate concerns about some of the things going on in Tangipahoa Parish relating to imposition of religion in the schools. Joe is not entirely wrong. However, I believe the joy he shows in doing his job and his obvious dislike for Christians does the ACLU a disservice and leads many people like me who agree with him in principle on many -- but not all -- issues, to distance ourselves from him. I honestly believe he hates Christianity and that it shows in his words.

As for the issues, if you are familiar with some of those things, I agree with most of the actions taken by the ACLU in Tangipahoa except attempts to prohibit an opening prayer at school board meetings. They are, after all, an elected body. I think prohibiting ANY speech by an elected official at a public meeting, even a prayer, violates that official's rights. I would suggest that when an elected official is arrested for uttering a prayer in a public meeting of an elected body -- as Joe Cook has demanded -- that we have lost freedom, not gained freedom.

[Dutch]

it's probably not really Christians that bother you, but religious people

Great point. I believe in God and while I interpret Jesus different than most Christians, I am still a Christian in ideals.

But my interpretation beyond that is my own and I keep it to myself, I'm no missionary. But those who are the loudest missionaries tend to be offensive. Be it their zeal to promote born-again Christianity or their zeal to promote religious atheism. I view both sides with contempt and mistrust. That's the reality. The seperation of Church and State is interpreted by me as what should be the seperation of Religion and Religious Politics. I'd rather not have my right wing constituants running on a Christian platform and I'd rather not have my left wing opponents running on an atheist platform. But there's a difference between what we would like and what we actually get.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon: This is a message board. Jim is posting here as an individual, not officially. (Although, see below) ...

We probably have to agree to disagree, as I don't believe there's any legitimate reason to separate the actions of a person & the actions of a company when the person owns the company. Who I am privately & who I am professionally is essentially the same person, I don't believe those are (or should be considered) two separate entities. Just a difference in our philosophies I guess.

Now, though, you've forced me into a search

George R.R. Martin (whose books I love) used his official site to post what I felt were some rather asinine political remarks.

I loved the old Wild Cards series he put together, but I'll have to see what the commentary was to get a grip on that myself.

[Solecismic]

Let me just correct one thing here: I don't dislike Christians or religious people. That's a ludicrous accusation.

I dislike attempts to erase the separation of church and state, as our founding fathers intended (and I will refrain from posting at length quotes that show that intent, in detail).

We are in an unusual time, when legislators are often expected to wear their religion on their sleeves. That makes me uncomfortable, because the result is the occasional piece of legislation that attempts to force religion on the rest of us.

That, I oppose. I think that it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that I dislike Christians based on that opinion. I have never posted that I dislike religious people. I'm married to one. My father-in-law is a former Christian preacher. I don't dislike them.

I think what's happening is that some people view any non-religious viewpoint as a personal attack. Which is not what's intended.

I'm not going to post under another user name. Ben and I actually discussed this a long time ago, and I decided it was a wimpy thing to do. I don't have respect for people who open a second account because they feel strongly that something needs to be said, but won't say it themselves. So I won't do it myself.

We're in strange times and this is a difficult subject. We have a recent former president (Bush 41) who believes that atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens of America. Obviously, many Christians are extremely sensitive to any non-religious statement.

I think it's pretty clear from reactions like this that the "Solecismic" posts stand out too much. If people read "I hate Christians" from what I wrote yesterday, there's just no way for me to participate here as an equal. So many times, I've been frustrated when what I thought was an ordinary response to an item ended up hijacking the entire thread.

I'd been gauging my participation based on my own reaction to Marc and Arlie's responses to topics - they're not shy about their opinions, and that hasn't changed how I feel about their respective companies in any way. But I guess there's a significant percentage of people here who don't feel that way.

I can't run a business if people feel I hate them just because I make a statement disagreeing with their viewpoint. I will stay out of controversial topics from now on.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think it's pretty clear from reactions like this that the "Solecismic" posts stand out too much. If people read "I hate Christians" from what I wrote yesterday, there's just no way for me to participate here as an equal. So many times, I've been frustrated when what I thought was an ordinary response to an item ended up hijacking the entire thread.
That's not just with you, that is with everyone. Look at how some people attack the ACLU for 'hating Christians'. Whenever I talk about the separation fo church and state someone always accuses me of at least wanting to get rid of Christianity, if not an outright hatred of it. As a broad generalization (i.e., NOT every Christian), Christians have a persecution complex whereby if you disagree with them, you hate Christianity and are a closet Islam supporter. A good number of them can not fathom a religiously nuetral viewpoint, you're either with them or against them. A lot of tiny minority groups are like that, Christians are just unique in that they are the actual majority.

[Dutch]

you're either with them or against them. A lot of tiny minority groups are like that, Christians are just unique in that they are the actual majority.

Which tiny minority groups are you referring to?

[Crapshoot]

Let me just correct one thing here: I don't dislike Christians or religious people. That's a ludicrous accusation.

I dislike attempts to erase the separation of church and state, as our founding fathers intended (and I will refrain from posting at length quotes that show that intent, in detail).

We are in an unusual time, when legislators are often expected to wear their religion on their sleeves. That makes me uncomfortable, because the result is the occasional piece of legislation that attempts to force religion on the rest of us.

That, I oppose. I think that it's incredibly narrow-minded to assume that I dislike Christians based on that opinion. I have never posted that I dislike religious people. I'm married to one. My father-in-law is a former Christian preacher. I don't dislike them.

I think what's happening is that some people view any non-religious viewpoint as a personal attack. Which is not what's intended.

I'm not going to post under another user name. Ben and I actually discussed this a long time ago, and I decided it was a wimpy thing to do. I don't have respect for people who open a second account because they feel strongly that something needs to be said, but won't say it themselves. So I won't do it myself.

We're in strange times and this is a difficult subject. We have a recent former president (Bush 41) who believes that atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens of America. Obviously, many Christians are extremely sensitive to any non-religious statement.

I think it's pretty clear from reactions like this that the "Solecismic" posts stand out too much. If people read "I hate Christians" from what I wrote yesterday, there's just no way for me to participate here as an equal. So many times, I've been frustrated when what I thought was an ordinary response to an item ended up hijacking the entire thread.

I'd been gauging my participation based on my own reaction to Marc and Arlie's responses to topics - they're not shy about their opinions, and that hasn't changed how I feel about their respective companies in any way. But I guess there's a significant percentage of people here who don't feel that way.

I can't run a business if people feel I hate them just because I make a statement disagreeing with their viewpoint. I will stay out of controversial topics from now on.

I think Marc doesnt participate as much as you do, but that's also because he's primarily on another board. As for Arlie, I bet the fact that this board leans fairly strongly to the right means Arlie is fairly mainstream around here. As it stands, I do wish you'd reconsider- I think Jon is fairly singular in his viewpoint and this issue and while I understand his stance (he believes the fueling the 'enemy" is not worth the utility of the game for him), most if not all the others here would not make that distinction - they don't view everyone in that cut and dried a fashion. I'd reckon Bubba, the biggest zealot around here, would probably buy your games unless you put the Star of David on them. Clearly though, its your decision, and if this message board participation cost begins to outweigh its benefits to you the individual, then not participating is the way to go.

[ISiddiqui]

I think what's happening is that some people view any non-religious viewpoint as a personal attack.
Bingo. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to calling someone 'anti' something and hope it ends the argument.

[randal7]

Let me just correct one thing here: I don't dislike Christians or religious people. That's a ludicrous accusation.

I dislike attempts to erase the separation of church and state, as our founding fathers intended (and I will refrain from posting at length quotes that show that intent, in detail).
How I meant that to be taken is that you have sounded that way. What I said could be taken both ways. Sorry. But read what you said: not "I dislike attempts to erase the separation of church and state", but "plastering their Christian god all over our money and schools". You've gotta admit, there is a bit of a tone there ;).




I think what's happening is that some people view any non-religious viewpoint as a personal attack. Which is not what's intended.
Not my feeling at all, but some will feel that way. My point is that I would not want my business to be percieved as anything but neutral politically, socially, and religiously. Also, don't restrict this to just religious people; see below.

'm not going to post under another user name. Ben and I actually discussed this a long time ago, and I decided it was a wimpy thing to do. I don't have respect for people who open a second account because they feel strongly that something needs to be said, but won't say it themselves. So I won't do it myself.
While I understand your point, I hardly think using "Jim Gindin" (sorry if I botched your name) for non-game-related posts (or exclusively, for that matter) is hiding your identity or wimpy.

We're in strange times and this is a difficult subject. We have a recent former president (Bush 41) who believes that atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens of America. Obviously, many Christians are extremely sensitive to any non-religious statement.
As many non-Christians cannot stand a Christian viewpoint, and many conservatives won't listen to a liberal viewpoint, and many liberals are angered by a conservative viewpoint. Let's not single out one particular group for a facet of human nature.

I think it's pretty clear from reactions like this that the "Solecismic" posts stand out too much. If people read "I hate Christians" from what I wrote yesterday, there's just no way for me to participate here as an equal. So many times, I've been frustrated when what I thought was an ordinary response to an item ended up hijacking the entire thread.

I'd been gauging my participation based on my own reaction to Marc and Arlie's responses to topics - they're not shy about their opinions, and that hasn't changed how I feel about their respective companies in any way. But I guess there's a significant percentage of people here who don't feel that way.

I can't run a business if people feel I hate them just because I make a statement disagreeing with their viewpoint. I will stay out of controversial topics from now on.
I'm sorry, but I think this is the case. Mark and Arles post under their names, whereas you post under your company name. I think there is inevitably going to be some association with the company and the product. Again, why not just post under your own name?

To summarize: I don't think you hate Christians; I do think you have said things with a tone of "distaste", let's say, that could offend. I personally think you are entitled to your opinion and are not answerable to me for it in any way. As long as you conduct yourself with some level of decorum (and don't use your official site to push potentially controversial opinions) I don't see why anyone would hold that against you as far as buying your products, and don't think they should. But: some people will. And the meat of your market is the folks on this board. Were it my livelihood, I would not want my company name associated with anything controversial.

[randal7]

Now, though, you've forced me into a search



I loved the old Wild Cards series he put together, but I'll have to see what the commentary was to get a grip on that myself.
After the election he had some remarks on the home page that are no longer there (at least I couldn't find them). Instead of just saying he was really disappointed with the results (or something sane), he posted something to the effect that he was too depressed to write, America was descending into fascism, religious zealots would rule, along those lines. Not so much that it made me mad as that if he's that big of a loon, I'm not giving him my money. (Apologies to other loons with similar viewpoints :D ) .

[JW]

That's not just with you, that is with everyone. Look at how some people attack the ACLU for 'hating Christians'. Whenever I talk about the separation fo church and state someone always accuses me of at least wanting to get rid of Christianity, if not an outright hatred of it. As a broad generalization (i.e., NOT every Christian), Christians have a persecution complex whereby if you disagree with them, you hate Christianity and are a closet Islam supporter. A good number of them can not fathom a religiously nuetral viewpoint, you're either with them or against them. A lot of tiny minority groups are like that, Christians are just unique in that they are the actual majority.

But you must balance that persecution complex against the 'that offends me so you have to stop it' complex that is becoming more and more prevalent in today's society. It gets tiring to hear that people are offended and traumatized and humiliated, by, for example, a hypothetical school board in a predominately Christian district putting "Christmas Holiday" on its calendar and demanding that it be renamed "Winter Holiday" or something to that effect, when it is obvious that the holiday is being taken because it is Christmas. Why not sue to prevent the system for taking the holiday if the very name of the holiday is an affront? Or is that step two?

Does that really traumatize and offend people? Give me a break. Perhaps if the ACLU and the such focused on more obvious issues rather than sometimes 'going off the deep end' and zealously attacking the most innocuous things, such as the Christmas Holiday, and declaring such things grave affronts to our constitutional liberties, fewer people would think that the ACLU was 'out to get' Christians.

People have even been offended and have sought legal action because someone innocently told them "Merry Christmas" or the such in the workplace. It borders on the absurd sometimes.

In a free society, we will routinely encounter things we don't like. But we can't function if we start litigating over everything we don't like.

I'll add in closing that many people, including on this forum, seem to see the church state-separation issue as black or white, and think everyone else is forever wrong on the subject. But it doesn't work that way.

[ISiddiqui]

Does that really traumatize and offend people? Give me a break. Perhaps if the ACLU and the such focused on more obvious issues rather than sometimes 'going off the deep end' and zealously attacking the most innocuous things, such as the Christmas Holiday, and declaring such things grave affronts to our constitutional liberties, fewer people would think that the ACLU was 'out to get' Christians.
And which "obvious" issues is that ACLU not focusing on that it should? AFAIK, they are leading the fight against the PATRIOT Act.

[MrBigglesworth]

But you must balance that persecution complex against the 'that offends me so you have to stop it' complex that is becoming more and more prevalent in today's society. It gets tiring to hear that people are offended and traumatized and humiliated, by, for example, a hypothetical school board in a predominately Christian district putting "Christmas Holiday" on its calendar and demanding that it be renamed "Winter Holiday" or something to that effect, when it is obvious that the holiday is being taken because it is Christmas. Why not sue to prevent the system for taking the holiday if the very name of the holiday is an affront? Or is that step two?

Does that really traumatize and offend people? Give me a break...
What's wrong with putting 'winter holiday' instead of 'Christmas holiday'? Who does that hurt? I agree that people should not be 'offended and traumatized and humilated' by it, but nobody is going to be 'offended and traumatized and humilated' by calling it the 'winter holiday' instead. So why not call it that instead of using potential divisive terms? It's a practical matter to have school off because of Christmas, not a religious matter. Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah (sp?) were made holidays in my local district because there were too many students that just didn't show up on those days. With Christmas though there are several other holidays which deserve to be recognized.

[JW]

What's wrong with putting 'winter holiday' instead of 'Christmas holiday'? Who does that hurt? I agree that people should not be 'offended and traumatized and humilated' by it, but nobody is going to be 'offended and traumatized and humilated' by calling it the 'winter holiday' instead. So why not call it that instead of using potential divisive terms? It's a practical matter to have school off because of Christmas, not a religious matter. Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah (sp?) were made holidays in my local district because there were too many students that just didn't show up on those days. With Christmas though there are several other holidays which deserve to be recognized.

But there, you go, see. Why does it have to be divisive? Why can't we accept honestly that in many school districts, the holiday is being taken because it is Christmas, not because it is some other holiday. Why can't we be realistic about it? I'm a Christian. But if I were in a majority Jewish community, I would not be offended by a Yom Kippur school holiday, nor would I consider it divisive. 'Divisive' is simply a code word, and we are back to scrambling to ensure that we never do anything that offends anyone. Why can't non-Christians simply accept that Christmas is a major holiday in America and go on about their lives?

BTW, the ACLU in Georgia caused at least one school district to change the name of its Christmas holiday to Winter Holiday by threatening a lawsuit. The district caved rather than spending its limited funds to fight the threatened suit.

As for the Jewish holiday you mention, the ACLU has sued in at least one school district to prevent the observance of Jewish holidays, even though the district claims high absenteeism is the reason for the holidays. Link: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=2437

I think the ACLU can make better use of its finite resources.

[JW]

And which "obvious" issues is that ACLU not focusing on that it should? AFAIK, they are leading the fight against the PATRIOT Act.

Any resources used for less important matters takes resources away from more important matters, such as the Patriot Act.

[MrBigglesworth]

But there, you go, see. Why does it have to be divisive?
You'll have to ask a Christian why they have to be divisive (again, not ALL Christians), I've never quite understood that myself. A good number of them are intent on sticking their way of life onto other people, and those of us that don't want to live our lives like they do don't like it.

[Dutch]

You'll have to ask a Christian why they have to be divisive (again, not ALL Christians), I've never quite understood that myself. A good number of them are intent on sticking their way of life onto other people, and those of us that don't want to live our lives like they do don't like it.

Then don't buy any Christmas presents. bah-humbug!

[MrBigglesworth]

Then don't buy any Christmas presents. bah-humbug!
I don't. But you seem to imply that the 'Christmas spirit' can only be attained if one is Christian, but it most definitely can be attained by anyone. And I am sure you are well aware that Christmas has hardly any of its intended religious meaning anymore. It's more about Santa than Jesus, and who doesn't love a jolly fat man?

[Cringer]

and who doesn't love a jolly fat man?

A large majority of 'hot chicks' from what I understand.

[Dutch]

I don't. But you seem to imply that the 'Christmas spirit' can only be attained if one is Christian, but it most definitely can be attained by anyone. And I am sure you are well aware that Christmas has hardly any of its intended religious meaning anymore. It's more about Santa than Jesus, and who doesn't love a jolly fat man?

Agreed, but is it really upsetting people to hear "Merry Christmas" instead of "Merry Winter Holiday"?

[Cringer]

"'Merican"

We flipped our finger to the king of england
Stole our country from the indians
With god on our side and guns in our hands
We took it for our own
A nation dedicated to liberty
Justice and equality
Does it look that way to you?
It doesn't look that way to me
The sickest joke I know

[Chorus]
Listen up man, I'll tell you who I am
Just another stupid american
You don't wanna listen
You don't wanna understand
So finish up your drink and go home

I come from the land of Ben Franklin
Twain and Poe and Walt Whitman
Otis Redding, Ellington,
The country that I love
But it's a land of the slaves and the ku klux klan
Haymarket riot and the great depression
Joe McCarthy, Vietnam
The sickest joke I know

[Chorus]

I'm proud and ashamed
Every fourth of july
You got to know the truth
Before you say that you got pride

Now the cops got tanks 'cause the kids got guns
Shrinks pushin' pills on everyone
Cancer from the ocean, cancer from the sun
Straight to Hell we go

[Chorus 2x]

---------

I say let the flag burn, if one chooses to do so. But then again, maybe that's because I'm 'The Enemy'. :p

[JeffNights]

This is just one mans opinion, that being my own. When i joined the service, the flag took on a very special meaning to me, it represents all those who have sacrificed thier lives so that others may live in freedom.

Now this may be a contridiction, but I want and would love for the Flag Burning Amendment to become law.

When I see people burning the Flag in America out of "protest", I dont care what kind of "cause" they are trying to present, to me all they are doing is spitting and pissing on the graves and memories of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for thier country.

And thats my opinion, I dont try to get too political, thats just how I feel.

[Neon_Chaos]

Well, if this does pass, they're basically opening a giant can of worms. Does this mean that anyone 'offended' by a certain thing can move to over-rule the 1st ammendment?

Sure, you may not like it if someone were to burn the US Flag, but if he damn well pleases to do so, and as long as he doesn't physically harm anyone else, why not let him?

We might as well ban strippers from picking up american currency with any part of their body not on their appendages. It makes me queasy. ;)

[ISiddiqui]

Any resources used for less important matters takes resources away from more important matters, such as the Patriot Act.
And some donors only give for certain projects. Plenty of them give for the ACLU to defend a seperation of church and state, and any little thing must be fought so that the slippery slope doesn't destroy that goal.

So, basically, to a lot of people that isn't a less important matter to them.

[JW]

You'll have to ask a Christian why they have to be divisive (again, not ALL Christians), I've never quite understood that myself. A good number of them are intent on sticking their way of life onto other people, and those of us that don't want to live our lives like they do don't like it.

The very same could be said for some secularists. Just substitute 'secularist' for Christian. Joe Cook comes to mind. Reasonable people can make reasonable compromises. The problem here is that, like many issues in modern America, the extremists on BOTH ends and their lawyers drive the issues.

[JW]

And some donors only give for certain projects. Plenty of them give for the ACLU to defend a seperation of church and state, and any little thing must be fought so that the slippery slope doesn't destroy that goal.

So, basically, to a lot of people that isn't a less important matter to them.

What slippery slope? In case you haven't noticed, in the past half century the slope has definitely favored those who believe in a rigid definition church-state separation.

I'll just close by repeating what I did to Mr. Bigglesworth. There are compromises that can be made. Unreasonable people on BOTH sides of the issue often refuse to make reasonable compromises.

Mr. Bigglesworth made the point for example of the reasonable accommodation of Jewish holidays by his school board because so many of the students were Jewish and were going to miss school anyway, and I responded that the ACLU has sued against such reasonable accommodation in one district. Who are the extremists in that case?

And is it really reasonable, for example, to try to pretend that a Christmas holiday break isn't really being taken because of Christmas? What the Georgia ACLU apparently wants is for people to PRETEND that the holiday is not about Christmas in that one district. Is that reasonable?

The slope can be slippery on both sides of the hill.

[Arles]

Well, if this does pass, they're basically opening a giant can of worms. Does this mean that anyone 'offended' by a certain thing can move to over-rule the 1st ammendment?
Sure, it's part of our political system. If a 2/3 majority in the Senate and the House both agree to an ammendment that impacts the 1st (and the states ratify it), then that becomes law. I don't know that I agree with this ammendment, but I think the ammendment aspect of our government is an important one.

Now, the thinking is that you won't get a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate for any ole ammendment.

[clintl]

Now, the thinking is that you won't get a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate for any ole ammendment.

I agree. I find it extremely disappointing, however, nearly all of the recently proposed amendments being pushed these days are intended to deny rights that now exist, or that may possibly exist in individual states in the near future.

[ISiddiqui]

What slippery slope? In case you haven't noticed, in the past half century the slope has definitely favored those who believe in a rigid definition church-state separation.
Actually that is not true. Since Lemon v. Kurtzman, the trend has been more accomodationist than the strict seperation of the 70s. It isn't fully accomodationist, but far less seperationist than it was 25 years ago. Cases such as Agostini, Rosenburger, and Good News Club are definetly not seperationist (the last one said that religious groups should be let in for after school programs if other organizations are).

[JW]

Actually that is not true. Since Lemon v. Kurtzman, the trend has been more accomodationist than the strict seperation of the 70s. It isn't fully accomodationist, but far less seperationist than it was 25 years ago. Cases such as Agostini, Rosenburger, and Good News Club are definetly not seperationist (the last one said that religious groups should be let in for after school programs if other organizations are).

I disgree. The fight has been to keep us from going further down the slippery slope toward total exclusion of anything of a remotely religious nature. The Good News Club case is a fitting example. Religious groups have had to fight to ensure that they receive equal treatment and that they are not singled out for exclusionary treatment. Many school and other governmental officials, fearing potential lawsuits, have gone overboard in attempting to eradicate even individual, voluntary expressions of religion from academia and the workplace. You read about these cases all the time, the chilling effect caused by fear of lawsuits that school cannot afford to defend.

Little Jessica brings a Bible story book to school to read during individual story time, and the teacher and principal freak out and prohibit her from bringing the book. Jason wants to mention God in his valedictory speech and the principal prohibits it, saying someone might be offended. The slope is going the way you want right now, not the other way.

[ISiddiqui]

The fight has been to keep us from going further down the slippery slope toward total exclusion of anything of a remotely religious nature. Actually under seperationist logic of the 70s, things such as equal access cases would have been struck down as violating establishment clause. I think it already hit bottom and the recent cases have been just moving up from that bottom, using the equal access stuff to skirt the establishment jurisprudence.

That is what seperationists are try to do, get back to that bottom again. The slope is favoring the accomodationists the last 25 years, and the seperationists want to prevent the slope from going further that way.

Though with Locke v. Davey, the slope may have been reversed to go back down. But we don't know if it is an outlier or not.

The slope is going the way you want right now, not the other way.
I'm not a strict seperationist. But I disagree. Those examples you've said follow distinctly from the decision of the 70s. The allowing religious groups into schools under equal access, however, does not.

The propaganda indicates that this banning of God in valedictory speeches (etc) is new and thus activist by judges, but they are actually follow decades old precedent.


An example: Bush's Faith Based Aid program.. in the 70s, it would have been quickly and easily struck down. Today, I think it'll stand.

[Buccaneer]

JonInMiddleGA is right-wing, so people think of him as being libertarian, but in fact his views are more totalitarian. It makes sense for him to support this.
MrBiggle now joins Flasch in making the most idiotic, ignorant posts at FOFC. :)

[yabanci]

MrBiggle now joins Flasch in making the most idiotic, ignorant posts at FOFC. :)

you must feel pretty silly considering that joninmiddlega described the very post you quote as a "spot on observation."

edit to add: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=818921&postcount=70

[Buccaneer]

you must feel pretty silly considering that joninmiddlega described the very post you quote as a "spot on observation."
Consider the source. ;)

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Consider the source. ;)

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.

I think you got mixed up in the equation somewhere, dropped a parenthesis or something.

He said:
-- Most people equate libertarian with right-wing, which I'd say is fair enough (never mind the diff's, that _is_ a common perception).
-- He said Me /= libertarian, Me = Totalitarian (which I later agreed with)
-- At no time do I think anybody said libertarian = totalitarian.

And after all that ... now I'm confused.
I think.
But maybe not, maybe I'm just confused about being confused.

;)

[Buccaneer]

I seem to keep chasing after the tilted windmills of perception. Nothing to see from me so just carry on.

[MrBigglesworth]

Consider the source. ;)

Here's how I perceive it:
JiMGA is right-wing = true
right-wing is libertarian = false
totalitarian = false

Of course, I knee-jerk whenever someone misrepresents libertarianism, perception or not. Too many people here limit their views along a single spectrum.
Well if my post was the most ignorant in FOFC history, then this must be a close second, because it is making the same point that I was trying to make :)

[JW]

Actually under seperationist logic of the 70s, things such as equal access cases would have been struck down as violating establishment clause. I think it already hit bottom and the recent cases have been just moving up from that bottom, using the equal access stuff to skirt the establishment jurisprudence.

That is what seperationists are try to do, get back to that bottom again. The slope is favoring the accomodationists the last 25 years, and the seperationists want to prevent the slope from going further that way.

Though with Locke v. Davey, the slope may have been reversed to go back down. But we don't know if it is an outlier or not.


I'm not a strict seperationist. But I disagree. Those examples you've said follow distinctly from the decision of the 70s. The allowing religious groups into schools under equal access, however, does not.

The propaganda indicates that this banning of God in valedictory speeches (etc) is new and thus activist by judges, but they are actually follow decades old precedent.


An example: Bush's Faith Based Aid program.. in the 70s, it would have been quickly and easily struck down. Today, I think it'll stand.

I would still have to disagree. As an educator, and reading the professional material, I believe many administrators are taking action of a preemptive nature just to prevent lawsuits, in many cases heavyhanded action that violates the rights of students. The hypothetical I gave you about the valedictory speech parallels many such cases where students' free speech rights are restricted when they want to mention God, because administrators are afraid of offending someone. I don't believe anyone would argue that a student cannot of his own volition mention God in a valedictory speech that the student writes and delivers himself. I don't recall even the ACLU filing suit in any case like that, but school administrators have acted out of fear of such suits.

I do believe that the perpetually offended are on the ascendancy, and that this bodes poorly for our constitutional rights. And I do believe some ACLU (take the case of the chapter filing suit against the school district that put the Jewish holidays in their calendar) chapters are on what can only be described as a witch hunt against any stray religious reference.

Nevertheless, I recognize that there are those on the religious right who continue to try to inject religion into our schools in an inappropriate manner.

Once again I think we can seek common sense solutions here, rather than having the puritans of both the left and right driving the issues.

I also believe that what you see as crystal clear is not nearly so clear as you make it out. The question, again, is where to draw the line. No right is absolute, nor is the separation of church and state absolute. It is all about where you draw the lines, and today's Supreme Court decision hailed as the final answer might be seen 50 years from now like we view Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson today.

I appreciate the discussion, btw. I typically avoid such discussions on this board for reasons that are obvious, even in this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Let me recommend a book, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment by John Witte. It points out the history of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Establishment Clause chapters indicate where how the Court has gone from accomodation to strict seperation and back to a neutral position (currently).

On the valedictorian speech, it depends on how it is done. All the cases I've seen involve an almost prayer. That will almost always be struck down, according to Lee v. Weisman because the student is compelled to be there (for all intents and purposes). Also seperationism is greatest in the public schools and has been since the 40s, because it is thought that young minds are impressionable.

Now you say this constant litigation keeps school administrators on their toes. But perhaps that is some of these peoples' intention. You say why don't they focus on important things, but if all the legislation has administrators shaking about allowing anything, isn't it working? They don't have to legislate everything, but enough things to get compliance.

[JW]

Let me recommend a book, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment by John Witte. It points out the history of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Establishment Clause chapters indicate where how the Court has gone from accomodation to strict seperation and back to a neutral position (currently).

On the valedictorian speech, it depends on how it is done. All the cases I've seen involve an almost prayer. That will almost always be struck down, according to Lee v. Weisman because the student is compelled to be there (for all intents and purposes). Also seperationism is greatest in the public schools and has been since the 40s, because it is thought that young minds are impressionable.

Now you say this constant litigation keeps school administrators on their toes. But perhaps that is some of these peoples' intention. You say why don't they focus on important things, but if all the legislation has administrators shaking about allowing anything, isn't it working? They don't have to legislate everything, but enough things to get compliance.

I will check out the book.

However, the litigation doesn't just bring about compliance; it promotes an attitude in which administrators often go far beyond the legal requirements and become censors of free speech, in which students for example might be told to draw a Thanksgiving-themed poster of their own design for hallway display but then are told that their poster cannot be displayed because it has a religious theme. (actual case) Or in which a group of students who decide to meet during non-instructional time, i.e., recess, for Bible study, are told they cannot discuss the Bible at school, period. (actual case) So we end up with a chilling effect on free speech.

[SFL Cat]

I do not support this amendment. I love it when liberals burn flags. I especially love it when they burn flags and get media attention while they do it. It just ensures that their power (at least as elected officials) will continue to shrink. I say again, let them burn the flag, and let as many people as possible watch them do it!!!

[dawgfan]

Right, because only liberals burn the U.S. flag...

[ISiddiqui]

Or in which a group of students who decide to meet during non-instructional time, i.e., recess, for Bible study, are told they cannot discuss the Bible at school, period.
If recess is during school hours, chances are the Courts would strike it down as a violation of Establishment Clause (of the chances of it being struck down are greater the lesser in grade you go). Some may go beyond, but this one doesn't.

Btw, you've probably read the 10 Commandment Cases. It was struck down being displayed at the Kentucky Courthouse, but allowed at the Texas State Capitol. The allowance of it at the State House supports my point that the Court is looking at things more accomodationist than 25 years ago.

[JW]

If recess is during school hours, chances are the Courts would strike it down as a violation of Establishment Clause (of the chances of it being struck down are greater the lesser in grade you go). Some may go beyond, but this one doesn't.

Btw, you've probably read the 10 Commandment Cases. It was struck down being displayed at the Kentucky Courthouse, but allowed at the Texas State Capitol. The allowance of it at the State House supports my point that the Court is looking at things more accomodationist than 25 years ago.

Your first point, are you saying that students cannot come together on campus at any time and discuss religion? I would say not even the ACLU argues that, since in the case I mention the school did not endorse or encourage the students. What you seem to be saying is that I as a teacher should be constantly monitoring my students to ensure that they don't talk about religion among themselves, even during non-instruction time, such as class change, recess, before and after school, lunch.

As for the split Supreme Court decision, I would also disagree. The court is simply affirming what we have known for more than 200 years, that Judeo-Christian teachings are an important part of our heritage, and that we do not have to pretend that they are not. Thus the ten commandments can be displayed, but not if it is displayed for the purpose of promoting religion rather than for recognizing heritage. One might well argue that the Declaration of Independence should not be displayed because it mentions the deity, and some people have argued as much.

[SFL Cat]

Right, because only liberals burn the U.S. flag...

Sorry, I'll amend my speech. I love it when kooks burn the flag, regardless of their poltical persuasion.

[ISiddiqui]

Your first point, are you saying that students cannot come together on campus at any time and discuss religion?
Yep. And there are cases on point which state that. Good News Club even says, IIRC, that this is ONLY ok because it is an after school activity, not during school hours.

What you seem to be saying is that I as a teacher should be constantly monitoring my students to ensure that they don't talk about religion among themselves, even during non-instruction time, such as class change, recess, before and after school, lunch.
Talking about religion is different than a Bible Study, which does require some classroom accomodation. At least it would in my high school.

The court is simply affirming what we have known for more than 200 years, that Judeo-Christian teachings are an important part of our heritage, and that we do not have to pretend that they are not. Thus the ten commandments can be displayed, but not if it is displayed for the purpose of promoting religion rather than for recognizing heritage.
And in the mid 70s, if people said they were displaying the 10 Commandments for historic purposes in the way Texas had it, it probably would have been struck down. That's why I say the Court is more accomodationalist now than it was 20-25 years ago, and I think most legal scholars (on the right and left) would agree.

[JW]

Yep. And there are cases on point which state that. Good News Club even says, IIRC, that this is ONLY ok because it is an after school activity, not during school hours.


Talking about religion is different than a Bible Study, which does require some classroom accomodation. At least it would in my high school.


And in the mid 70s, if people said they were displaying the 10 Commandments for historic purposes in the way Texas had it, it probably would have been struck down. That's why I say the Court is more accomodationalist now than it was 20-25 years ago, and I think most legal scholars (on the right and left) would agree.

I want to be clear on this. Are you saying that if I as a teacher on hall duty hear two students talking about Jesus in the hall between classes, that I am supposed to tell them to stop? That seems to be what your 'yep' is saying. If I observe a group of Muslim students going thru devotionals during recess, am I to tell them to stop? Are we to monitor our students to ensure that they don't discuss religion with each other at any time during the school day?

And I continue to disagree on the accomodation. There is a tremendous offensive now to remove religious references from public spaces. What you see as an attempt to establish religion is in many cases a backlash against the attempt to cleanse religious references from the public square.

[Dutch]

Sorry, I'll amend my speech. I love it when kooks burn the flag, regardless of their poltical persuasion.

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

[John Galt]

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

Plenty. Especially among militia groups.

[Cringer]

hehe, that's a good question though. Are there any cases of Republican/Conservative groups burning the flag?

No, they just burn crosses.




it's a tasteless joke people, calm down....

[Dutch]

Plenty. Especially among militia groups.

I'm not up to speed on militia groups. ??

[John Galt]

I'm not up to speed on militia groups. ??

I'm actually surprised. Go to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and do some research.

[Dutch]

No, they just burn crosses.




it's a tasteless joke people, calm down....

See, now I thought that was Democrats too. :)

[Cringer]

See, now I thought that was Democrats too. :)

nixed again. :mad:

how about other nation's civilians?

[Dutch]

I'm actually surprised. Go to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and do some research.

Hmmm, not familiar. Here's some Reuter's shots that are easily found on the internet.

USA - anti-government rally
http://www.theodora.com/flags/new10/burn_losangeles_000816_reuters.jpg

Gaza City - just for reference
http://www.theodora.com/flags/new10/burn_gaza_city_000824_ap.jpg

USA - anti-government rally
http://www.theodora.com/flags/burning/detroit_010421_ap.jpg

USA - anti-government rally
http://www.theodora.com/flags/new8/burn_miami_000412_ap.jpg

Here's one in Russia, where the true leftists reign supreme
http://www.theodora.com/flags/burning/st_petersburg_990326_ap.jpg

Haven't found anybody in Idaho burning flags yet, but if they are anti-government militia's, I'm sure they burn the US flag too, that would make sense.

BTW, There is a great video of some jackass in the middle east setting himself on fire instead of the US Flag. It's nice to see after being bombarded by images of people around the world burning our flag.

[John Galt]

I'm not sure why you see those anti-government pictures as the work of "liberals." Most of them appear to be the product of anti-globalization protesters who don't really fit in the typical right-left spectrum.

And how is one really "bombarded by images" when you actively seek them?

[MrBigglesworth]

According to Dutch:

anti-goverment: obviously liberal/leftist
pro-big government: obviously liberal/leftist

Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

[Dutch]

According to Dutch:

anti-goverment: obviously liberal/leftist
pro-big government: obviously liberal/leftist

Excuse me - anti-capitalist/free government. Better? :)