more wonderful conservative views from Hillary

December 5, 2005, 10:44 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7266507,print.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

Worth noting that it could revive Republican fortunes around the country to have a bunch of muttonheads calling themselves "Democrats" burning flags...

So it seems if we don't pass unconstitutional legislation criminalizing political expression then muttonhead Democrats will be going around burning flags. Right. Cogent. I'm convinced.
:sarcasm:

Senator Clinton's pandering to right wing extremists is wrong on many levels. It is however, totally unremarkable that you support her efforts.

"Senator Clinton's pandering to right wing extremists is wrong on many levels. It is however, totally unremarkable that you support her efforts."
Yeah, clearly only right wing extremists object to dimwits burning an American flag...besides, it's such a productive tactic! </sarcasm>

:shrug:

:eyes:
Pass a law quick.

Jay

Geeze louise.

for you, about burning a flag that requires it banning and subsequent punishment for anyone who does it. Is it a safety issue? Does it harm the environment? Or is it that you just don't want those patriotic Righties to see Americans exercising their freedom of expression for fear that it might cost us Lefties an election or two?

Jay

Not even a teeny-tiny guess?

But I am not seeking to have your right to express yourself banned.

Hahahahaha....

You are supposed to perhaps reflect that flag burning is of course protected political expression, just as your postings here are, and that while DU can ban you from its private property, your utterances may not be criminalized without violating the clear intent of the 1st amendment.

I was asking why you object. I'm interested in whether your taking a purely political position, have a safety concern or if you you have a genuine philosophic disagreement with the practice.

Jay

I'm trying to engage you in a civil discussion on the issue and you want to engage in a brawl. The impetus of your post suggests that my response would show that...

A. I don't really know why people are against burning the flag.

-and-

B. I will embarrass myself in front of the DUer's posting in and reading this thread.

Let me save you some time.

A. I thought I asked YOU why YOU object to flag burning and want to subject people who do it to jail time.

B. Your the only person taking this position on the thread. Who is the audience you are attempting to show off to?

Let me try again. Is this a purely political issue for you or is it something deeper?

Jay

You were the one who seemed unable to think of any reason why people would object to burning a flag. Not only that, you posted an insulting question back up in 14 that tried to make it seem that I was the only American in the world who was concerned.

When I refused to rise to the bait, you announced you knew why people object. Now as part of this "civil discussion" I'm asking you to enumerate some of theose reasons you say you know.

If you really are interested in having a "civil discussion," you will.

I used sarcasm to point out that, IMO, this is not an issue that's worthy of law. I also said "I know why some people object". Since you downright refuse to answer my very simple question, I can only assume that there is no philosophical or safety based underpinning to your objection and it's based on politics. If that's the case then your objection is, IMO, unconstitutional.

Jay

"Since you downright refuse to answer my very simple question"
Hey, I refuse to answer insulting questions.

For the purposes of this discussion, in this thread, I'm not interested in why others object. I want to know why you object so that we may continue our discussion based on fact rather than supposition.

Jay

You tried to insult me, I didn't take the bait. You announced you know why other Americans object, but you don't want to discuss that, for some curious reason.

point, please highlight the alleged infraction. Maybe we can rectify the situation and move on.

Jay

then we can discuss other Americans.

Jay

during the viet nam war people burned the flag in protest, and it was controversial, but they didn't criminalize it

And there were attempts to enforce them.

I was in California during that period, and as far as I know there was no desecration law there

Anyway, my point is that protest is a basic right of our constitution, and I don't understand why Hillary feels the need to co-sponser this

and helped prolong the war...

Other than that, though, it was swell.

Go ahead - prove that flag burning prolonged the war.

You really want to pretend that the anti-war movement gained popular support because it burned the flag?

"A unique situation arose in which most Americans supported the cause but opposed the leaders, methods, and culture of protest. "

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html

Or are you just pulling shit out of thin air and calling it golden?

I've never heard that particular theory before, flag burning prolonged the war, hmmm:shrug:

How do you get from here to there on that one?

Are you really trying to pretend that flag burning brought Americans flocking to the antiwar side during VietNam? Because in fact, it polarized American opinion against the antiwar movement and discreditedit in the eyes of many.

I am asking for sources that document how flag burning actually hurt the anti-war movement. The one you gave above didn't address the issue at all. In fact the source that you linked to states: "The American movement against the Vietnam War was the most successful antiwar movement in U.S. history" Sounds like the flag burning that went on had little or no effect on the effectiveness or popularity of the antiwar movement. So please, show us a source that backs up your POV.

"The one you gave above didn't address the issue at all."
If you ignore the parts of it that DID.

"A unique situation arose in which most Americans supported the cause but opposed the leaders, methods, and culture of protest."
And you're trying to tell us that situation didn't harm the cause at all, whne in fact it made it less effective than it could have been.

Here's another...

"One of the grave sins of the anti-Vietnam War movement was, I think, a conflation of the conflict with the combatants.  Instead of focusing their fire and their ire on the commander in chief, too many liberals wound up blaming the conscripts who so bravely fought Mr. Nixon's war.  This was a tragic error.  First, and most important, because decent, honorable men were smeared.   Some were called "baby killer."  Others were tainted by popular media that depicted them as unstable.
So one important lesson of Vietnam is, the first casualty of an unwise and unjust war are the American troops called on to fight it.  Their service should be honored.
Second, what we political consultants call the "optics" matter.  The popular memory of the anti-war movement calls to mind (even for those of us too young to clearly recall it) the indelible image of young Americans burning the American flag.  Cops were called "pigs."  Cherished American icons were trashed."

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/18/03721/8483

"Flag-burning by antiwar demonstrators, and overreactions by conservatives, seemed to bring out the worst of both sides."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0928/p22s1-hfes.html

Here's another...

"'VISUALIZE the movement against the Vietnam War. What do you see? Hippies with daisies in their long, unwashed hair yelling "Baby killers!" as they spit on clean-cut, bemedaled veterans just back from Vietnam? College students in tattered jeans (their pockets bulging with credit cards) staging a sit-in to avoid the draft? A mob of chanting demonstrators burning anAmerican flag (maybe with a bra or two thrown in)? That's what we're supposed to see, and that's what Americans today probably do see--if they visualize the antiwar movement at all. "

http://www.geocities.com/elethinker/RG/forget.htm

the plain fact is that without crap like flag-burning, mainstream America would have supported the anti-war movement much more readily.

Dude!!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You are relying on a blog, a puff piece authored by a reader residing in the "Home" section of the CSM, and a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Ed than in the paragraph below that which you quoted goes and turns all of your arguments on their head, and agrees with what I'm saying, that it is the ability of Americans to dissent that makes this country great:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

And now you are making the assertion that "the plain fact is that without crap like flag-burning, mainstream America would have supported the anti-war movement much more readily." Do you have anything to back that statement up? Because most sane modern historians agree that without the protestors out in the street, doing what they did, the Vietnam war would have dragged on for a longer time, wouldn't have gotten the media airplay it did, and would have gotten buried in the media much like Iraq is being buried today.

Give it up friend, your mangling of history on this issue is laughable, and you are on the wrong side of the First Amendment on this one. What, you don't like Freedom of Speech? How anti-American of you!

"Because most sane modern historians agree that without the protestors out in the street, doing what they did, the Vietnam war would have dragged on for a longer time"
And why is that, since American opinion had effectively turned against the war since the Tet offensive in 1968? Why weren't the majority of Americans who opposed the war out there with the folks who were burning flags?

"that it is the ability of Americans to dissent that makes this country great"
Unless they disagree with you...in which case Aemricans have to "give it up" or be labeled anti-American (snicker).

You cannot counter my arguements, thus you go immediately for the personal attack, and the use of questionable sources.

Go read your history on your own time, I have neither the time nor the space here to educate you. Until then, it is pointless to debate with you.

But while you may not like it, I will continue to support and defend the First Amendment in all of its scope. Just so people that I don't agree with, like you, can continue to make themselves look foolish in public. Oh yeah, and so they can dissent against tyranny when that is needed to.

One last question before I end this futile endeavor of educating you. Why do you love a symbol, the flag, over the First Amendment, which guarantees us our right to free speech and expression? Don't you think that there is something wrong with that viewpoint?

"Why do you love a symbol, the flag, over the First Amendment, which guarantees us our right to free speech and expression? Don't you think that there is something wrong with that viewpoint? "
NO... when I consider not only the infantile and offensive nature of the "expression" but the open contempt the "speaker" of that "expression" is expressing toward the Constitution, American ideals and institutions, and his fellow citizens, I see no reason why that action should fall under any protection as "free speech." It's cheesy political blah that's meant to provoke violence and disgust in onlookers, and not at all different than shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to induce a reaction.

Seems to me some people want it both ways...they want to announce they hate and have no respect for the Constitution, America and its institutions, but at the same time demand that others not notice they renounced those things, and behave toward them as if they hadn't.

If you commit arson at the Xmas party, you sound silly announcing you had a right to expect an Xmas present.

Thank you for answering at least one question, I appreciate it. And your answer says a lot about you. You are more hung up on venerating SYMBOLS of our country, rather than the country itself. You have no trouble in trashing the Constitution in order to save a symbol.

We may not like it, but flag burning is a Constitutionally protected activity. If we start ripping out the parts of the Constituiton we don't like, such as flag burning, or not letting the Neo Nazis march, or criticizing the President, or marching en masse in protest, pretty soon we have no Constitution at all, living in a country that is a shell of its former self.

See that is a big part of what makes this country great friend, the Constitutionally guaranteed right to express ourselves in any non-violent manner we see fit without having to worry about being censored or suppressed. You may not like the Neo Nazis marching, but they have that right, and we have the right to counter protest. You may not like flag burning, but we have that right, and you have the right to counter-protest. We are a country that is a melting pot of ideas and opinions, and it is all brought to the table. Yes, that means that we have a lot of garbage that comes along with it, but that is the price we pay for being able to speak freely and openly in this great country. Limiting that right will only diminish that greatness, and make America into another fascist state, where speech is monitored and ideas are suppressed.

If first you outlaw flag burning, then you outlaw Neo Nazis marching, then you outlaw anti-war protesters marching, then you are outlawed from criticizing the government, and before you know it we're all in hell, wondering why we're sitting in a handbasket.

Don't you think it is a little presumptious to overturn the First Amendment? The Supreme Court, a pretty conservative court at the time, has heard this issue, and found in favor of all of our First Amendment rights. Do you have anything to top that? Do you feel the Supreme Court was wrong in this ruling? And why do you hate our Constitution, with all that it entails and all that makes our country great? Just so you can venerate a symbol, and not the actuality of our country itself. A more unAmerican ideal can be found, but I would have to look mighty long.

"the Constitutionally guaranteed right to express ourselves in any non-violent manner we see fit"
Of course, inciting other Americans by idiotically burning a flag is neither non-violent nor Constitutionally guaranteed. It's "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

"If first you outlaw flag burning, then you outlaw Neo Nazis marching"
Why would one follow from the other in any way? And by the way, it's one thing to allow neoNazis to march peacefully somewhere, and another to let them parade with guns past a synagogue in an attempt to provoke violence--or burn an American flag in front of WW2 veterans and their families.

"Don't you think it is a little presumptious to overturn the First Amendment?"
This law doesn't overturn the First Amendment in any way. And by the by, if burning the flag expresses ANYTHING, it certainly expresses that the person doing so has contempt for America and refuses to associate himself with its institutions any more--including the First Amendment. It's hypocritical in the extreme to renounce the Constitution in a bit of crappy public political flamboyance and then squall that your Constitutional rights have been violated.

If you deliberately jump off a ship and then complain that your rights as a passenger are being violated, you just sound silly.

First off, burning a flag, no matter who it is in front of, is a Constitutionally guaranteed right under the First Amendment. Go look up the Supreme Court ruling for Texas vs. Johnson.

Second, you need to also do some research on other First Amendment issues. As long as the Neo Nazi group in question has the permits for a parade, and all of the guns are legal, they have every right to march past a synagogue. Both the ACLU and the Supreme Court came down in favor of the First Amendment on this one in the Skokie case back in '77.

And yes, this law would indeed limit the First Amendment. Making a law limiting free expression does overturn the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that we have the right of any kind of free expression, not just the free expression that is approved by law.

Sorry, but this has been ruled on time and again by the courts, and the First Amendment wins everytime. Why are you so anxious to tamper with our First Amendment rights? Why do you do you put a symbol above our Constitution? Do you hate our Constitution, free speech?

Sorry friend, but legally and morally you don't have a leg to stand on in this one. Welcome to America, where all speech is allowed, not just the pre-approved kind.

Besides the fact that cases get overturned all the time.....

Had you done any research on the Skokie case, you would know that in the end the Nazis (who were not allowed to carry guns in public) were too cowardly to show up for their march.


"legally and morally you don't have a leg to stand on in this one"
We'll see.

Do some historical research. First off, Supreme Court verdicts don't get "overturned". The Supreme Court might reverse itself on an issue, but that doesn't happen "all the time". Out of the thousands upon thousands of verdicts that the Supreme Court has handed down over the years, only a relative few, a couple of handfuls have been reversed. And quite frankly that hasn't happened in the last thirty plus years.

And yes, I fully realize what went down at Skokie. I also realize that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment and ruled that the Neo Nazis could march. That they didn't march takes nothing away from that ruling, for it was one more reinforcement in favor of free speech in this country.

And I was answering your hypothetical about guns with the statement that yes, they could have carried guns. I fully realize that they didn't, but thanks to our Second Amendment rights, they could have.

And there is no "seeing" about it friend. You don't have a legal or moral leg to stand on. Show me one, just one Supreme Court case that rules in favor of banning flag burning. I'll be waiting here patiently.

That you wish to tear down the First Amendment says a lot about you friend, probably more than you wish was out there. Don't you realize what kind of slippery slope such a law would start us down? First we're not allowed to burn the flag, then we're not allowed to criticize the government, don't you get it? That flag that you revere so much is important because it symbolizes the acceptance of all free expression, including expression that the majority of us don't like, like burning the flag. If you make a law putting shackles on the First Amendment you are doing this country much more damage than any dozen flag burners could do. You are taking away one of the things that makes America great, the right to speak one's mind. Why do you hate America so much that you're willing to throw away our right to free speech?

The Supreme Court may and does reverse itself.

"And quite frankly that hasn't happened in the last thirty plus years. "
Not even close to true. In 1998 it ruled that the RICO acts referred to anti-abortion protestors; in 2003 they said it didn't.

"thanks to our Second Amendment rights, they could have"
Again, not even close to true. There's no individual right to own or carry guns outside of the context of a well-regulated state militia of the sort that has evolved into the National Guard...and nobody sane would pretend that Nazis amount to a well regulated state militia.

"Don't you realize what kind of slippery slope such a law would start us down?"
You mean the "slippery slope" that's a textbook logical fallacy, I suppose.

"That flag that you revere so much is important because it symbolizes the acceptance of all free expression,"
And when someone burns it, they're symbolizing that they no longer give a rats' ass about that acceptance.

"You are taking away one of the things that makes America great"
Pinheads enacting futile and counterproductive public gestures made America great? Dreary sophistry propping up hatred of this country and its institutions made this country great?

"Why do you hate America "
ahahahahahahahaha...funniest and silliest thing you've said yet.

How many times does it need to be repeated before you understand that you need to KNOW things, do reading and research, before you make wild claims. It is really getting tiresome having to educate you in even the basics, especially on cases that YOU bring up. OK, here goes.

The Supreme Court overturned the US District Court ruling in 1998. The '98 court case was Scheidler vs. NOW. The '03 case was Operation Rescue vs. NOW. Yes, the Supreme Court overturned a District Court, big whoop, it happens all the time.

Yes, you can carry a gun openly not just in Illinois, but in most states. I live in Missouri, if I wanted to strap a gun to my hip and go down the street, I can. In Illinois, you can do the same thing just so long as you disable the gun, ie remove the slide or some such. I've looked up the laws, I would suggest you do the same. And your militia arguement has been proven false, again and again in the courts. If it was only militia that was allowed to carry guns, then they wouldn't be so common in this country now would they.

And I mean slippery slope as in what the Patriot Act is, or other repressive legislation would be, like limiting our First Amendment rights.

Look, this has been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. Your lack of knowledge of Constitutional law, much less any other kind is glaring friend, I would suggest that you do some studying to rectify that, then you won't get your ass handed to you in these little debates. Nor would you have to resort to personal attacks and smears when your meager store of knowledge runs out. But anyway, I've got to go, so go ahead, get it out of your system. Launch that last insult in a vain effort to at least fool yourself into thinking that you're somehow the "winner". It will just go to prove a point.

Cheers until next time.

"Yes, you can carry a gun openly not just in Illinois, but in most states"
Nope. Not even close to true. Virginia became a national laughing stock recently by passing an "open carry" law. And in fact, several Illinois municipalities ban the owership fo handguns...

"your militia arguement has been proven false, again and again in the courts"
Not even close to true. The closest the gun lobby's got to overturning it is Emerson in the most backward court in Dixie, which ruled that the Second Amendment didn't apply, and took away the loony's guns.

"And I mean slippery slope"
Which is a classic logical fallacy.....as I pointed out before.

I'm not even going to bother to correct you this time, I'll just let your last post stand as a monument to ignorance. I've told you time and again to do two things, read for comprehension, and do your research. It is apparent that you're still not doing either, but hey, it's funny anyway. Have a good evening, and perhaps spend some of that time persuing some research. Cheers

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

to find somebody like you out of touch with reality and spouting off....especially when you parrot John AshKKKroft's lie about the Second Amendment.

Did it bring Americans flocking to the anti-war side?

No, it marginalized the movement and helped prolong the war.

Of course, back then, Nixon had a program called Cointelpro that put agent provocateurs out and about to marginalize legitimate concerns. (You might look up "Tommy the Traveller" sometime.)

you have seriously confused "strategy" with "free speech".

The psoter I respnded to raised the issue of what the point of this "free speech" was....and what sort of "attention" it called forth. That's what I respoinded to.

As far as the freedom issue you want to drag back in here, Americans have long since understood that "freedom" is not absolute but carries with it commonsense restrictions, in this case, the famous "fire in a crowded theatre" exception...

Then there is no need to "drag" the issue of freedom into it.
That issue is front and center.


"There ought to be limits to freedom."-GWBUSH

The poster was discussing "drawing attention to an issue"...which I respnded to.

"That issue is front and center."
And has been dealt with.

Have you not advocated limiting those freedoms in numerous posts here?

News to me.

:hi:

despite or perhaps because of all of its excesses forced the government to change course on vietnam, and to eventually give up and bail out.

You can make all sorts of assertions but you will find it difficult to prove anything about which tactics of the antiwar movement were beneficial and which were detrimental. An equally good argument, quite opposite to yours, can be made that flag burning, bomb throwing, rioting, etc. caused such a massive breakdown of the social fabric here that the corporate establishment got spooked and demanded an end to the war in order to retain control over the situation at home.

"you will find it difficult to prove anything about which tactics of the antiwar movement were beneficial and which were detrimental"
Not even close to true....in fact, flag burning produced a noticeable backlash at the time.

Sometimes it's all about the egogasms. That is why I love the ignore button.

fool that Ben Franklin was talking about when he said that (paraphrase) those that would surrender essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
No ability to project future consequences from current actions.
The Fourth Reich, opening soon in a town near you.

if a person buys a flag and burns it in protest this is free speech

Frankly, I am tired of being afraid of what the repukes may use. It is about time the party stood on the principles of our constitution

examples:

1. Can't support gay marriage because the repukes will say the dems are trying to destroy marriage

2. Can't vote against the IWR because the repukes will say the dems are NOT patriotic

3. Can't vote against the patriot act because the repukes will say the dems do NOT want to protect us

4. Can't call for accountability or a timeline in Iraq because the repukes will say the dems want to cut and run


It is about time that the dems stopped being afraid because of what the repukes may or may not do and stood for something.

Adn what's even more to the point, it backfires on the cause most of us support.

"It is about time that the dems stopped being afraid because of what the repukes may or may not do and stood for something."
Like burning the American flag to show how ruff and tuff we are.....ri-i-i-i-ight!

I have been a democrat for 30 years, and donated time and money, if the party goes off on these fringe issues, it WILL not be my party anymore, and mark my words, I have the no doubt that we will be in Iraq for a long time, with many more Americans and Iraqiis dead, until finally the morans in this country realize what they have done

"it WILL not be my party anymore"
You thought this was a party that supported flag-burning, really?

You DID know Dennis Kucinich supported the Constitutional ban on flag-burning, didn't you? While he was Vermont governor, Howard Dean supported a state resolution calling for a law such as this.

I'm wondering which prominent Democrat has ever called for flag burning...none, in my memory.

"I have the no doubt that we will be in Iraq for a long time, with many more Americans and Iraqiis dead, until finally the morans in this country realize what they have done"
Funny...Iabout the only thing I can think of that might reverse American opposition to this war would be to have a bunch of "Democratic" muttonheads start agitating to burn the flag...or actually go out and burn a few.

constitutional ammendment. Incidently, You are also mischaracterizing what I said. I indicated we shouldn't be co-sponsering this, I DIDN'T say we should be sponsering bills to encourage it!!!

It is interesting how the rovian tactic seems to apply on issues. I bring up an issue which I think we should NOT be co-sponsering, and suddenly I am saying that I thought the party support flag-burning?

Distortion is a wonderful mechanism. Joe McCarthey used it for his political enemies also

"I bring up an issue which I think we should NOT be co-sponsering, and suddenly I am saying that I thought the party support flag-burning?"
You sure seemed to imply that every Democrat agreed with you...which as I demonstrated is utterly untrue. Hard to see what "iit WILL not be my party anymore" means other than that.

As for my "not being my party anymore", it isn't based on this issue, it is based that the party moving away from issues which I consider important. Flag burning is NOT the most important issue, but first ammendment rights are. Seperation of Church and state is.

They are slowly moving away from a strong pro-choice position. There are a lot of issue in the last six years, that made me wonder what the democrats in congress stand for. Yes, there are a few who stand on principle. Russ Feingold is one.

The DNC will NOT get another penny from me. I will support individual candidates, but until the party proves itself to me, I am on the sidelines

A huge test is coming up, and that is the Alito nomination. The stakes are high. There is enough questionable actions on this nomination to filibuster it. Will the dems stand together? I hope I am plesantly surprised, but frankly I doubt it. Just look at the last six years how they rubber stamped everything this administration threw at them. It is only recently that they have taken a stand, and I suspect only because the opinion polls have hit * so hard

I appreciate you ideas

Why do we have to co-sponsor it? I would have a lot more respect for a politician who stood up and said, "This is a non-issue, and we should not be wasting our time on it." Then immediately move the debate back to something that actually matters.

How about standing for that? Objectionable provocative political expression is exactly what the 1st amendment protects.

"How about standing for that?"
No thanks. I think it's a reprehensible act that is also counter-productive.

You are deliberately provocative.

....Cindy Sheehan, along with the rest of us who have been vocally opposed to this stupid fucking illegal and immoral invasion and occupation whether from day one, or more recently.

So when Hillary and the other DLC traitors want an ammendment to make ANY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE DICTATORSHIP illegal, will you waste a whole thread shilling for that one too?

That's why.

especially for provocative speech or acts liable to cause unrest or a breach of the peace...

Keeping the people docile and obedient is a primary function of the constition. Right?

Willing to kick our First Amendment rights to the curb without a fight.:eyes:

By the by, how are we supposed to properly dispose of our old worn out flags if burning is criminalized?

Sorry friend, but this is one of those First Amendment issues that shouldn't be touched, period. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it is free speech and at least I for one with fight for peoples' right to express themselves in this manner. Sadly, it seems that even among Democrats there are a group of people willing to give away what our forefathers wrought, all in the name of some sort of political gain. Sad, sad, trading freedom for mere political points. And what is even sadder is that these sort of Democrats don't seem to realize that no matter how many rights the Democrats give away, it still won't win over Republicans and Neo-Cons. You would think that this would be amply proven by the last two election results, but I guess some folks are slow learners.

who think expressing hatred for America openly is a winning tactic....

"Sad, sad, trading freedom for mere political points."
Even sadder to see left wing extremists openly expressing contempt and hatred for the country that protects that freedom, just to make cheap political theatre. And sadder still, it's the Ford Pinto of political statements; a flaming disaster that does nothing but alienate other Americans from the cause it purports to carry...

"You would think that this would be amply proven by the last two election results, but I guess some folks are slow learners."
Hahahahaha...yeah, if only Kerry and Gore had lit up a flag or two...that would have won over the electorate </sarcasm>.

I do not think ". . .expressing hatred for America openly is a winning tactic...." and you know it, you're just using a smear tactic like that because you know you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to back your happy ass up with. Poor form, and certainly not a good way to conduct a debate. But from you, not suprising.

By the by, if you are expressing this much gratuitous anger at people like myself and other posters who support the First Amendment fully, how much more pissed you must be at the Supreme Court who declared that flag burning is a form of expression fully protected by the First Amendment.

What is it that you hate about the First Amendment? Why do you wish to see it limited? I'm sorry pal, but this is our Constitution we're talking about here, and the Founding Fathers in all of their wisdom made criticizing our government a sacred part of our country. I for one, and many many others don't want to limit our ability to criticize the government. If that means having to put up with the occaissonal BBQed flag, so be it. It is much like having to put up with the Neo Nazis when they march, you don't have to like it, but it is their right to do so. That is what makes this country great friend, and here you are, wanting to tear that down because YOU are attached to a symbol, not your country.

You're the one who started spouting about "Democrats kicking the First amendment to the curb"

"if you are expressing this much gratuitous anger "
Says the guy who sputters "What is it that you hate about the First Amendment? "

"the Founding Fathers in all of their wisdom made criticizing our government a sacred part of our country."
So what better way to honor those Founding Fathers than by burning the symbol of the country that they fought and died for </sarcasm>....but clearly, it's only ME that has any attachment to it (snicker).

I post questions and facts, ones that you don't want to confront, so you resort to ad hominems and taking things out of context in order so that you don't have to answer those questions. Tired and predictable friend, and it shows that you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. Thanks for playing, and come back when you have some facts, and real sources.

"I post questions and facts"
Like "you're just using a smear tactic like that because you know you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to back your happy ass up with. Poor form, and certainly not a good way to conduct a debate. But from you, not suprising. "

"it shows that you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate"
Uh-HUH.

...almost any thread and turn it into a flamewar within 10 posts? Is it your "charming" demeanor? Your "subtle" wit? Just because one doesn't want to outlaw a thing does not mean they are "muttonheads" who "do that thing". But going beyond straw man "arguments" is beneath DLC operatives...

"DLC operatives..."
Sure you can't guess why?

is a "constitutionally-protected" form of expression, any any move to outlaw it is moot without a Constitutional amendment? Not to mention that the aforementioned fact illustrates that this is nothing more than cynical political grandstanding, and that Senator Clinton's position on the issue is, if genuine and not calculated, illogical to the point of stupidity.

No consitutional amendment so she sings on to a law that is unconstitutional on its face in order to help promote a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

She's lost me, that's almost a certainty now.

she is trying to play it both ways, and it won't work

You either believe in first ammendment rights or you don't

against it. This is why Senators make poor Presidential caniddates.

Especially in Iraq, where she is perfectly willing to have people killed to establish it by sending more troops to fight the "failed insurgency" she told us about.

Maybe I'm just stupid.

Be sure and show us all the things Hillary's done to institutionalize racial discrimination and bring back segregation.

"Maybe I'm just stupid."
We know you've got a grudge against Democrats.

I've probably given more dollars and worked more Dem campaigns than you have in the last five years.

Tar me with my faults, there are enough of them. But sorry, you can't tar me with holding a grudge against all Dems or that would make me the worst grudge holder in the world.

lol

"The States' Rights party, also known as the "Dixiecrats," was a rump party that split off from the national Democratic party and ran candidates in the 1948 presidential election.
The party sprang into existence on July 17, 1948 when it held its national convention in Birmingham, Alabama. It was the formal expression of a growing sectional and civil rights revolt against the national Democratic party.
South Carolina Governor J. Strom Thurmond and Mississippi Governor J. Fielding Wright were nominated, respectively, for president and vice-president.
Dixiecrats organized in response to President Harry S. Truman's proposed 1948 civil rights package, understood by many whites as the greatest threatened federal intrusion into the South since Reconstruction. The package consisted of four primary pieces of legislation: abolition of the poll tax, a federal anti-lynching law, desegregation legislation, and a permanent Federal Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent racial discrimination in jobs funded by federal dollars.
Dixiecrats portrayed their movement in the best possible light, as one designed to guarantee state sovereignty and constitutionally-guaranteed states' rights and reestablish Southern preeminence in the Democratic party. But the most important motive behind the movement was securing states' rights and constitutional principles in order to accomplish an overriding goal: preservation of the South's racial status quo. "

http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec54.html

Didn't you tell us in another threat that you've left the Democratic party and joined another?

Threat? What threat? I registered Green when the party left the CBC twistng in the wind. Why is that threatening to you?

I've also worked numerous Dem campaigns and donated everything I could to Dem candidates when I thought they were the right choice. Is that what threatens you?

:shrug:

So tell us, how is Hillary like the Dixiecrats?

You don't call, you don't write. :)

Hilary seems to have some notion that she can be a NY liberal while still appeasing the South. Backed off on choice, the war, weighs in on cultural nonissues like video games and now, this flag burning stupidity.

If you look at her position on social issues, they train with the Dixiecrats. Liberal at the federal level, consevative at home.

It's an interesting idea but it won't work for her, just on a political level. And, she's really turning off people that are her potential supporters.

Now, don't go ballistic on me. That's what it looks like from here.

The only social issue the Dixiecrats had was Jim Crow. Where does Hillary express that?

"weighs in on cultural nonissues like video games and now, this flag burning stupidity"
Who says they're non-issues? Leaving aside that many Americans feel just as she does, the outpouring of mewling and puking that her stands evoke here sure suggests that they're issues for many here. (Indeed, the joystick twiddlers sound like junkies, willing to spout any nonsense, no matter how silly, to justify their habit.)

And maybe try to find the center at all, in this climate?

The center, somewhere right of Barry Goldwater?

As for racism, forget her Ghandi joke and forget the fact that she lived under the Arkansas flag all those years without comment. No problem there.

Tell us, do you think the average American is in favor of flag-burning?

Nice to see that you actually ARE trying to accuse her of being a racist. It's why I regard the Green Party and its adherents with the contempt that I do.

And another ad hominem attack. lol

... having sex with a large rye bread, but so what? Is it really an issue we need to get all hot and bothered about and divert attention from more serious policy concerns in order to debate?

"Is it really an issue we need to get all hot and bothered about "
Sure seems to be--how many threads have gotten started screeching hysterically about how awful it is that Hillary's doing something that most of America agrees with?

If most Americans choose not to burn flags, it can hardly constitute a crisis necessitating legislative intervention, now can it? Unless, of course, Hillary's grandstanding, trying to suck up to the right wing.

maybe snowball fights?? I don't know about you but I'm ready to jump on the Hillary bandwagon (not!).

such as using the flag as clothing, etc.

I seem to remember a picture of some dipshit dressed head to toe in flag clothing at a Pro-War rally. That guy would certainly be considered desecrating the flag.

Cheers
Drifter

burnings lately? Fuck the 1st Amendment. If someone wants to torch a flag as part of a protest, I'll provide the matches. What a piece of shit legislation from a piece of shit inside the Beltway, DLC genius. She should team with Spector and see if they can work on some other pressing issues like whether or not it's against the law to park on the wrong side of the street on street sweeping days.

but I have always viewed it as my constitutional right to burn one as a political symbol. That is all that flags are anyway is a way for nations to instill nationalism united under a pretty flag.

The part I really agree with is the non-urgency of this bill. I mean it is happening so much. I think the neocons and apparently Hillary are just waiting for someone to light one up so they can martyr them and then fulfill their prophetic crusade.

Hillary is falling into the neocon strategy of baffling us with bs, while Rome burns.

Ah, yes, it fits her nicely.

I'll bet Old Glory is the welcome mat they wipe their feet on as they enter the family quarters in the White House. ;)

Before I condemn Hillary, I want to see exactly what the bill says.

on lies.

Instead of a Constitutional amendment outlawing flag-burning, just pass a law requiring all American flags to be made out of fire-retardant fabric. Problem solved!

against her on the left are playing right into her hands. She doesn't want to be viewed as being to liberal and you are allowing her free publicity and getting the mainstream media to pay attention to her "moderate" positions.

And the more people who go along with rightwing extremist bullshit, the more rightwing extremist bullshit becomes acceptable.

Just look at the debate above: we've got Dems clawing at each other's throats instead of uniting to go after Repukes like they ought to be. And why? Why did Hillary need to bring up an issue which can only ignite passions? Is there some widespread underground flag-burning epidemic going on which desperately needs to be addressed through emergency legislation? Strange, I haven't heard a word about it. There's no public need to address flag burning, it's a non issue. That is, at least until someone comes along and fans the embers to ignite an open blaze.

It's exactly like gay marriage: nobody gave a shit about it until Karl Rove realized that he could divert a lot of public attention from his master's catastrophic policy failures by shifting the debate from substantive issues on which the shrub was weak to an inconsequential but emotionally evocative debate in which his socially conservative views gave him a clear advantage over his opponent. It's Strategic Communications 101, the oldest trick in the book. And it's proof positive that either a) Hillary is too stupid or ignorant of basic political principles to deserve the candidacy, or b) is really a Republican mole, because she's playing right into their hands, setting Dem against Dem and initiating an impassioned public debate in which Repukes are the long-standing favorites with the greatest credibility. What an incredible gift!

The GOP must thank their lucky stars every hour of every day they've got Vichy Dems like Hillary and Lieberpuke to re-direct public attention away from the GOP's innumerable, cataclysmic fuck-ups and towards the last few remaining issues on which their party retain a competitive advantage in credibility.

Some people on the board seem to hang out just to do that.

It's rare that there's anything but inchoate wailing and silliness to respond to in these threads....

but it does irk me when they are regarding one of the phony straw-man, symbolic GOP arguments like flag-burning. Like this is a problem in our country? Is this even worth one dollar of tax money or manhour of work?

First of all, I have never in my 36 years seen anyone burn a flag her in the USA, and I've been to more than a few anti-war protests.

And secondly, burning IS a prescribed method for disposing of a worn US flag.

Hillary, why must you carry the right's water for them on this kind of irrelevant issue?

I suppose there is supposed to be some sort of clever strategy behind this, to show that democrats can be jingoes too.

Whatever. I disagree with her position, but this issue seems to trivial that I don't even feel like criticizing her on it anymore...

My point exactly, I couldn't agree more.

You know what? Right now at this point in time the U.S. flag stands for lying, cheating, stealing, killing, cronyism, robbing from the poor to give to the rich, hell if someone wants to burn he damn thing let them. I see this like the abortion issue. Not really for abortion but even less for forcing my views onto other people.
It's not some misguided sense of patriotism that I'm not into burning the flag, it's just that too many people in my family have died defending the right of others to express themselves in ways that they see fit. The men below didn't die defending "the flag" they died defending peoples right to be free to burn the damn thing if they want.

I, too, come from a long line of warriors who fought for America, but since the flag has been desecrated, it is better to burn it than to allow it become a symbol of hate, repression, and mass murder.

Best post on this subject. Thank you and thank your family of true patriots.

or an administration or a vote on a bill or a war. It represents a country, past, present and future. It represents the greater ideals and aspirations of that country, not a specific mistake and or problem. It represents all the people of a country, not the president or the secretary of state or anyone other one person.

If a person cares enough to stand up and protest something they see wrong in that country, why would they then turn around and destroy that country, even in representation? If it is a matter of free speech, then in my opinion it's possibly the most ridiculous and absurd example of free speech I could think of. It contradicts itself. "I believe in this country (and the free speech it awards me) so much that I'm going to burn the very symbol of it!" Huh?

If someone hates this country that much (not this president, not this war, not this policy, not this administration, not this law, not this congress, but this country) then burning a flag isn't going to solve their problem anyway.

And, maybe the flag is just a piece of cloth to some but it's a lot more than that to most people, both now and throughout our history. If that's your opinion of the flag, then so be it - you're completely entitled to that opinion. But, that's not a majority opinion and most Americans would like to see the flag respected because it means much more to them than just some fabric. If you don't believe me, then why does everyone know who Betsy Ross is if she was just another seamstress? Why do we still sing the "Star Spangled Banner"? Why is it draped over coffins of military and police? And so on.



(And before anyone quotes Supreme Court rulings to me, I'll save you time - I really disagree with that case, so it won't sway my opinion or "enlighten" me.)

Anything to get around that pesky Constitution.

Fuck you Hilary!

republicans get a lot of milage out of those faux issues. It accomplishes nothing, but looking like some kind of a real patriot to a few mindless idiots.