i find em hilarious.....

 

but, I think it's a good idea to steer clear of those sites when on the job (at the Space Center, where every keystroke is under surveillance)...

I'm in favor of criticinzing everyone and everything...whether that makes me a patriot is up to any of you.

 

However, I do not believe a confederate flag is unpatriotic...I believe it is racist, and therefore wrong (thus once I by mistake called furman a douche, assuming the person wearing a confederate flag cap in his sig was not him...)

 

I would take no issue with "the dixies", i would think it is funny.

Just my opinion, but I'm thinking the PC crowd and the flag-toting crowd are pretty far apart on the political spectrum.....

I'm a fan of state flags .. here are the ones i've lived under

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York is by far my favorite ... I like MN and DE as well

 

I can't stand AZ

 

Only NY, MN & AZ displayed theirs prominately and the AZ one is wretched, especially when it starts to fade

i've lived under the Florida flag, South Carolina flag, and Tennessee flag...all 3 pwn

i was actually just joking....here's my flag:

474784[/snapback]

 

Furman if you think you are being funny you are not.

474807[/snapback]

 

It's kind of funny only b/c to me the KKK's belief system is so ignorant its funny. And plus eveyrone here always considers furman to be a confederate racist southerner so the irony was humorous. I'll take that over whoopi goldberg anyday

i was actually just joking....here's my flag:

474784[/snapback]

 

Furman if you think you are being funny you are not.

474807[/snapback]

 

It's kind of funny only b/c to me the KKK's belief system is so ignorant its funny. And plus eveyrone here always considers furman to be a confederate racist southerner so the irony was humorous. I'll take that over whoopi goldberg anyday

478261[/snapback]

 

I have never taken Furman as confederate racist. I think he is a proud southerner like many I have had the pleasure to meet. However, we have to admit that a lot of people use the confederate flag to instill fear and propagate bigotry and discrimination, and hence the aprehention of many against the flag.

 

The KKK flag on the other hand is one that produces much more hurt feelings than the confederate flag. KKK is guilty of the worst hate crimes in our country and their message is tinted of blood from innocent people like those little girls killed in the church bombing. That is why I said he wasn't being funny.

 

It is like someone posting a site where Bin Laden talks about how much pleasure he took on killing innocent people on 9/11 and saying it is funny.

i was actually just joking....here's my flag:

474784[/snapback]

 

Furman if you think you are being funny you are not.

474807[/snapback]

 

It's kind of funny only b/c to me the KKK's belief system is so ignorant its funny. And plus eveyrone here always considers furman to be a confederate racist southerner so the irony was humorous. I'll take that over whoopi goldberg anyday

478261[/snapback]

 

I have never taken Furman as confederate racist. I think he is a proud southerner like many I have had the pleasure to meet. However, we have to admit that a lot of people use the confederate flag to instill fear and propagate bigotry and discrimination, and hence the aprehention of many against the flag.

 

The KKK flag on the other hand is one that produces much more hurt feelings than the confederate flag. KKK is guilty of the worst hate crimes in our country and their message is tinted of blood from innocent people like those little girls killed in the church bombing. That is why I said he wasn't being funny.

 

It is like someone posting a site where Bin Laden talks about how much pleasure he took on killing innocent people on 9/11 and saying it is funny.

478273[/snapback]

 

 

I agree with you on this point, because defintely a symbol that stands for negative things (much like we disucssed in another post about el che and nazis)is somehting that ethical should not be used. however, b/c of the freedoms granted in this country people have to be allowed to display these symbols. But where does freedom of speech go to far? How about NAMBLA or the anarchist cookbook, in which people are exercising their freedom in order to teach others how to commit crimes. Is this facilitation of learning criminal behavior which ultimately will violate someone's right to life, privacy or otherwise, protected by the 1st amendment, and if it is should it be?

I agree with you on this point, because defintely a symbol that stands for negative things (much like we disucssed in another post about el che and nazis)is somehting that ethical should not be used. however, b/c of the freedoms granted in this country people have to be allowed to display these symbols. But where does freedom of speech go to far? How about NAMBLA or the anarchist cookbook, in which people are exercising their freedom in order to teach others how to commit crimes. Is this facilitation of learning criminal behavior which ultimately will violate someone's right to life, privacy or otherwise, protected by the 1st amendment, and if it is should it be?

479592[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately there is always a thin line when it comes to civil liberties. If we are going to prohibit some from speaking their beliefs (as crazy as they may sound) then we are not really applying the principle of "freedom for all". I know it is crazy to think that there are people that gather in meetings to exchange ideas about how to commit heinous crimes or to spread hate. However, speaking about it does not constitute a crime in our society. It is wrong, yes, but not against the law. Until a crime ultimately is committed, these people have the right to say anything or write about their beliefs.

I agree with you on this point, because defintely a symbol that stands for negative things (much like we disucssed in another post about el che and nazis)is somehting that ethical should not be used. however, b/c of the freedoms granted in this country people have to be allowed to display these symbols. But where does freedom of speech go to far? How about NAMBLA or the anarchist cookbook, in which people are exercising their freedom in order to teach others how to commit crimes. Is this facilitation of learning criminal behavior which ultimately will violate someone's right to life, privacy or otherwise, protected by the 1st amendment, and if it is should it be?

479592[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately there is always a thin line when it comes to civil liberties. If we are going to prohibit some from speaking their beliefs (as crazy as they may sound) then we are not really applying the principle of "freedom for all". I know it is crazy to think that there are people that gather in meetings to exchange ideas about how to commit heinous crimes or to spread hate. However, speaking about it does not constitute a crime in our society. It is wrong, yes, but not against the law. Until a crime ultimately is committed, these people have the right to say anything or write about their beliefs.

479604[/snapback]

 

Well actually plotting to kill someone is a crime in this country as is plotting a kidnapping or school shooting. So is plotting to kidnap and rape young children also a crime or is it freedom of speech? The difference b/w simply spreading a hateful message and into teaching people how to kill black people (for example) are very distinguishable and need to be reviewed carefully

too bad no state flag can better this one....

I agree with you on this point, because defintely a symbol that stands for negative things (much like we disucssed in another post about el che and nazis)is somehting that ethical should not be used. however, b/c of the freedoms granted in this country people have to be allowed to display these symbols. But where does freedom of speech go to far? How about NAMBLA or the anarchist cookbook, in which people are exercising their freedom in order to teach others how to commit crimes. Is this facilitation of learning criminal behavior which ultimately will violate someone's right to life, privacy or otherwise, protected by the 1st amendment, and if it is should it be?

479592[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately there is always a thin line when it comes to civil liberties. If we are going to prohibit some from speaking their beliefs (as crazy as they may sound) then we are not really applying the principle of "freedom for all". I know it is crazy to think that there are people that gather in meetings to exchange ideas about how to commit heinous crimes or to spread hate. However, speaking about it does not constitute a crime in our society. It is wrong, yes, but not against the law. Until a crime ultimately is committed, these people have the right to say anything or write about their beliefs.

479604[/snapback]

 

Well actually plotting to kill someone is a crime in this country as is plotting a kidnapping or school shooting. So is plotting to kidnap and rape young children also a crime or is it freedom of speech? The difference b/w simply spreading a hateful message and into teaching people how to kill black people (for example) are very distinguishable and need to be reviewed carefully

479609[/snapback]

 

Oh now, "plotting' is another thing. When one actually makes plans and gathers the material and resources necessary to commit a crime, then that is a crime. Even if you are not ultimately executing the crime, you are an intellectual part of the plan and therefore liable under the law.

 

Is that what NAMBLA people do? I thought it was a joke from South Park. :blink:

I agree with you on this point, because defintely a symbol that stands for negative things (much like we disucssed in another post about el che and nazis)is somehting that ethical should not be used. however, b/c of the freedoms granted in this country people have to be allowed to display these symbols. But where does freedom of speech go to far? How about NAMBLA or the anarchist cookbook, in which people are exercising their freedom in order to teach others how to commit crimes. Is this facilitation of learning criminal behavior which ultimately will violate someone's right to life, privacy or otherwise, protected by the 1st amendment, and if it is should it be?

479592[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately there is always a thin line when it comes to civil liberties. If we are going to prohibit some from speaking their beliefs (as crazy as they may sound) then we are not really applying the principle of "freedom for all". I know it is crazy to think that there are people that gather in meetings to exchange ideas about how to commit heinous crimes or to spread hate. However, speaking about it does not constitute a crime in our society. It is wrong, yes, but not against the law. Until a crime ultimately is committed, these people have the right to say anything or write about their beliefs.

479604[/snapback]

 

Well actually plotting to kill someone is a crime in this country as is plotting a kidnapping or school shooting. So is plotting to kidnap and rape young children also a crime or is it freedom of speech? The difference b/w simply spreading a hateful message and into teaching people how to kill black people (for example) are very distinguishable and need to be reviewed carefully

479609[/snapback]

 

Oh now, "plotting' is another thing. When one actually makes plans and gathers the material and resources necessary to commit a crime, then that is a crime. Even if you are not ultimately executing the crime, you are an intellectual part of the plan and therefore liable under the law.

 

Is that what NAMBLA people do? I thought it was a joke from South Park. :blink:

479617[/snapback]

 

The NAMBLA situation is can be viewed both ways. On their website they have sections that teach pedophiles how to successfully molest young children, using kidnapping and other tactics to lure children to them. In some cases, especially murder, outside circumstances have been blamed for causing the murder, as was the case with the manson family, where charley himself was never convicted of killing anyone himself.(by the way nambla stands for sumthin down the lines of national association of man-boy love) Now if NAMBLA's website and group leaders facilitate these acts by basically instructing pedophiles on how to committ these crimes, can it be said that they are partially to blame under federal statutes. I believe what has to happen is that a convicted child rapist says he got his ideas from NAMBLA publications and then the feds can crack down on NAMBLA. I am a big proponent of civil liberties, but not when they are used to directly influence someone to hurt others. To promote one thing is different than to actually facilitate a crime

I hate southern pride.

 

That is all.

474106[/snapback]

I'm with you there, and I live in FLORIDA. The Civil War's dead and gone, get over it already. :thumbdown

i was actually just joking....here's my flag:

474784[/snapback]

:o :o :o

I hate southern pride.

 

That is all.

474106[/snapback]

I'm with you there, and I live in FLORIDA. The Civil War's dead and gone, get over it already. :thumbdown

479681[/snapback]

 

 

Actually the state's rights issues for which the civil war was fought are still as important and unresolved today. People equate the south with racism too often and forget the good the confederacy was trying to accomplish by going against lincoln's drive for power, the reduction of individual rights, the growth of the federal govt, and the depletion of states rights. The south ultimately was on the ball in trying to curtail the rise of an omnipotent executive with a dictatorial federal govt that controls peoples thoughts, money, and dialy life in general. By the way......Bush is no Lincoln

Bush is definitely no Lincoln...but there are definite similiarities.

oh lord.

 

 

 

ironic thing is that furman supported bush at one point.

ironic? no.

 

I supported Bush (and still would) over a Democrat...even though this country will hardly be different no matter which of the two are in office...but that's another thread...