Latest headline from The Sun

[Naso]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Naso,

Sorry,  it wasn't meant to be a national attack...just an observation on the possible motives behind the Frenchgovernment's reluctance to support the U.S. initiatives.  A major scandal surrounding the government's involvement in Iraq's oil industry and weapon's programs has been developing for some time.  I feel that Chirac's government is going to wind up with a considerable amount of egg on its face when the coalition forces start uncovering Saddam's weapons programs and the support he received from certain foreign governments and business concerns.

My post wasn't meant to be mean-spirited.  My apologies.

Regards, (Really!) Shuckins

Look Shuckins, nothing can convince me that France's stance is for humanitarian reasons (same for USA), and I bet, with some able "foreign" (for France) secret service informations delivered to the correct judges, we will discover soon a lot of strange things connecting ELF, Paris Bank, and Oil for Food program.

As for the weapons, I dont think there are recent huge facts to discover, a part the usual little covered trade involving almost every country in the "first" world.

The oil part of France would be rather interesting, and huge.

It's a pity that in, say, ten years, nobody will clearly tell us where will go Iraqi's oil, but i can place a bet there will be in the "usual seven suspects" with some "intermediate" step thru some "Euro-friendly" company (maybe even the ENI, the italian one).

But this war is not for oil, let's not forget, there's no oil in Iraq.

Anyway, I was a little reactive, you was on-topic, and the thread hijacked, the truth is I am a little tired to read always the same personal attacks, extremist position, and a general lack of cold-minded and openminded discussions.

Sorry.

[milnko]

Freedom isn't free, it's price is responsibility for your actions.

Although I agree that flag burning should be legal, it's never appropriate.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Really?  Wow, maybe I shouldn't have asked Dowding if he was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth!

Hiya Dowding!

Rip!!!!

have you finished you medicaments???



You are using each single thread to attack everyone, wow!!



And Dowding in particular

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Naso
So you can insult the president in USA?

Nice!!

Yes, but the president can sue for libel if he can prove that the person making a false and defamatory statement had to actually know it was false or have a “reckless disregard” for the truth. So Chirac could do pretty much the same in the US. Ironically the UK where the Sun is based has very scary libel laws and they'd be totally screwed if they tried this on their own prime minister, and could probably be sued to the eyeballs by Chirac if he could be bothered.

[Naso]

Originally posted by -dead-
Yes, but the president can sue for libel if he can prove that the person making a false and defamatory statement had to actually know it was false or have a “reckless disregard” for the truth. So Chirac could do pretty much the same in the US. Ironically the UK where the Sun is based has very scary libel laws and they'd be totally screwed if they tried this on their own prime minister, and could probably be sued to the eyeballs by Chirac if he could be bothered.

Ah!! so is almost the same, he can sue you, but he usually dont care.

But the burden of proof is on the offended?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by -dead-
Yes, but the president can sue for libel if he can prove that the person making a false and defamatory statement had to actually know it was false or have a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

There is actually a different standard for libel/slander based on whether or not the target is a public figure.  It is much more difficult to sue for libel or slander if you're a public figure, involving, if I'm not mistaken, the need to show more than just deliberate falsehoods.

In other words, it would be extremely difficult for an American president to successfully sue someone for libel or slander.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Fantastic response, Martlet!  Supports your point fully.  You've changed my mind.  

Now, please explain to me how, when the flag represents the country as a whole... INCLUDING freedom... that people should not have the freedom to burn the flag.  It's not good enough to say that the people protest the nation as a whole and should leave rather than burn the flag.  Obviously, if these people are burning the flag, they enjoy the freedom that their country offers to them to do so even if they protest its people, history, laws, traditions, whatever.  So why should they leave and go to some place with less freedom... some place that, say, bans flag burning?

Like I've said, flag burning is idiotic.  But it should never be illegal.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Again, please READ the post, and TRY to take it as is.  I answered this question in my original post.  

The flag means different things to different people.  I stated what I think it means, and I would hope many agree.  If one of the things the flag represents is freedom, and you are using that freedom to burn the flag, you are hipocritically protesting the very thing which gives you the right to do so.  If you protest people, fine.  If you protest history, burn a book.  If you protest laws, burn a bill.  If you protest traditions, burn your parents.

Why show disrespect to the essence (since that's what makes this country what it is, the ideas and belief of those that were here before us) that so many people have sacrificed to preserve?

[Sandman]

Well... the essence isn't the flag... it's the Constitution, IMHO.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... the essence isn't the flag... it's the Constitution, IMHO.

I disagree.  The constitution as what this nation was founded on.  Much has changed and been amended.  Many people disagree with portions of that constitution, as much of it is political in nature.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Martlet
The flag means different things to different people.  I stated what I think it means, and I would hope many agree.  If one of the things the flag represents is freedom, and you are using that freedom to burn the flag, you are hipocritically protesting the very thing which gives you the right to do so.  If you protest people, fine.  If you protest history, burn a book.  If you protest laws, burn a bill.  If you protest traditions, burn your parents.

[/B]

So?  It is certainly hypocritical to protest the very thing you have the right to do; this is why burning the flag is idiotic.  Since when did hypocrisy become illegal?  In other words, who are you to legislate that others can't be hypocrites?  

Why show disrespect to the essence (since that's what makes this country what it is, the ideas and belief of those that were here before us) that so many people have sacrificed to preserve?

See, the problem here is that you keep questioning motives rather than actions.  Is it hypocritical to celebrate the freedom to burn the flag by burning a symbol of freedom?  Is it disrespectful to destroy something that represents the ideas and beliefs for which many have died?  Yup. and you're an idiot for doing so.  That doesn't mean it should be illegal.  I'd hate to think that we would ever erode the part of the flag that represents freedom of expression in order to "protect" the flag.  

Thankfully I live in a country that is confident enough in itself, in its people, in its history, in its traditions, and in its freedoms to understand that flag burning may be disrespectful, but it should also be legal.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Sandman]

First you state that the flag is the essence because it is what makes this country what it is.

Then you state that the Constitution is what the country was founded on.

Doesn't make much sense from here... but don't let me stop you.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... the essence isn't the flag... it's the Constitution, IMHO.

Careful, Sandman, or soon he'll be arguing to ban burning copies of the Constitution.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Sandman]

Ever go and see it? they whisk you past it in seconds.

Looks kinda green in the case...

"Move along... keep the line moving... "

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
First you state that the flag is the essence because it is what makes this country what it is.

Then you state that the Constitution is what the country was founded on.

Doesn't make much sense from here... but don't let me stop you.

Sandman- I understand that it doesn't make sense to you.  That is why I urge you to buy the coloring book version of my post when it is released.  It specifically targets your 3rd grade level of education.


Dead Man Flying-not once did I state burning the flag should be illegal.   I don't believe it should be, since I feel that would be going against the very thing it represents.  If someone wants to be a hipocritical moron, the government shouldn't stop them.  I find it offensive, though, and I have stopped flag burners.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Careful, Sandman, or soon he'll be arguing to ban burning copies of the Constitution.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

I'll send you a copy too.