Politically Uncorrect - WTF??

[Syntropy]

@DiosaBellisima

And really: do you honestly think that the people who DO believe that the song is preachin’ the gospel will have their ideologies changed by one song or another?’

Well, duh. Activism through music has existed since, I dunno, forever. Look no further than the sixties. Music is the medium that connects everyone and breaks language barriers.

As for ol’ Merle, he’s been spouting crap like this since Okie from Muskogee, so I don’t find it much of a shocker.

[D_Odds]

@Bricker

SOME people in NYC, Portland, and San Francisco are paying out more in taxes, yes. I doubt the inner-city residents of housing projects fit into that category, for example.

So what’s your point? I don’t see any indication in the song lyrics that the singer is exhorting or feeling “hate” for any particular group, either. Where did you get that supposition?

Guess one must always watch their words when there’s a lawyer present. The collective people of NYC, San Francisco, and Portland pay out more in taxes (in NYC, both to the state and the federal government - don’t know about the others) than they receive back.

[Excalibre]

@Bricker

Despite the fact that one party controls the White House, Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress, burning the American flag is protected free speech, and forbidding prayer in public school is required by the Constitution. I imagine that’s the kind of thing referred to by “I’m for the Bible and I’m for the flag…”

No, coerced prayers led by school officials are forbidden. Kids are still free to pray, but kids are also free not to share the school system’s faith.

Oh my God! They hate freedom of speech! They hate freedom of religion! They hate our freedoms! These must be the terrorists Dubya was telling us about!

[John_Mace]

@tdn

That seriously sounds like the lamest song since “What if God Were One of Us?”

Yeah, but what if He was? I mean, what if He was just a stranger on a bus? Like, He might just be trying to make His way home; and stuff. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

[John_Mace]

@Mister Falcon

Is uncorrect really a word?

Maybe Bill Maher has “Politically Incorrect” trademarked.

[Guinastasia]

@Bricker

Despite the fact that one party controls the White House, Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress, burning the American flag is protected free speech, and forbidding prayer in public school is required by the Constitution. I imagine that’s the kind of thing referred to by “I’m for the Bible and I’m for the flag…”

Flag burning-meaning, privately, a flag I OWN, should be protected free speech. What good is it to turn a SYMBOL, like the flag, into a fucking ICON? The flag should not become a religious relic of worship.

As for prayer in schools being forbidden, that’s horseshit and you bloody well know it, Bricker. What is forbidden is SCHOOL SPONSORED PRAYER, basically having everyone sit and listen to a pray spoken over the speakers, or by the teacher, whether they’re Christian or not. Any student can pray in school on his or her own. Just as long as they’re not disruptive or neglecting school work.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker burning the American flag is protected free speech[/quote]

So what? It’s also considered extremely offensive to do so. The song intimates that there’s something “politically uncorrect” about being “for the flag” (whatever the fuck that means). Just because burning a flag is protected free speech (as it damn well should be) doesn’t mean that it’s fashionable to do so or that people who don’t like are being persecuted.

and forbidding prayer in public school is required by the Constitution.

That’s absolutely false and you know better than that.

I imagine that’s the kind of thing referred to by “I’m for the Bible and I’m for the flag…”

Then Haggard is a retard and a self-contradictory one at that. He can’t be “for the flag” and simultaneously oppose endorsing the Constitution.

Now you can end your baffled puzzlement over what kinds of things the singers might possibly be referring to.

We’re not baffled by what the lyrics are referring to, we’re just amazed that anyone could be stupid enough to believe them.

[tdn]

@John Mace

Yeah, but what if He was? I mean, what if He was just a stranger on a bus? Like, He might just be trying to make His way home; and stuff. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Yep.

Makes me think “What a stupid song.”

[Bricker]

Sheesh.

I was, of course, referring to school-sponsored prayer. I used the short-hand phrase “prayer in school” to make that reference. Obviously that was confusing.

So to be utterly clear: when I said prayer in school above, I meant SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER.

[tdn]

@Diogenes the Cynic

That’s absolutely false and you know better than that.

I’m going to give Bricker the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s aware of the hyperbole that some people regard as fact.

[tdn]

I stand corrected.

[D_Odds]

@Bricker

Sheesh.

I was, of course, referring to school-sponsored prayer. I used the short-hand phrase “prayer in school” to make that reference. Obviously that was confusing.

So to be utterly clear: when I said prayer in school above, I meant SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER.

And yet you chided DanBlather for noting that people in NYC et al pay out more in taxes than they receive back in benefits.

[Excalibre]

@Bricker

Sheesh.

I was, of course, referring to school-sponsored prayer. I used the short-hand phrase “prayer in school” to make that reference. Obviously that was confusing.

So to be utterly clear: when I said prayer in school above, I meant SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER.

Obviously you know the difference - but at least it appears that a lot of people really do believe that prayer in school is forbidden. It’s not a good idea to reinforce that belief.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Then Haggard is a retard and a self-contradictory one at that. He can’t be “for the flag” and simultaneously oppose endorsing the Constitution.

I’d guess that Mr. Haggard doesn’t believe that flag burning should be considered protected speech under the first amendment, and that teacher led prayer shouldn’t be considered an inpermissable enganglement of church and state under the same amendment.

You know, it is possible for someone to have different beliefs than you without being a “retard and a self-contradictory one at that”.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Captain Amazing

I’d guess that Mr. Haggard doesn’t believe that flag burning should be considered protected speech under the first amendment, and that teacher led prayer shouldn’t be considered an inpermissable enganglement of church and state under the same amendment.

Then he’s a retard. It doesn’t matter waht he thinks the First Amendment SHOULD say and he can’t claim he’s “for the flag” as long as he hates the First Amendment.

You know, it is possible for someone to have different beliefs than you without being a “retard and a self-contradictory one at that”.

Sure it is. This is not one of those times.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Then he’s a retard. It doesn’t matter waht he thinks the First Amendment SHOULD say and he can’t claim he’s “for the flag” as long as he hates the First Amendment.

Nonsense. It’s far from self-evident that the First Amendment protects flag-burning.

The dissent in Texas v. Johnson included Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, and Stevens. It was a 5-4 decision. Did Justices Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, and Stevens all hate the First Amendment, Diogenes?

[Nancarrow]

@John Mace

Yeah, but what if He was? I mean, what if He was just a stranger on a bus? Like, He might just be trying to make His way home; and stuff. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Dude, I so totally know where you’re coming from. That’s, like, just what I’m thinking. Like, we’ve got some kind of… mental… connection. Hey, quit hogging!

[saoirse]

@Bricker

Nonsense. It’s far from self-evident that the First Amendment protects flag-burning.

The dissent in Texas v. Johnson included Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, and Stevens. It was a 5-4 decision. Did Justices Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, and Stevens all hate the First Amendment, Diogenes?

Haven’t there been more recent decisions striking down various federal laws that were nearly unanimous?

[Nancarrow]

@Bricker

The dissent in Texas v. Johnson included Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, and Stevens. It was a 5-4 decision. Did Justices Rehnquist, White, O’Connor, and Stevens all hate the First Amendment, Diogenes?

One does not have to postulate that they hate it, merely that they allow their authoritarian gut reactions to cloud their judgement.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Then he’s a retard. It doesn’t matter waht he thinks the First Amendment SHOULD say and he can’t claim he’s “for the flag” as long as he hates the First Amendment.

He doesn’t hate the First Amendment. He just disagrees that a prohibition against flag burning violates the First Amendment. I like the Constitution…I’m for the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean I agree with every current Supreme Court decision. I think some are wrongly decided. I’m sure you do too.

The idea that flagburning is protected by the first amendment isn’t an uncontroversial issue. The case was decided 5-4, and there are good arguments both for and against it.