Why I Am Not a Conservative

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

May I recommend a more readable and short book by Hayak, which is once again on the best seller lists: The Road to Serfdom. I think most on this list would enjoy it and not be bored.

 

[beararms1776]

I started nodding off after the first paragraph. Is there a cliff-notes version?

lol!

 

[Hotdoger]

Are you attempting to conflate flag burning with fire safety laws?

No I don't have to.

But there are more than just safety concerns with reguard to open burning.


Open burning is illegal in most municlipalities already and it is settled law.

Question to you is, do you think a "freedom of expression" arguement is always a good reason to override our know laws?

 

[Fletch]

No I don't have to.

But there are more than just safety concerns with reguard to open burning.

Like what?

Open burning is illegal in most municlipalities already and it is settled law.

Just for the sake of argument, perhaps you could define "open burning" so there's no misunderstanding.

Question to you is, do you think a "freedom of expression" arguement is always a good reason to override our know laws?

Depends on the nature of the law in question. I live in a serious wildfire zone. I'm not insensitive to safety concerns about burning stuff. But you say safety is not an issue, so I want to know if what you're talking about is BS or a legitimate concern.

 

[downzero]

Flag burning isn't an "expression" issue. It is classififed as one by leftists.
Open burning is illegal in most incorported areas across this nation.
A true conservative is for fair and even treatment under those laws.
Leftists think that should not apply to them.

Flag burning is protected speech according to a majority of the Supreme Court.

See Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman.

Take note of how the "leftist" Justice Stevens voted.

 

[jnicol6600]

But he specifically states that conservative criticism cannot change the endpoint and only affects the speed in which progressive policy positions are incorporated into our law.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Until

Give in everyone. Where do I sign up for my guberment checks.

 

[Hotdoger]

Flag burning is protected speech according to a majority of the Supreme Court.

See Texas v. Johnson and

Take note of how the "leftist" Justice Stevens voted.

So that was worth a negative rep ?

 

[Colt556]

So that was worth a negative rep ?

He's good at that.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Flag burning is protected speech according to a majority of the Supreme Court.

See Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman.

Take note of how the "leftist" Justice Stevens voted.

And it ought not to be. Execuse me if I'd pee pee all over the Supreme court, and they're UnAmerican rulings.

 

[Hotdoger]

Like what?

Come on. LOL
The list is long why municilpilities have those types of ordiances.

Just for the sake of argument, perhaps you could define "open burning" so there's no misunderstanding.

Any fire in the city or even some township and county limits.
You do know some of those laws exist?

Depends on the nature of the law in question. I live in a serious wildfire zone. I'm not insensitive to safety concerns about burning stuff. But you say safety is not an issue, so I want to know if what you're talking about is BS or a legitimate concern.

If flag burning protestors had been charged under open burning ordinances instead of "flag descretion" laws the whole "fredom of expression" idea would be moot.

 

[groovatron]

neg rep

 

[groovatron]

And it ought not to be. Execuse me if I'd pee pee all over the Supreme court, and they're UnAmerican rulings.

Somebody's been listening to too much Rush

 

[downzero]

So that was worth a negative rep ?

Yes, ignorance of legal reality and hostility to my First Amendment rights is worth a neg rep if anything is, yes.

 

[Hotdoger]

Yes, ignorance of legal reality and hostility to my First Amendment rights is worth a neg rep if anything is, yes.

Ignorance? LOL

TRY TO KEEP UP!

Both cases you cited were about flag decretion laws, NOT OPEN BURNING ordiances.

And there is no "First amendment right " to open burn!

 

[rambone]

I love the flag, but damned if I want more laws, more government, and more reasons to arrest us. Sorry but I'll burn it if I want. Freedom sucks for the thin-skinned.

 

[Fletch]

Come on. LOL
The list is long why municilpilities have those types of ordiances.

Then it should be no problem for you to rattle off a dozen or so non-safety justifications.

Any fire in the city or even some township and county limits.

"Any" fire includes cooking on gas stoves. Your definition is too broad.

You do know some of those laws exist?

Of course I do. I've already mentioned that I live under a serious wildfire threat. We take burning very seriously in Oklahoma... for SAFETY reasons.

If flag burning protestors had been charged under open burning ordinances instead of "flag descretion" laws the whole "fredom of expression" idea would be moot.

And this would have been a perversion of the law, which is only fun when it goes your way. When "they" do it to you, as in anti-gunners trying to get guns regulated under the CPSC, it ceases to be amusing.

 

[Hotdoger]

Originally Posted by Hotdoger
Come on. LOL
The list is long why municilpilities have those types of ordiances.
Then it should be no problem for you to rattle off a dozen or so non-safety justifications.


Quote:
Any fire in the city or even some township and county limits.
"Any" fire includes cooking on gas stoves. Your definition is too broad.

I have not defined "open burning" ordinaces. That has already been done by those municipalities that passed them.

And this would have been a perversion of the law

No because that is what actually happens. The reasoning by the offender behind it could vary, just as they would for any crime.

 

[Fletch]

I have not defined "open burning" ordinaces. That has already been done by those municipalities that passed them.

So quote me one. You're the one making the claims, back them up.

No because that is what actually happens. The reasoning by the offender behind it could vary, just as they would for any crime.

And laws of all sorts have been "broken" and the breaking justified by application of constitutional rights. Example: public decency laws overturned by strippers claiming a right to free expression. I'm no lawyer, but US v O'Brien (1968) appears to require that laws pass a 4-part test (one which seems pretty reasonable to me) before they can justifiably stifle speech:

The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the government to enact, 2) further an important or substantial government interest, 3) that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or "content neutral", as later cases have phrased it), and 4) prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest.

Under this logic, I don't see a non-safety reason being sufficient to violate a person's right to free expression, which is what you're claiming would fly. I can easily see "fire hazard", a safety reason, but that's not what you've been saying.

ASIDE: None of this should be taken to mean that I support the idea of safety-motivated laws, but that's another discussion entirely.