@Lofton

[SeanB]

I just watched the 1986 Crossfire with Frank Zappa, and I'd love to know if you still hold the same views that you expressed on that show.

[Smallfry]

I saw that! I don't know if Mr. Lofton still holds the same views, but I still admire the way Lofton skillfully pulled the ground out from under Zappa's feet by getting Zappa to admit that he believes the founders were defenders of Satanism. I haven't examined the Maryland constitution to know whether or not the bill being debated was constitutional, but regardless, Lofton was right: Frank Zappa was an idiot.

[SeanB]

And I'd like to say Small, you are the complete and utter idiot. You seem to me to be the kind of person that would say "The first amendment only protects some freedom of speech, some freedom of religion.", because calling Frank an idiot for saying the founding fathers did not write the Bill of Rights to protect every citizens views, every citizens religion, and every citizens form of expression of self is ludicrous.

As long as your use of these freedoms (given to us by men that could think farther outside some narrow-minded viewpoint as you seem to be trapped in) does not infringe on someone else exercising their freedoms, it is protected in speech, in religion, and in press. End of story. It's what the paper says. Don't twist it, and especially do not try and put words in the mouths of men whose careful thought and planning created a document you obviously have only begun to comprehend.

There was nothing skillful about what Lofton did in that interview. He didn't get Zappa to "admit" anything. He actually only showed his own ignorance and stupidity, and was completely shown up by Zappa. If you think he won that debate, get out more. What Lofton did was 1. childish, 2. unprofessional, 3. comparativly made Zappa look like Einstein, and 4. show the whole United States what will happen if the true crazy Republicans get into office. People think Bush is bad? HAH! Just wait till we get someone that wants to dictate what YOU listen too based on nothing more than his personal opinion. The government is not in place to tell you what you should listen to or watch, or what you should say or produce. By the Bill of Rights it is not. It's not their job, it should never be their job, and if they ever attempt to turn it in to their job for whatever reason we will have devolved into something I would never like to see.

[Joe_Liberty]

Here is an earlier thread on the interview:
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394&highlight=zappa
Lofton is not a Republican.

[True Blue]

Don't know if I'd use the word "idiot," but if I had to, I'd say the word fits SeanB or Zappa more than it does 'Fry or Lofton.

Sean, you obviously don't have a clue about what the Founders intended the free speech clause to encompass. I have no doubt that you are sincere and passionate about what you think they meant, but you're wrong nonetheless.

However, you don't need to distort the founder's wisdom in order to have things your way. The majority of pagans and pluralists running this country push the liberal agenda more and more everyday. Why, it shouldn't be long now until we're declared a utopian society, things improving as they are and all!

[SeanB]

I love it. You call me an idiot and yet give zero justification to your claim. You obivously know much more than I do about what the founding fathers meant. OBVIOUSLY they meant to have free speech for the people, to say and listen to whatever they wanted... but only within the limits of the governments opinion on what is right and what is wrong.

Come back with an argument, or don't come back. I'm sick of utter moronic nut-jobs on both sides (conservative and liberal) coming to the table with nothing more than "Oh ho ho. I'm more righteous than you." You can for sure read deeper into an article that is so blatant in it's approach to the subject of free speech that to think it says anything about limitations on free speech (save infringment on someone elses pursuit of freedoms) you would have to have to fabricate bs out of nothing but speculation and opinion. Really, that's a great way to argue. It makes my life easier.

Hmmm... when they meant something to be put on there that was unclear, they put a new piece on that would ammend it. I don't see one that gives anyone the right to limit someone elses free speech for any personal reason.

But what do I know is you obivously are smarter and just know more than I do. Say hi to the fathers for me next time you talk and they give you the low down on what they really meant with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I'd love to hear what they have to say.

[SeanB]

Lofton is not a Republican.

Sorry, I meant to say the true pretentious zealot morons. My mistake.

[True Blue]

I love it. You call me an idiot and yet give zero justification to your claim.

Indeed, and for two reasons:

1. You're not here to be potentially enlightened, but to attack and call people names. I'm not here to waste my time with such a person. I posted what I did mainly for the sake of John and Smallfry, whom I'm certain don't need a lecture from me on the first amendment.

2. Other than quoting part of the first amendment, you didn't bother to provide us any facts, but only your vitriolic misinformed opinions. Yes, we all know what the text of the first amendment is, thank you. Perhaps citing a few primary source commentaries would have been nice.

When you're ready to have a rational discussion, perhaps we can talk. There are many others here who can help you out if you find my demeanor intolerable.

[SeanB]

Skating away from a dissenting opinion eh? It's ok, be the bigger man here... I'm obivously just calling you all names for no good reason ;)

I'm not here to be enlightened for a reason. I am the one with the light. You all are sitting in the dark, freaked out by anything that moves that could potentially harm your safe little bubble of myth. How sir am I misinformed? Eh? I told you how you were: You can't seem to take the Bill for what it is. A statement that protects American citizens to say whatever they **** well please. Sorry you have a problem with understanding that is in fact the most valid argument against you, and topples your entire position :(

Lastly, they don't need a lecture on the first amendment? Obivously you do! You have no idea that it is what it is, and the simple fact you can come up with no argument other than "You're misinformed" (good basis for that by the way... how was I misinformed again? Enlighten me oh great teacher) proves this. Take a look at yourself. Take a look at the bill of rights. It may help with this.

[True Blue]

I'll give you a huge hint, Sean, since you largely managed to go one whole post without hurling a colorful name:

*Context, context, context...

[SeanB]

See, this is why I keep asking you to enlighten me.

You make no sense you silly goose (that better than cockwad?). Give me some substance to your... well, whatever it is you're doing.

[Jeffrey Butler]

Quit it.

This thread is closed.

[Jeffrey Butler]

Please quit this gabbering and let John answer...then you can all pile back on.