Yes, Liberal/Democrats are truly unpatriotic

[AUDub 11,148]

It's been fun, folks...but real work summons me. Later...

What could be more important than arguing on the internet?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Oh lol, this is about those kids again.

Seriously, lets call it what it is. Three kids wore those shirts on that day to get a rise out of the other population, nothing more and nothing less. They did it to cause trouble and they have succeeded.

The rest of it is stupid.

It is absolute no different than what quite a few of you complain about with the homosexual population, oh they wore it to stand out and cause a issue etc. Kids are no different than a person that wears the Union Jack into a Irish Bar in Chicago on Saint Paddy's day.

Should of just let them take the ass whooping and call it a lesson learned.

[autigeremt 6,630]

The flag isn't protected under the constitution. It is hard to understand why American citizens would think the Stars and Stripes is offensive but hey.....many do. They don't mind using the services and protections of the nation at the same time, but our rules allow it. It also allows school principals to power to control his/her school grounds, regardless of the constitutionality, in the name of safety. Sound familiar?

The three kids were looking for trouble in this case. The fact that the flag on a shirt made the others upset is the sad part of the story. Since they love the Mexican flag so much they should move.

[homersapien 11,373]

Quietfan is like a candle in the wind of simplistic - not to say idiotic - thinking.

Or perhaps more accurately a fart in a hurricane?

Well, maybe the physical equivalent, but I have more respect for the quality of your posts.

Surely you are not implying my farts lack quality?

That's impossible to judge in this hurricane.

[cooltigger21 0]

AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Not always. The "will of the people" or a majority is not always right or deserving of respect. It was the "will of the people" in the South to keep slavery legal in 1860 (Well, technically, the will of the people in political control). It was the will of the majority of voters in southern states to retain Jim Crow laws and ban interracial marriage in the 1930's-40's. I suspect there are villages in Syria and Afghanistan where the people willingly endorse the barbaric actions of ISIS or the Taliban. I'm glad courts could overturn those "wills" in the U.S. (after the 13th Amendment in the case of slavery), and wish there were courts that had the power to override the extremism of ISIS or the Taliban.

Even with a vote of 99.9% to 0.1%, I would never support "the people's" right to legalize slavery again, imprison homosexuals, ban non-Christian religions, or tolerate rape and murder. "Majority rules" is NOT always right. Even Jefferson spoke of "inalienable" rights, rights that no "people" or simple majority could take away from the individual.

To put a finer point on your examples, it was the will of the Democrat party to keep slavery AND the Jim Crowe laws that THEY wrote. Your examples are quite extreme when all I was talking about was a vote on protecting traditional marriage. Are you saying that traditional marriage is as potentially harmful to society as slavery and Jim Crow laws so a prescient 9th Circuit nipped that vote in the bud?

I agree with you up to a point: You are of course correct in that traditional marriage, for those who choose it, is certainly not as harmful as slavery or Jim Crow. I have no problem whatsoever with those who choose traditional marriage for themselves or within the confines of their religious faith. (I have, and will again if/when I remarry.) Of course, I don't think gay marriage for those who choose it is a threat to society either. However I would have serious grievances with anyone who chose to practice slavery or Jim Crow standards (separate bathrooms, entrances, public lunch counters, etc.) for themselves.

Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws thought they were defending "traditional marriage" in outlawing interracial marriage. I do think recognizing one and only one particular group's definition of marriage (e.g., only between a man and a woman) is wrong for a system supposedly based on liberty and religious freedom. So I cannot defend it as something the "will of the people" is entitled to enforce on others.

My point of course was not to compare the relative merits of one example over another, but simply to say the "will of the people" or the vote of the majority is NOT automatically sacrosanct or universally valid.

(Concern about the names of particular parties in history--"Democrat", "Republican", "Bullmoose", etc.--is something of a red herring. I am referring to political philosophies, not what proponents of a philosophy called themselves at any given point in history. In 1860 Democrats were generally more conservative than Republicans. Today labels have changed and Democrats are generally the more liberal of the two. If party name was more important than political philosophy, why would so many southerners have defected from the Democratic party to the GOP in the last half century? Certainly not because of the Republicans' name or liberal past!)

Too much here to argue but I'll address the last question. Most of the time people refuse to acknowledge the democrat party as the inherently racist party it has always been. The racism today is just different and is best characterized as the soft racism of low expectations. Democrats have worked really hard projecting their history onto others and have even entertained revisionist history to distance themselves from their sordid past. Democrats have never been big proponents of freedom and liberty and have almost completely sold out to politics of egalitarianism.

Its not hard for me to see why the constituencies have changed. You claim that 1860 democrats were more conservative but it took a republican President to set slaves free in 1863. What does conservative and what does liberal mean? Republicans still embrace policies of freedom and liberty but democrats,..not so much.

Conservative republicans do. The party is also full of people that can best be described as democrat lite. They have no problem with the ever growing government at all levels. They just think they would manage it better.

[WarTim 3,456]

Quietfan is like a candle in the wind of simplistic - not to say idiotic - thinking.

... Homeyclaus is more in the idiotic, to say, camp...