Re: Rush Limbaugh Belongs in Jail; His "Operation Chaos" is a Violation of Federal Election Laws

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Lc6dnQQV1Z8Ht7jVnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Eddie Haskell wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:0YOdnRyMjuDGS7nVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>> Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?
>>> I didn't put words in your mouth.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Burning a flag is setting a fire. There is no constitutional right to

>>>> set a fire. That's ludicrous.
>>> Look, STUPID:  the proposed constitutional amendment is *NOT* about 
>>> "setting a fire", and you ****ing well know it.  It's about destroying

>>> the flag, period.  You ****ing well know that, too.  Here's the
language 
>>> of the current propose constitutional amendment:
>>>
>>>    The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration
of
>>>    the flag of the United States.
>>>
>>> Not a word about "fire" in there, you stupid smarmy little ****.  But 
>>> you knew that; you just thought, wrongly, that you were a cute smarmy 
>>> little ****, and could play cute.
>>>
>>> **** off.
>>
>> Again you put words in my mouth.
>
> I didn't put words in your mouth.  You know the issue is about flag 
> "desecration", not the means by which it is done.  The effort by stupid,

> low-brow knuckle-dragging troglodyte conservatives - you - to outlaw
flag 
> "desecration" is based on your hatred of free speech.

You said "flag burning." I don't think the SC should have the power to
issue 
rights that don't exist because of my love for the constitution.

>> I never said anything about a constitutional amendment.
>
> I did, and that's what the issue is about.  The issue is about stupid, 
> low-brow knuckle-dragging troglodyte conservatives - you - coming
unhinged 
> when someone destroys a U.S. flag as an act of political protest.  You 
> want it to be outlawed, no matter what means is used to destroy it.

Quote where I said that.

>> That's in your head
>
> No.  It's the issue.  It's about cir***venting the first amendment.

No, the issue is about cir***venting the constitution and the SC making
law. 
Setting fires is not a constitutional right no matter what you are
burning.

>> I said that burning a flag is setting a fire.
>
> The issue isn't about fire, and you goddamned ****ing well know it.  The

> issue is about flag "desecration", something that infuriates you so much

> you're willing to **** with the constitution.
>
>
>> My point is that the SC is FOS.
>
> You're full of ****, *****.  You're pretending it's about fire, when you

> know full well it's about destroying the flag by any means.

You said "flag burning." You burn a flag by setting it on fire.

> Conservatives - stupid, low-brow knuckle-dragging troglodyte
conservatives 
> like you - want to outlaw it.  You want to outlaw speech - speech that 
> offends you.  Destroying the U.S. flag in protest is speech. Get over
it.

Destroying a flag by burning it like you said and are now running from is 
done by starting a fire. Starting a fire is not a constitutional right no 
matter how bad you want to give voice to illiterate liberal morons who
can't 
express themselves any other way.

-Eddie Haskell