Thirty years ago today
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21863
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Thirty years ago today
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
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
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
-
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm
Re: Thirty years ago today
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.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
"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/
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21863
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Thirty years ago today
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?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.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
"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/
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
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 15677
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Re: Thirty years ago today
Passive aggressive is so yesterday.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?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.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
"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/
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
Well, then
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21863
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Thirty years ago today
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? --BobBeebs52 wrote:Passive aggressive is so yesterday.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?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/
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
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 15677
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Re: Thirty years ago today
So yesterday. There's always disingenui.......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? --BobBeebs52 wrote:Passive aggressive is so yesterday.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
Well, then
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21863
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Thirty years ago today
Do you take the position that our Constitution and the First Amendment are "so yesterday"? --BobBeebs52 wrote:So yesterday. There's always disingenui.......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? --BobBeebs52 wrote: Passive aggressive is so yesterday.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 15677
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Re: Thirty years ago today
Bobbobbob.Bob78164 wrote:Do you take the position that our Constitution and the First Amendment are "so yesterday"? --BobBeebs52 wrote:So yesterday. There's always disingenui.......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
Well, then
- tlynn78
- Posts: 9070
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Thirty years ago today
Pomposity reigns
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
- flockofseagulls104
- Posts: 8538
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Thirty years ago today
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.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... Simpleton... gullible idiot... a coward who can't face facts... insufferable and obnoxious dumbass... the usual dum dum... idolatrous donkey-person!... Mouth-breathing moron
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21863
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Thirty years ago today
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).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.
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
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23820
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Thirty years ago today
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.Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21863
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Thirty years ago today
But it wasn't flock who first made that assumption. He was a latecomer to this particular thread. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote: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.Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- tlynn78
- Posts: 9070
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Thirty years ago today
Bob78164 wrote:But it wasn't flock who first made that assumption. He was a latecomer to this particular thread. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote: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.Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?
LOL - don't confuse the one trick pony.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
- Beebs52
- Queen of Wack
- Posts: 15677
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Location.Location.Location
Re: Thirty years ago today
You really should pay more attention.silverscreenselect wrote: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.Bob78164 wrote: -- what in my original post made you think I was in any way targeting conservatives?
Well, then