Now maybe I don’t recall the the past couple decades or so as well as I should, but I kinda recall mostly Republicans starting wars and liberals being called unpatriotic for not fully supporting these wars. Did I get that backwards somehow?
Okay, reading 2 of the 4 pages, I still don’t know what game “Red Rover” is. I have seen the South Park Episode (about sex ed.) which involves a Red Rover game (masturbating a dog to make it come), but I suspect this is not what’s meant in this context. Wikipedia lets me down however, so how is Red Rover played?
Wow. “Here, boy,” always seemed to work well for me.
Bunch of kids standing in two lines facing each other. the kids in each line are holding hands, making a people chain.
Each line takes a turn saying, “Red Rover Red Rover send constanze right over.”
constanze, who is in the opposite line, runs at the line who called and tries to break through. If successful, constanze picks a player from the calling line and returns home. If the line holds, constanze is now amember of the calling team.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
It’s that fancypants righty way of reading the Constitution: even though the Founders didn’t explicity say “political” speech, we are supposed to infer that they intended us to understand that they were limiting it to political speech…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, where could Stoid have gotten the wacky idea that you think the First Ammendment is limited to only political speech.
Maybe it was from:
My town does a lot of smart things like this, mostly because the population quadruples when the college kids come around.
I did call him out on it, upthread, in the same place I first asked you about it. You agreed with him vehemently, so I’m including you–that, and I expect you might actually answer with something other than a quip.
Are the scare quotes supposed to mean “not specifically”, then? Could you point out what about it makes you believe it specifically refers to political speech in the plain language of the Constitution?
I’m not being disingenuous here, mind you–I take the exact same position with regard to the Second Amendment (AKA the number one reason I don’t vote Democrat very often)–words and grammar mean something. Just as I don’t believe the subordinate explanatory clause in the Second Amendment lets the government confine weapons to “well-regulated militias”, I do believe the absence of any adjectives in the “freedom of speech” clause was a deliberate choice to not limit the types of speech that should be protected.
[QUOTE=The Article Starving Artist Linked To]
Nazario said the privacy shields at the side of the computers protected her from seeing the images…
[/QUOTE]
Disclaimer: The article does then quote Nazario as saying “but I could still hear the voices,” which certainly is a problem.
You might want to visit the ‘Stupid Republican Idea’ thread to get an idea of how this is supposed to work.
You take a specific (current) event or quote clearly belonging to someone from the liberal side of the political spectrum, and then debate/belittle it.
Ad Hominems are just weak (and, in your case, spectacularly ignorant, as well!)
Lots of people from every side of the twelve zodiac political spectrums believe that good speech (as defined by them) should be allowed and bad speech (as defined by them) should be prohibited.
You’re no exception.
Do you honestly see no irony or hypocrisy in railing against a library allowing pornos while simultaneously chastising liberals with the above quoted section?
You’re asking whether Starving Artist has an awareness of irony or hypocrisy?
Welcome to the SDMB!
Start another thread if you want to continue this hijack, I’m not addressing the argument here, merely staking claim to “not a Democrat” ground.
But please do start another thread with that link, because that guy’s an idiot and doesn’t know the definitions of the words he is reading in a legal context.
I wholeheartedly agree this is a stupid idea, and it’s disheartening to see it handed down from the Bush regime like an ill-fitting, moth-eaten heirloom corset.
If a liberal administration ever takes the Presidency, I hope they will discard it immediately.
FYI, that’s red rocket, not Red Rover.
Why, yes; we’ve already established that you can’t find the exposition that somehow limits the scope of the First Amendment to political speech. We’ve already concluded that you are in error on this point, and that your arguments are worthless. All that remains is for you to admit it. That’s when your intellectual healing can begin.
The guy is a lawyer (and a former law professor), so while I don’t agree with him either I hope you do better in the other thread.
When a guy spends time speculating about the definition of a term that is defined in Federal law, I am not particularly swayed by his supposed credentials.
The Tea Party wants black Americans hanging on trees.
Wow. Just…wow.
Someone should start a poll and determine how many liberals think red-rover, dodgeball and other games should be ended. Simply declaring it as a lib idea is insufficient. I thought they were fun when i was a kid. I lean a little left, but I would not ban those games.