<< What do you people think citizens in the 1780's would have done had they seen someone burning the flag of the nation which they had fought and so hard for? >>
They probably wouldn't have cared because today's flag is different than the one they used then
. But seriously, where would you propose to draw the line of considering an act promoting anarchy? Would burning the picture of our nations founders be the same as burning the flag? How about burning a copy of our constistution? They both are symbols of our country. Are we going to start banning burning or destroying of any thing remotely represenative of out nation? How about burning the picture of president Clinton, the man who holds the highest office in our country. Maybe it should be considered promoting anarchy when Jay Lenno makes disrespectful jokes about our countries leader? When you start banning forms of expression you need to be carefull because it quickly becomes a slippery slope which leads to a tyranny. The fact remains that our country was formed by anarchists, so even anarchy isnt that horrible of a thing, for it promotes change and often times for the better.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Okay, here we go again on this subject...
First of all, let me state that i don't hold a particularly strong conviction either way on this issue. I can definitely connect with the views held by both sides on this one. And before anyone out there asks, my personal political mindset is strongly conservative, with a healthy dash of libertarianism thrown in for good measure. So there, everyone knows exactly what side i'm on - although i think in the case of this issue, it's one that transcends simple right/left wing thinking. I think i could find just as many people on either side of the aisle, to agree with either of the alternatives, either in whole, or in part.
Whatever your viewpoint on the subject, i am surprised that so many people that would never, ever burn a flag are so very passionate about having the right to do so. That is strictly an observation, not a judgement.
Okay, now, back to the issue at hand. First of all, i don't care which end of the argument you support, we need to get back to some good, grounded logic in our arguments. First of all, the proposition at hand, is that of a Constitutional amendment, which would allow for flag burning to be considered a legal offense. That means exactly that - if such an Amendment were to pass, the question of whether or not flag burning would be a form of free speech or not would therefore be rendered moot. And to those that said that this would require the appeal of the First Amendment, no it would not. An amendment does exactly that - it modifies and superceeds what came before it.
In this case, i'm pretty certain that it would be worded such that the Amendment would specify flag burning as a singular act that would no longer be considered an act allowing for First Amendment protection. It would not invalidate the rest of the First Amendment. If anything, it would clarify the First Amendment, and what is and what is not exactly free speech. In this case, the one singular act of flag burning would be judged not a Constitutionally protected act of free speech. It would (presumably) say nothing at all about any other act or expression of free speech, so it would certainly not nullify or repeal the First Amendment. Let's follow the rules of logic here at least...
Secondly, bringing Jane Fonda or Vietnam into this argument is a red herring, plain and simple. I think it's a stretch personally to call the act of flag burning an act of treason. I realize others may feel differently, but let's keep to the discussion at hand. Flag burning... offensive - yes. Treasonous ? Personally, i think not.
Next....
"The issue generally comes up when Republicans, whose core values are with their funders, look for issues of passion to paste over what would otherwise be glaringly obvious and garner very few votes." and
"Free speech has always been difficult for authoritarian right wingers to handle, hasn't it?"
Ummmm... i don't remember anyone before you bringing political parties or viewpoints into the picture. I am personally neither a Democrat, nor a liberal, but i haven't insulted those who are. Could you give those of us whom you might consider ourselves to possess the conservative viewpoint the same courtesy? Enough said, i think.
Going on....
"instead of passing a law to burn flag burning, how about we repeal some laws that cause people to want to burn flags?"
Possibly because i doubt we would ever come to a concesus in this forum, much less the country as a whole, exactly which laws we should repeal?
Next issue... do rights have limits? Of course they do. And putting limits on rights in no way diminishes the original right. Let's say, for sake of argument (and yes, i know i'm exaggerating), your personal choice for exercising your right of free speech was to insert a flaming hamster into your ass and sing "porgy and bess." If that's your thing, so be it - but by the same token, don't expect us to allow you to do it on stage at a Kindergarten pep rally. We as a people insist on some reasonable restrictions on rights, so as to prevent chaos. No right is absolute, and the Constitution was written vaguely, so that the citizens could use their God-given common sense to figure things out, without every single contigiency being spelled out. So therefore, it is a reasonable exercise to ask this question about flag burning. So don't dismiss out of hand the arguments that those in favor of such an Amendment are elaborating.
Bottom line for me is this... I think it sounds wonderful in theory. After all, who could be opposed to something (seemingly) so obvious as protecting our flag from being desecrated? I would be concerned about the very real, but in reality very slight, loss of a bit of our personal freedoms to express our beliefs.
In the end however, i don't think it would be even remotely practical, even if i came to the viewpoint that it was a good idea in the first place. I won't rehash them all here, just one for an example, how would you define "a flag?" Would it be okay to burn a photograph of a flag, etc.? You see how it sounds good (potentially) on paper, but fails the practicality test in the real world.
My personal take on how to handle flag burners? I think they are scum, who cannot win on force of their arguments, so they resort to symbolism such as this, as a last-ditch effort to turn the tide in their favor. I say we view them properly, exactly as they have demonstrated themselves to be, in using the right of free speech to give them cover for their acts. Ostracize the bastards, and let them and their views rot. If their views were to be taken seriously, they would not need to resort to burning a flag in the first place.
First of all, let me state that i don't hold a particularly strong conviction either way on this issue. I can definitely connect with the views held by both sides on this one. And before anyone out there asks, my personal political mindset is strongly conservative, with a healthy dash of libertarianism thrown in for good measure. So there, everyone knows exactly what side i'm on - although i think in the case of this issue, it's one that transcends simple right/left wing thinking. I think i could find just as many people on either side of the aisle, to agree with either of the alternatives, either in whole, or in part.
Whatever your viewpoint on the subject, i am surprised that so many people that would never, ever burn a flag are so very passionate about having the right to do so. That is strictly an observation, not a judgement.
Okay, now, back to the issue at hand. First of all, i don't care which end of the argument you support, we need to get back to some good, grounded logic in our arguments. First of all, the proposition at hand, is that of a Constitutional amendment, which would allow for flag burning to be considered a legal offense. That means exactly that - if such an Amendment were to pass, the question of whether or not flag burning would be a form of free speech or not would therefore be rendered moot. And to those that said that this would require the appeal of the First Amendment, no it would not. An amendment does exactly that - it modifies and superceeds what came before it.
In this case, i'm pretty certain that it would be worded such that the Amendment would specify flag burning as a singular act that would no longer be considered an act allowing for First Amendment protection. It would not invalidate the rest of the First Amendment. If anything, it would clarify the First Amendment, and what is and what is not exactly free speech. In this case, the one singular act of flag burning would be judged not a Constitutionally protected act of free speech. It would (presumably) say nothing at all about any other act or expression of free speech, so it would certainly not nullify or repeal the First Amendment. Let's follow the rules of logic here at least...
Secondly, bringing Jane Fonda or Vietnam into this argument is a red herring, plain and simple. I think it's a stretch personally to call the act of flag burning an act of treason. I realize others may feel differently, but let's keep to the discussion at hand. Flag burning... offensive - yes. Treasonous ? Personally, i think not.
Next....
"The issue generally comes up when Republicans, whose core values are with their funders, look for issues of passion to paste over what would otherwise be glaringly obvious and garner very few votes." and
"Free speech has always been difficult for authoritarian right wingers to handle, hasn't it?"
Ummmm... i don't remember anyone before you bringing political parties or viewpoints into the picture. I am personally neither a Democrat, nor a liberal, but i haven't insulted those who are. Could you give those of us whom you might consider ourselves to possess the conservative viewpoint the same courtesy? Enough said, i think.
Going on....
"instead of passing a law to burn flag burning, how about we repeal some laws that cause people to want to burn flags?"
Possibly because i doubt we would ever come to a concesus in this forum, much less the country as a whole, exactly which laws we should repeal?
Next issue... do rights have limits? Of course they do. And putting limits on rights in no way diminishes the original right. Let's say, for sake of argument (and yes, i know i'm exaggerating), your personal choice for exercising your right of free speech was to insert a flaming hamster into your ass and sing "porgy and bess." If that's your thing, so be it - but by the same token, don't expect us to allow you to do it on stage at a Kindergarten pep rally. We as a people insist on some reasonable restrictions on rights, so as to prevent chaos. No right is absolute, and the Constitution was written vaguely, so that the citizens could use their God-given common sense to figure things out, without every single contigiency being spelled out. So therefore, it is a reasonable exercise to ask this question about flag burning. So don't dismiss out of hand the arguments that those in favor of such an Amendment are elaborating.
Bottom line for me is this... I think it sounds wonderful in theory. After all, who could be opposed to something (seemingly) so obvious as protecting our flag from being desecrated? I would be concerned about the very real, but in reality very slight, loss of a bit of our personal freedoms to express our beliefs.
In the end however, i don't think it would be even remotely practical, even if i came to the viewpoint that it was a good idea in the first place. I won't rehash them all here, just one for an example, how would you define "a flag?" Would it be okay to burn a photograph of a flag, etc.? You see how it sounds good (potentially) on paper, but fails the practicality test in the real world.
My personal take on how to handle flag burners? I think they are scum, who cannot win on force of their arguments, so they resort to symbolism such as this, as a last-ditch effort to turn the tide in their favor. I say we view them properly, exactly as they have demonstrated themselves to be, in using the right of free speech to give them cover for their acts. Ostracize the bastards, and let them and their views rot. If their views were to be taken seriously, they would not need to resort to burning a flag in the first place.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
"America is great in a lot of ways compared to other countrys (sic). We have wealth and material things flowing out of our ears. Are these the things that are important?
Unfortunately, it is not so great in a big number of other ways.
I believe that eventually, our wrong ways will change. It can't continue to degrade forever; if it does, it will result in our self-destruction.
Yep, we're wealthy. Unfortunately, we're wealthy through the act of greed.
Eli, i'm not sure i exactly know where you are going with this. Yes, of course, pursuit of profit has sometimes led to disastrous results, and blighted both our history and the environment. The pursuit of profit has also led to such remarkable achievements that we have seen in our lifetimes. Not that long ago, just about one century ago, the average life expectancy in this country was about 50. We're now in the high 70s and climbing. Prosperity has also allowed us to help clean up some of the messes we've made along the way - the U.S. is without a doubt a less polluted, cleaner, and more enviromentally sound place today than it was 25 or 30 years ago. Material progress allows us to do that without severe sacrifices. Can we do beter? Of course.
I realize and appreciate that money might not be the biggest motivating factor in your life, but don't think that money or profits are a bad thing in themselves. Progress is coming, like it or not... so much the better to be able to meet the challenges of the future from a position of strength.
Here's hoping that if you do manage that secure place in the woods someday, that you'll be willing to let your friends here out there to see it, to share in the marvel and wonder of it with you
Unfortunately, it is not so great in a big number of other ways.
I believe that eventually, our wrong ways will change. It can't continue to degrade forever; if it does, it will result in our self-destruction.
Yep, we're wealthy. Unfortunately, we're wealthy through the act of greed.
Eli, i'm not sure i exactly know where you are going with this. Yes, of course, pursuit of profit has sometimes led to disastrous results, and blighted both our history and the environment. The pursuit of profit has also led to such remarkable achievements that we have seen in our lifetimes. Not that long ago, just about one century ago, the average life expectancy in this country was about 50. We're now in the high 70s and climbing. Prosperity has also allowed us to help clean up some of the messes we've made along the way - the U.S. is without a doubt a less polluted, cleaner, and more enviromentally sound place today than it was 25 or 30 years ago. Material progress allows us to do that without severe sacrifices. Can we do beter? Of course.
I realize and appreciate that money might not be the biggest motivating factor in your life, but don't think that money or profits are a bad thing in themselves. Progress is coming, like it or not... so much the better to be able to meet the challenges of the future from a position of strength.
Here's hoping that if you do manage that secure place in the woods someday, that you'll be willing to let your friends here out there to see it, to share in the marvel and wonder of it with you
Actually Netopia, the citizens back in the late 1700's on the East coast of Nth America, commited treason themselves, even though they had support of less than a third of the population. Mainly because they were peeved by the taxes the Brits introduced to pay for the standing army, & the sedition laws (laws such as you are encouraging, afterall what is a law against burning the flag, other than a sedition law), plus they (the merchant class & land speculators, etc) wanted to overturn the common law rights (concerning native title) that the British Indian allies had under English common law, so they could confiscate their lands.
BTW, what did Thomas Jefferson say himself, about it was a citizens duty not to comply with bad laws? Also didn't he say the odd revolution, every so often is good, to keep the hierachy in check? Well something like that anyway.
Surelly its hypocracy in the extreme to to be a supporter of a revolution (you obviously support the aims & the people behind the American revolution) against sedition laws, to then support sedition laws yourself.
BTW, what did Thomas Jefferson say himself, about it was a citizens duty not to comply with bad laws? Also didn't he say the odd revolution, every so often is good, to keep the hierachy in check? Well something like that anyway.
Surelly its hypocracy in the extreme to to be a supporter of a revolution (you obviously support the aims & the people behind the American revolution) against sedition laws, to then support sedition laws yourself.
<< - the U.S. is without a doubt a less polluted, cleaner, and more enviromentally sound place today than it was 25 or 30 years ago. >>
You must be living in a cave if you believe that
. Perhaps you havent seen the smog clouds that now loom over our most populated areas? Perhaps you havent noticed the fact that our forests are still disapearing at an extremely fast rate? Perhaps you havent noticed that the stars at night can no longer be seen in many areas because of light pollution? Perhaps you havent looked at the endangered species list lately? I could go on, but I think you get my point. People are certainly more aware of the enviroment these days, however, being aware of something and really trying to change it are two very different things. Where I live in California there used to be a beutiful sprawling oak woodland with abundant wildlife every where you looked. Now however, it is now 99% gone replaced by rows of mass produced houses and vineyards with 12 foot fences. And even the few areas that do remain are too isolated to allow species to survive. All this has only happend in the last 5 to 10 years. As long as our countries (and world's) population countinues to grow at such an insanely fast rate the enivorment will continue to die with it. The sad thing is that we are not only destroying the world which created us, but we are destroying ourselves in the process.And im sorry for this getting so off topic
Bad, Comp10, bad!
There's another subject I'd like to see some discussion on, the environment. Looks like I have to start another thread.
There's another subject I'd like to see some discussion on, the environment. Looks like I have to start another thread.
The only reason a United States flag should be burned is if it has been soiled. Then you can't really respect a dirty flag can you. Then it should be burned out of honor and respect. Just so you know I'm not some old guy, I'm 16 years old. I belive highly in the honor and respect of the United States of America, just not in it's current leaders.
"The only reason a United States flag should be burned is if it has been soiled"
Your right and this includes being soiled by the goverment.
Your right and this includes being soiled by the goverment.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Sorry for moving this off-topic thread even more off-topic, but i wanted to respond to an earlier posting. Please forgive me for this...
Quote:
"you must be living in a cave if you believe that. Perhaps you haven't seen the smog clouds that now loom over our most populated areas? Perhaps you haven't noticed the fact that our forests are still disappearing at an extremely high rate? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the stars at night can no longer be seen in many areas because of light pollution? Perhaps you haven't looked at the Endangered Species list lately? I could go on, but i think you get my point."
Comp... perhaps you haven't noticed what the Administrator of the EPA (presumably someone who knows a little about the matter at hand) has been saying in sworn testimony and public statements lately?
Text
In this statement (link from the official EPA webpage) in a speech made by EPA Administrator Carol Browner, on July 26, 2000, i quote:
"Today, our Nation enjoys the cleanest environment in a generation, while we enjoy the longest period of economic expansion in history." (emphasis added)
I could go on, but i think you get my point
Quote:
"you must be living in a cave if you believe that. Perhaps you haven't seen the smog clouds that now loom over our most populated areas? Perhaps you haven't noticed the fact that our forests are still disappearing at an extremely high rate? Perhaps you haven't noticed that the stars at night can no longer be seen in many areas because of light pollution? Perhaps you haven't looked at the Endangered Species list lately? I could go on, but i think you get my point."
Comp... perhaps you haven't noticed what the Administrator of the EPA (presumably someone who knows a little about the matter at hand) has been saying in sworn testimony and public statements lately?
Text
In this statement (link from the official EPA webpage) in a speech made by EPA Administrator Carol Browner, on July 26, 2000, i quote:
"Today, our Nation enjoys the cleanest environment in a generation, while we enjoy the longest period of economic expansion in history." (emphasis added)
I could go on, but i think you get my point
Warning, off topic!!
<< Comp... perhaps you haven't noticed what the Administrator of the EPA (presumably someone who knows a little about the matter at hand) has been saying in sworn testimony and public statements lately? >>
First thing that struck me about the article is that it is that no where does it give any evidence that the enviroment is cleaner than it has been in generations. And secondly, that statement can be far too easily twisted and still be "true". Does it mean the air is cleaner? water? Perhaps certain aspects of our enviroment are cleaner, but it goes into no depth.
Next problem, I simply do not trust the government. If this was an independant agency stating these findings I would be more inclined to believe them. What even made the article more suspect was the words "Under the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore." Now if that isnt an obvious partisan statement then ive never heard one. It sounds like a line right from the Gore 2000 campaign.
Next thing which bothered me was the statement, "Today, our Nation enjoys the cleanest environment in a generation, while we enjoy the longest period of economic expansion in history." Once again out of the Gore handbook, but besides that that it is simply WRONG. How can they claim we have the cleanest enviroment in a generation when the largest ever hole the the ozone layer was just discovered. In addition world wide we are suffering from the largest mass species exstinction since the time of the dinosaurs.
Next problem, how is it possible that we are having the largest economic expansion in history without using our natural resources? It is simple not possible, progress comes at the cost of the enviroment, there is no getting around that. You need raw materials and in order to get them, something must die.
Ok now im getting really long winded so I will conclude by saying this. In the 1950's I think, or somewere around there, they were spraying mass amounts of the insecticide DDT. By this I mean they were spraying it through the steets, parks, and even spraying it ON people. The government launched a huge campaign to convince people it was safe. Guess what, it wasnt. It was later discovered that it was not only destroying the enviroment, but it also caused cancer. The government was told this, however the chose to ignore it because their scientists insisted it was safe. Gee, a case of the government trying to hide something? Amazing
<< Comp... perhaps you haven't noticed what the Administrator of the EPA (presumably someone who knows a little about the matter at hand) has been saying in sworn testimony and public statements lately? >>
First thing that struck me about the article is that it is that no where does it give any evidence that the enviroment is cleaner than it has been in generations. And secondly, that statement can be far too easily twisted and still be "true". Does it mean the air is cleaner? water? Perhaps certain aspects of our enviroment are cleaner, but it goes into no depth.
Next problem, I simply do not trust the government
. If this was an independant agency stating these findings I would be more inclined to believe them. What even made the article more suspect was the words "Under the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore." Now if that isnt an obvious partisan statement then ive never heard one. It sounds like a line right from the Gore 2000 campaign.Next thing which bothered me was the statement, "Today, our Nation enjoys the cleanest environment in a generation, while we enjoy the longest period of economic expansion in history." Once again out of the Gore handbook, but besides that that it is simply WRONG. How can they claim we have the cleanest enviroment in a generation when the largest ever hole the the ozone layer was just discovered. In addition world wide we are suffering from the largest mass species exstinction since the time of the dinosaurs.
Next problem, how is it possible that we are having the largest economic expansion in history without using our natural resources? It is simple not possible, progress comes at the cost of the enviroment, there is no getting around that. You need raw materials and in order to get them, something must die.
Ok now im getting really long winded so I will conclude by saying this. In the 1950's I think, or somewere around there, they were spraying mass amounts of the insecticide DDT. By this I mean they were spraying it through the steets, parks, and even spraying it ON people. The government launched a huge campaign to convince people it was safe. Guess what, it wasnt. It was later discovered that it was not only destroying the enviroment, but it also caused cancer. The government was told this, however the chose to ignore it because their scientists insisted it was safe. Gee, a case of the government trying to hide something? Amazing
Actually in many ways its cleaner than it was a generation again, but that still doesnt account for the fact the enviroment is much worse now than its ever been.
Harvey: No, the mere act of burning a cloth is not treason. However, burning a flag in the context of a treasonous demonstration against the authority of the US government with the intent to incite others to do the same is a different animal.
Yelling "Fire" while alone on the beach is far different from yelling it in a crowded movie theatre.
On the topic of the environment, check out another thread that was started recently. From my perspective, things are getting worse. The past two summers, we have had 60-70 hazardous smog days in Atlanta when we had none while I was in high school here in the late 80's. If the EPA says we have clean air, they need to take off their respirators.
Yelling "Fire" while alone on the beach is far different from yelling it in a crowded movie theatre.
On the topic of the environment, check out another thread that was started recently. From my perspective, things are getting worse. The past two summers, we have had 60-70 hazardous smog days in Atlanta when we had none while I was in high school here in the late 80's. If the EPA says we have clean air, they need to take off their respirators.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
You silly people and your tired yelling-fire-in-the-theater argument. That would be a great example... if it had any basis in reality. If you yell fire in a theater as a practical joke and anyone is harmed you may be prosecuted for negligence. If there's actually a fire they won't and can't do a thing.
Let's pick apart your folly:
<< burning a flag >>
As we know is currently not illegal
<< in the context of a treasonous demonstration >>
Demonstration is treasonous? Are you sure you live in the US?
<< against the authority of the US government >>
It's only against their authority if an absurd Constitutional amendment passes
<< with the intent to incite others to do the same >>
Burning a flag isn't inciting anybody to anything. And since when is attempting others to act as you do wrong? If it were then political campaigning would be out the window.
Let's pick apart your folly:
<< burning a flag >>
As we know is currently not illegal
<< in the context of a treasonous demonstration >>
Demonstration is treasonous? Are you sure you live in the US?
<< against the authority of the US government >>
It's only against their authority if an absurd Constitutional amendment passes
<< with the intent to incite others to do the same >>
Burning a flag isn't inciting anybody to anything. And since when is attempting others to act as you do wrong? If it were then political campaigning would be out the window.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,351
- 126
I've changed my mind. Tentative on the US protecting the flag in the Constitution, I'll be selling franchises in flag burning booths, coming soon to a Canadian or Mexican border crossing near you! Come exercise your God given right to freely express yourself! (We are not responsible for any difficulties or reprocussions when returning to the US)
Flag Burning ?
Yes.....If you are the type that runs from the battle field and leaves your buddies to carrie the extra load.
If you hate the policies of this Nation that much....why not just get it over with and get out.
No ...If you are the type that will suck it up in the face of impossible odds. With bare hands, pull the heart out of the Nation that has been declared an enemy of your brothers and sisters in the United States.
I am not in favor of passing a law against it....it is useful to identify the traitors, within...
Yes.....If you are the type that runs from the battle field and leaves your buddies to carrie the extra load.
If you hate the policies of this Nation that much....why not just get it over with and get out.
No ...If you are the type that will suck it up in the face of impossible odds. With bare hands, pull the heart out of the Nation that has been declared an enemy of your brothers and sisters in the United States.
I am not in favor of passing a law against it....it is useful to identify the traitors, within...
ok for scouts and mil all others shoul be forced to serv 3 years in the armed forces with out pay only food!
<< Palco, Your goose stepping psuedo patriotism along with your Montana brand of religiopn is scarier than any flag burner. FYI, burning a Flag doesn't indentify a traitor, just an idiot. >>
Most traitors are idiots...
i think people should get fined.
and the money go to education about the proper treatment of the flag
and the money go to education about the proper treatment of the flag
"Most traitors are idiots"
So, Mr Palco, does that make George Washington & Thomas Jefferson idiots, then?
So, Mr Palco, does that make George Washington & Thomas Jefferson idiots, then?
<< FYI, burning a Flag doesn't indentify a traitor, just an idiot. >>
<< So, Mr Palco, does that make George Washington & Thomas Jefferson idiots, then? >>
If you are using the top statement as a rule of thumb, that would depend on the act of flag burning being committed by these men.
I do not believe that these men ever burned a flag.
Based on the guidelines established in this Thread, I conclude that these men are not idiots.
;
edit..spelling.
Umm just wonder but how often are flags being burned? I think money would be better spent putting out the forset fires in the west then putting out a couple (if any) of flags that are no fire.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter