WWTBAM Bored

Thirty years ago today, there was a huge train crash with numerous fatalities in what was then the Soviet Union. On most other days, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, news broke that Ayatollah Khomeini had died shortly before midnight (local time). On almost any other day, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, my middle sister had her 20-somethingth birthday. There is no day on which that would have shown up even in a local newscast. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, Tienanmen Square happened.

As an epilogue, a number of the student protestors were charged with showing disrespect to the Chinese flag. At the time, a bill was pending in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Court's then-recent decision in Texas v. Johnson, which held that flag desecration laws violated the First Amendment. After Tienanmen Square, that bill sank quietly out of sight, never to be heard from again.

And happy birthday, sis. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Thirty years ago today, there was a huge train crash with numerous fatalities in what was then the Soviet Union. On most other days, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, news broke that Ayatollah Khomeini had died shortly before midnight (local time). On almost any other day, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, my middle sister had her 20-somethingth birthday. There is no day on which that would have shown up even in a local newscast. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, Tienanmen Square happened.

As an epilogue, a number of the student protestors were charged with showing disrespect to the Chinese flag. At the time, a bill was pending in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Court's then-recent decision in Texas v. Johnson, which held that flag desecration laws violated the First Amendment. After Tienanmen Square, that bill sank quietly out of sight, never to be heard from again.

And happy birthday, sis. --Bob

Gee, big surprise. The man who lives for tactical, partisan politics uses Tiananmen Square to attack conservatives from 30 years ago. Maybe, this would be a more relevant discussion to be having today.

"Twitter Takes Down Accounts of China dissidents ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/busi ... anmen.html

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/01/twitt ... -takedown/

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Thirty years ago today, there was a huge train crash with numerous fatalities in what was then the Soviet Union. On most other days, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, news broke that Ayatollah Khomeini had died shortly before midnight (local time). On almost any other day, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, my middle sister had her 20-somethingth birthday. There is no day on which that would have shown up even in a local newscast. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, Tienanmen Square happened.

As an epilogue, a number of the student protestors were charged with showing disrespect to the Chinese flag. At the time, a bill was pending in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Court's then-recent decision in Texas v. Johnson, which held that flag desecration laws violated the First Amendment. After Tienanmen Square, that bill sank quietly out of sight, never to be heard from again.

And happy birthday, sis. --Bob

Gee, big surprise. The man who lives for tactical, partisan politics uses Tiananmen Square to attack conservatives from 30 years ago. Maybe, this would be a more relevant discussion to be having today.

"Twitter Takes Down Accounts of China dissidents ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/busi ... anmen.html

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/01/twitt ... -takedown/

Do you want government controlling (via regulation) the content that a private business must or must not allow on its site? If so, how do you reconcile that view with opposition to net neutrality?

And what exactly did I say that "attacked" anyone? The pendency of that proposed amendment is historical fact. So are the identities of its supporters. I didn't identify them as conservatives or even imply that they were conservatives. So the perception of an attack here is on you. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Thirty years ago today, there was a huge train crash with numerous fatalities in what was then the Soviet Union. On most other days, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, news broke that Ayatollah Khomeini had died shortly before midnight (local time). On almost any other day, that would have been the lead story on national newscasts. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, my middle sister had her 20-somethingth birthday. There is no day on which that would have shown up even in a local newscast. But . . .

Thirty years ago today, Tienanmen Square happened.

As an epilogue, a number of the student protestors were charged with showing disrespect to the Chinese flag. At the time, a bill was pending in Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Court's then-recent decision in Texas v. Johnson, which held that flag desecration laws violated the First Amendment. After Tienanmen Square, that bill sank quietly out of sight, never to be heard from again.

And happy birthday, sis. --Bob

Gee, big surprise. The man who lives for tactical, partisan politics uses Tiananmen Square to attack conservatives from 30 years ago. Maybe, this would be a more relevant discussion to be having today.

"Twitter Takes Down Accounts of China dissidents ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/busi ... anmen.html

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/01/twitt ... -takedown/

Do you want government controlling (via regulation) the content that a private business must or must not allow on its site? If so, how do you reconcile that view with opposition to net neutrality?

And what exactly did I say that "attacked" anyone? The pendency of that proposed amendment is historical fact. So are the identities of its supporters. I didn't identify them as conservatives or even imply that they were conservatives. So the perception of an attack here is on you. --Bob

Passive aggressive is so yesterday.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:
Gee, big surprise. The man who lives for tactical, partisan politics uses Tiananmen Square to attack conservatives from 30 years ago. Maybe, this would be a more relevant discussion to be having today.

"Twitter Takes Down Accounts of China dissidents ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/busi ... anmen.html

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/01/twitt ... -takedown/

Do you want government controlling (via regulation) the content that a private business must or must not allow on its site? If so, how do you reconcile that view with opposition to net neutrality?

And what exactly did I say that "attacked" anyone? The pendency of that proposed amendment is historical fact. So are the identities of its supporters. I didn't identify them as conservatives or even imply that they were conservatives. So the perception of an attack here is on you. --Bob

Passive aggressive is so yesterday.

Again, how is the recitation of an historical fact -- a change in our country that was in fact triggered by Tienanmen Square -- in any way aggressive, passive or otherwise? Particularly when I made no reference whatsoever to the political leanings of the politicians who announced support for the amendment? Have you by any chance looked up the identities of the Justices who signed the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, and who dissented? Do you want the lesson China taught us about the value of free speech to be forgotten? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Do you want government controlling (via regulation) the content that a private business must or must not allow on its site? If so, how do you reconcile that view with opposition to net neutrality?

And what exactly did I say that "attacked" anyone? The pendency of that proposed amendment is historical fact. So are the identities of its supporters. I didn't identify them as conservatives or even imply that they were conservatives. So the perception of an attack here is on you. --Bob

Passive aggressive is so yesterday.

Again, how is the recitation of an historical fact -- a change in our country that was in fact triggered by Tienanmen Square -- in any way aggressive, passive or otherwise? Particularly when I made no reference whatsoever to the political leanings of the politicians who announced support for the amendment? Have you by any chance looked up the identities of the Justices who signed the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, and who dissented? Do you want the lesson China taught us about the value of free speech to be forgotten? --Bob

So yesterday. There's always disingenui.......

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: Passive aggressive is so yesterday.

Again, how is the recitation of an historical fact -- a change in our country that was in fact triggered by Tienanmen Square -- in any way aggressive, passive or otherwise? Particularly when I made no reference whatsoever to the political leanings of the politicians who announced support for the amendment? Have you by any chance looked up the identities of the Justices who signed the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, and who dissented? Do you want the lesson China taught us about the value of free speech to be forgotten? --Bob

So yesterday. There's always disingenui.......

Do you take the position that our Constitution and the First Amendment are "so yesterday"? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Again, how is the recitation of an historical fact -- a change in our country that was in fact triggered by Tienanmen Square -- in any way aggressive, passive or otherwise? Particularly when I made no reference whatsoever to the political leanings of the politicians who announced support for the amendment? Have you by any chance looked up the identities of the Justices who signed the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, and who dissented? Do you want the lesson China taught us about the value of free speech to be forgotten? --Bob

So yesterday. There's always disingenui.......

Do you take the position that our Constitution and the First Amendment are "so yesterday"? --Bob

Bobbobbob.

Pomposity reigns

You KNOW the 'epilogue' came from the bat-phone. Just an addendum to some story bob-tel read written by some enterprising, indoctrinated so-called journalist.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:You KNOW the 'epilogue' came from the bat-phone. Just an addendum to some story bob-tel read written by some enterprising, indoctrinated so-called journalist.

You would be wrong about that. As far as I know, pretty much everyone has forgotten about the pendency of that amendment and who did and didn't support it. I think people also have forgotten about the flag-desecration statute that did pass Congress and was signed by the President, only to be overturned by the Court, relying on Texas v. Johnson. Which is why I try to keep its memory alive, for the next time someone is tempted to compel expressions of patriotism or punish perceived disrespect to the flag (say, by kneeling at a football game).

This came from my own head, with no source material but my memory and a Wikipedia check to discover that Khomeini had actually died (just before midnight) the day before June 4. I had thought June 4 was his date of death.

Who did you think writes the Batphone's material? (Didn't realize I had that kind of power, did you?)

So I'll ask again -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives? Do you think they have a monopoly on empty jingoism? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?

Because you posted it. Any time you or BobJ or I post something of a political nature, Flock tunes it out (not difficult because it usually requires thinking and reasoning) and instead trots out his lines about the Batphone and bobtel and Polly and whatever other cute little name he's thought up.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?

Because you posted it. Any time you or BobJ or I post something of a political nature, Flock tunes it out (not difficult because it usually requires thinking and reasoning) and instead trots out his lines about the Batphone and bobtel and Polly and whatever other cute little name he's thought up.

But it wasn't flock who first made that assumption. He was a latecomer to this particular thread. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?

Because you posted it. Any time you or BobJ or I post something of a political nature, Flock tunes it out (not difficult because it usually requires thinking and reasoning) and instead trots out his lines about the Batphone and bobtel and Polly and whatever other cute little name he's thought up.

But it wasn't flock who first made that assumption. He was a latecomer to this particular thread. --Bob

LOL - don't confuse the one trick pony.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?

Because you posted it. Any time you or BobJ or I post something of a political nature, Flock tunes it out (not difficult because it usually requires thinking and reasoning) and instead trots out his lines about the Batphone and bobtel and Polly and whatever other cute little name he's thought up.

You really should pay more attention.