Leave it to California

[gypsyman]

Thought this might go along with the original post. Just read a news story, San Fransisco DENIED, the request of the Marine Corps to shoot an ad with the drill team, stating that it would cost to much money for police assistance. But they are having the biggest gay/leather bondage convention in the city. Even had an a billboard that looked like the last supper, except everybody in the picture was wearing leather outfits. Believe it was sponsored by Miller beer. U.S.M.C. has been putting their ass on the line for over 200 years, just so weirdo's can play their games, and they get this. The second coming can't be far off. This country has turned into another Sodom and Gomorrah. gypsyman

[jh45gun]

It's not all bad gypsyman, but I do have to agree their are parts that are just plain screwed up and SanFrancisco sure would top the list.

[SHOOTALL]

Get real ! it has taken years to get a whole city to act GAY ! If the Marines were allowed in then the gay guys would see how real men conduct themselves and might not want to be gay anymore ! then Nancy might not get re-elected , etc. etc.

[ironglow]

  Not familiar with that law..until recent years lawmakers were very cautious about trampling on the first amendment.

  Now beloved Nancy (of whom we speak) has introduced a bill to protect "leakers". In other words a reporter can never be made to divulge who gave him/her information, even top secret information.

  This is bad news, any slob that has B.S.ed enough people to get elected to congress is privy to highly classified info..now that slob can divulge any secret he/she wants to.

  Or, in such cases as we've seen a crooked reporter can make up a story, tell a fantastic lie about anyone or anything and get away with it ! He can never be called upon to "prove it"..

  If that rule is passed, there will be no reason for classifying anything...and some things MUST be classified..

[crow_feather]

It is like when a guy walks up to an African American, and if front of 5 witnesses, calls him the "n" word.  Usually he is just cited at the hospital.

[deltecs]

Now, please tell me..even though I don't believe in burning either one; ..Why is burning a US flag "free speech" and burning a cross....a crime ?

This would be a guess on my part but evidently according to the liiberals its ok to HATE your Country but not ok to Hate a Black Man. Mostly because black folks tend to vote Demoncrat because of the liberal handouts they get.Since liberals biggest pastime is PROTESTING burning a flag is ok in their book. My opinion is anyone caught burning a flag should have the crap kicked out of them which in the case of a liberal would be a all day job.

I guess maybe a better term than beaner, would be wetback beaner, since this is the PC name for illegals from across the border.  I too use Demoncrats as my intended term meaning socialists pretending to have a viable political platform for the sake of the under trodden and unfortunate masses.  As a firm believer in fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution, I do not have, nor intend, to be politically correct.  As used and standing on my Right to Free Speech, there is no intent to disparage any individual.  However, if a shoe fits, wear it.  As to yelling fire in a crowded theater when it is a lie, is justifiable grounds for punishment of improper use of free speech, as it is not just misuse but inciting a riot and that most certainly is unlawful.  I must agree with the opinions stated cited above.

[SHOOTALL]

Burning an American flag ( with out legal cause ) by an American . I would not consider free speech , I feel it would be the same as knocking a block out of  the Washington monument , destruction of a symbol of freedom and America !
An act of denouncing your citizenship !
speech comes from the mouth or words on a page , how could setting a fire be free speech ?
to say you want or should burn the flag is free speech , much like saying someone should have the *%#$( beat out of um ! But to beat the *&$%# out of them is not free speech ?

[ironglow]

 
  Burning a flag, cross, building or forest is not free speech, and only a person with a preformed agenda could rule as such !

     Burning ANYTHING is a physical action..not speech.
   
  Speech, by any sensible definition must be either verbal, print or even "signing"..but no one with any kind of gray matter upstairs
   should consider destructive action as ..speech..