It's over!

[SmartyPants]

I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to say that if violence escalated, the U.S. could always say they needed more soldiers/guards to protect the U.S. Embassy, and perhaps those guards could be dispatched to do other things in service of their country...

You don't use Embassies as military bases.  It is just wrong.  What if Hugo Chavez decides to sends hundreds of soldiers to protect his embassy in the United States?  Embassies are for diplomatic purposes only.

I totally saw the DON'T POST thing, it frankly, isn't that unconstitutional?

You need to learn your constitution better.
A) Asking someone to not to post is diffrent then not allowing them too.  Democrats telling the Tea Party people to 'shut up' isn't unconstitutional.  Passing a law that says they have to shut up is unconstitutional.
B) The first admendment only applies to the government, so an public administrators can block you for not likely what you say.

[The Holy namelesskitty]

B) The first admendment only applies to the government, so an public administrators can block you for not likely what you say.

true, but doing so makes you, in my eyes, a first rate a**hole.

[ArtDrake]

Not really that true. A cafe can get in a lot of trouble for making black people sit in the back.

Asking someone not to post isn't unconstitutional. But the implied completion of your will would be unconstitutional, as you are suggesting that people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't post. What if people who didn't have a PhD in something couldn't write a letter to their congressman, or even were told not to?

And the U.S. does a lot of stuff that is wrong. Try Vietnam.

[SmartyPants]

Not really that true. A cafe can get in a lot of trouble for making black people sit in the back.

What does that have to with freedom of speech?  After Brown vs Board of Education, the Supreme Court said the government can't refuse people because of thier race, but the public is still allowed to.  To solve that problem, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to say the public can't refuse people because of thier race.  That means that a cafe that makes "black people sit in the back" isn't unconstitutional.  It means they are breaking the law and being assholes.

Asking someone not to post isn't unconstitutional. But the implied completion of your will would be unconstitutional, as you are suggesting that people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't post. What if people who didn't have a PhD in something couldn't write a letter to their congressman, or even were told not to?

The "implied completion" of my will wouldn't be unconstitutional, because I am not a government official and you have the freedom to not listen to my suggestion.  If I tell you to not write a letter to your congressman, then what is stopping you?  I also don't think people should vote unless they are informed about the candidates, but my opinion doesn't stop people from voting for Obama because they saw him say "Change" on a commercial.

Try to stay on topic, even if you know even less about the Iraq War, then the US Constitution.  It would be preferable for you to not to talk about anything unless you know what you are talking about.

[ArtDrake]

While racism in private businesses is not technically against the Constitution, as you have so... obligingly pointed out, it goes against the spirit of the law, which is about as important as the letter when it comes the Constitution, as it is a living document. I only meant to say that your message encouraging me to shut up had an unConstitutional spirit, meaning, feeling, etc. to it. Comprendes, Kimosabe?

And you've so smartly omitted a response to the fact that the U.S. does dishonorable things.

Politics is just as much about what people think is going on as what is actually going on.

[SmartyPants]

And you've so smartly omitted a response to the fact that the U.S. does dishonorable things.

That was because it was random comment that didn't have any connection towards anything we were talking about.

Do you have an opinion on the Iraq War being '"over"?

[Duskling]

Do you have an opinion on the Iraq War being '"over"?

Well, the point of this is that the war is over, but I agree, as soon as the Iraqis have learned to defend themselves, every single American soldier should be pulled out immediately.

[ArtDrake]

@im2smart4u: The context--

don't use Embassies as military bases.  It is just wrong

[SmartyPants]

You don't use Embassies as military bases.  It is just wrong.  What if Hugo Chavez decides to sends hundreds of soldiers to protect his embassy in the United States?  Embassies are for diplomatic purposes only.

Duckling, stop being a jackass.  Don't delete 90% of quote to make it look like a made thoughtless comment, when in reality the rest of the quote would have explained my reasoning.

I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to say that if violence escalated, the U.S. could always say they needed more soldiers/guards to protect the U.S. Embassy, and perhaps those guards could be dispatched to do other things in service of their country...

Maybe you need to think before making comments.  If you put any thought into what you posted, then you would have known how stupid it would be to use an embassy as a base for militray soldiers.  Countries that want our soldiers in their country would allow US soldiers in miiltary bases or camps.  To put soldiers in those countries anyway by using embassies as bases would cause international outrage.

[ArtDrake]

We're already causing international outrage. And I honestly thought the rest of the context was implied; the intention was not to do you wrong. I don't care if Hugo chavez decides he needs more guards in his embassy. I'm not saying use it as a base per se, just using it as U.S. soil for soldiers. Embassies have every right to quarter soldiers of their own country.

[spoiler=rebuttal]THERE IS NO CALL FOR CALLING PEOPLE JACK(bleeep)ES!![/spoiler]