Re: Rush Limbaugh Belongs in Jail; His "Operation Chaos" is a Violation

Eddie Haskell wrote:
> "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."

Right, because that's how flag destroyers usually do it.  But it isn't 
about burning, and you know it.  It's about suppression of speech. 
Destroying the flag is protected speech.  You hate that.


> I don't think the SC should have the power to issue 
> rights that don't exist

The Supreme Court does no such thing.


> because of my love for the constitution.

You hate the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights; especially the 
First Amendment.  You undoubtedly hate all the amendments except the
second.


> 
>>> 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.

Implied.


>>> 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. 

No, the Supreme Court has made no law.  When they are doing their job, 
they defend the Bill of Rights against encroachment by totalitarians 
like you.

> Setting fires is not a constitutional right no matter what you are
burning.

Of course, you know that it isn't really about "setting fires".  You're 
just trying, but failing, to be clever.


> 
>>> 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."

Right,  because that's the means of flag destruction most commonly used 
by people exercising their free speech rights.


> You burn a flag by setting it on fire.

You know, of course, that it isn't about fire.  You're just trying, but 
naturally failing, to be clever and cute.

You sup****t the so-called flag burning amendment that would suppress 
speech.  You sup****t it because you're a totalitarian.


> 
>> 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 

This isn't about fires, which you well know.  It's about speech - speech 
you find offensive and wish to suppress.