PDA

View Full Version : Flag amendment fails by single vote


DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 07:22 AM
Flag amendment fails by single vote

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 41 minutes ago



The narrow defeat of a proposal to ban flag desecration marks the second time in a month Senate Republicans have lost bids to amend the Constitution in ways designed to inspire social conservatives to vote in the midterm elections.

The 66-34 tally on the flag amendment Tuesday was one less than the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification. The House cleared the two-thirds threshold last year, 286-130.

Sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, the amendment read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

A proposed amendment earlier this month to ban gay marriage suffered a more decisive defeat, killed on a test vote.

Winning isn't the only goal for those measures or other social policy proposals congressional Republicans will bring up this year in an effort to energize their base of voters.

House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party's prospects in the midterm elections.

The "American Values Agenda" also includes the gay marriage amendment, a prohibition on human cloning and possibly votes on several popular tax cuts.

The flag amendment's cliffhanger defeat a week before Independence Day represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecration of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.
"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage.
"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The House meanwhile passed by voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (news, bio, voting record), R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.
It's unclear how many of the controversial bills might clear Congress and reach President Bush's desk. Still, political strategists argue that by bringing controversial issues to a vote, one party can broadly emphasize differences with the other on an issue such as abortion, and increase the determination of its own supporters to go to the polls.
For their part, Democrats maneuvered successfully last week for a Senate vote on raising the minimum wage. Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the party's leader, said Tuesday they would "do everything within our power to stop a congressional pay raise from going through this year, and we're going to tie it to minimum wage."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_co/flag_amendment&printer=1;_ylt=AhR4il7Iy5CbLY5f6fjFN_yMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

JBucc
06-28-2006, 07:23 AM
Let's burn some flags!







uh, shouldn't this be in DC?

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 07:28 AM
"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

pretty much how I feel about it

the Talking Can
06-28-2006, 07:33 AM
I'm glad they have so much free time on their hands.

Man, they tackle the real problems...not petty thing like the war or debt or...

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 07:40 AM
I'm glad they have so much free time on their hands.

Man, they tackle the real problems...not petty thing like the war or debt or...

Flags, gay marraige, and restricting science is MUCH more important. :rolleyes:

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 09:58 AM
Flags, gay marraige, and restricting science is MUCH more important. :rolleyes:

Especially in election years...

Dave

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 10:04 AM
Especially in election years...

Dave

What? A political party throwing red meat to their activists/zealots? In an election year, no less? :spock:

Wow. I'll alert the media.... :thumb:

Logical
06-28-2006, 10:07 AM
I'm glad they have so much free time on their hands.

Man, they tackle the real problems...not petty thing like the war or debt or...:clap:

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 10:10 AM
Burning the flag is so 60's...protestors...errr Real patriots have moved onto better forms of protest like alerting the terrorists how the US is finding them.

oldandslow
06-28-2006, 10:11 AM
What? A political party throwing red meat to their activists/zealots? In an election year, no less? :spock:

Wow. I'll alert the media.... :thumb:

Sooner or later the RWNJ's are going to figure out they are being used.

Not that they will vote dem, but they will either stay home or vote constitutional party, etc.

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 10:17 AM
Burning the flag is so 60's...protestors...errr Real patriots have moved onto better forms of protest like alerting the terrorists how the US is finding them.

Yeah, damn the Wall Street Journal! They are DESPICABLE!

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 10:22 AM
Yeah, damn the Wall Street Journal! They are DESPICABLE!

You'll have to explain your joke...I dont get this one.

Iowanian
06-28-2006, 10:24 AM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 10:28 AM
You'll have to explain your joke...I dont get this one.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142706

StcChief
06-28-2006, 10:28 AM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.
:clap: :clap: Hippie Don't try it around me.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 10:30 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142706

No thanks...if you cant explain it, Im not really interested then.

Logical
06-28-2006, 10:31 AM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.

Well you do have the legal right to a trial after you beat them, if you can convince a jury of your peers it was the right thing to do. You don't go to jail. So in that respect I suppose you do have that right.

Logical
06-28-2006, 10:33 AM
No thanks...if you cant explain it, Im not really interested then.

I am not sure how the WSJ fits but he is referencing the supposed lack of partriotism by the NYTimes when they revealed the monitoring of money transfers.

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 10:34 AM
No thanks...if you cant explain it, Im not really interested then.

:thumb:

chagrin
06-28-2006, 10:34 AM
Sooner or later the RWNJ's are going to figure out they are being used.

Not that they will vote dem, but they will either stay home or vote constitutional party, etc.


neolib

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 10:37 AM
I am not sure how the WSJ fits but he is referencing the supposed lack of partriotism by the NYTimes when they revealed the monitoring of money transfers.

WSJ/NYT --doesnt really matter. It appears the new 'rage' in protest is to help the terrorists.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 10:40 AM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.

I agree.

Snakey
06-28-2006, 10:41 AM
http://bluepyramid.org/ia/ga.gif

Lzen
06-28-2006, 11:06 AM
Sooner or later the RWNJ's are going to figure out they are being used.

Not that they will vote dem, but they will either stay home or vote constitutional party, etc.

WTF? Were you born yesterday? That's how politics always has been and always will be. Don't act like the Dems don't do the exact same thing.

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 11:15 AM
I can't imagine why in the hell anyone would care that a flag is being burned. Big whoop. YAWN! It is a piece of cloth after all and of course it needs protecting ROFL

Wake me up when someone disrespecting a flag effects me in any possible way.

Dave

Iowanian
06-28-2006, 11:16 AM
I have heard the Logic of Jimbos' arguement, and I augment my previous post.

It is the right of a disenter to burn the American flag. It is not however proper for a veteran, or other free speaking American to beat them with any random object.

The legal option for that freedom of expression should be limited.

It should only be legal to Beat someone burning an American Flag, with a Flagless, Flag pole.

HemiEd
06-28-2006, 11:18 AM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.


I would not want to be tested. I am not sure what I would do if I witnessed some ****head burning the flag, but I know it would get ugly.

Iowanian
06-28-2006, 11:19 AM
Tell that to a soldier who died carrying it on a battlefield. Tell it to the families who were handed that folded flag.

You're a true Asswipe Dave.

I can't imagine why in the hell anyone would care that a flag is being burned. Big whoop. YAWN! It is a piece of cloth after all and of course it needs protecting ROFL

Wake me up when someone disrespecting a flag effects me in any possible way.

Dave

Very surprising coming from the author of Great Americana like:
I have to say I agree the whole concept of "I support the troops" is idiocy. I really don'r support the troops
To kill or be killed thats their job description.

Dave

Donger
06-28-2006, 11:22 AM
I can't imagine why in the hell anyone would care that a flag is being burned. Big whoop. YAWN! It is a piece of cloth after all and of course it needs protecting ROFL

Wake me up when someone disrespecting a flag effects me in any possible way.

Dave

Yep, just a piece of cloth. It symbolizes nothing.

.

Donger
06-28-2006, 11:29 AM
Look at these idiots. I guess no one told them that that flag is just a scrap of fabric.

.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 11:30 AM
Well you do have the legal right to a trial after you beat them, if you can convince a jury of your peers it was the right thing to do. You don't go to jail. So in that respect I suppose you do have that right.

Yea like anyone is going to go to trial and be a witness for the flag burning POS.

This is where these off the scale liberals may be doing us a favor outlawing guns within their city limits. Hell one good marine cold take out an entire commune of these pussies without having to worry about being shot.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 11:30 AM
Look at these idiots. I guess no one told them that that flag is just a scrap of fabric.

.

Great Post!!!

Donger
06-28-2006, 11:32 AM
The only acceptable flag-burning, IMO.

.

Donger
06-28-2006, 11:35 AM
The only acceptable flag-burning, IMO.

.

Actually, this is acceptable as well.

.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 11:36 AM
Actually, this is acceptable as well.

.

Is that Denise's husband?

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 11:37 AM
Tell that to a soldier who died carrying it on a battlefield. Tell it to the families who were handed that folded flag.

You're a true Asswipe Dave.



Very surprising coming from the author of Great Americana like:


Hey KCJohnny newsflash your "service" is nice but to think it gives you a free pass to hand out judgement or somehow makes you "special" is sad. I choose not to serve because I didn't want to. I had the chance to be a Captain and passed. Best decision of my life.

I was told in Military school your job is to kill or be killed. If thats the job description and your number comes up well its just too bad. Kinda like if you drive and are in a car wreck well you knew it could happen. I feel sorry for those killed in duty really mostly for their families. I reserve more sorrow for those that die in ways that weren't expected.

Dave

Clint in Wichita
06-28-2006, 11:38 AM
Burning the flag is so 60's...protestors...errr Real patriots have moved onto better forms of protest like alerting the terrorists how the US is finding them.


What sort of facist is against freedom of the press?

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 11:48 AM
Hey KCJohnny newsflash your "service" is nice but to think it gives you a free pass to hand out judgement or somehow makes you "special" is sad. I choose not to serve because I didn't want to. I had the chance to be a Captain and passed. Best decision of my life.

I was told in Military school your job is to kill or be killed. If thats the job description and your number comes up well its just too bad. Kinda like if you drive and are in a car wreck well you knew it could happen. I feel sorry for those killed in duty really mostly for their families. I reserve more sorrow for those that die in ways that weren't expected.

Dave

Interesting, you support those who would burn the flag in judgement but do not support the rights of those that serve and protect our country to same right. :hmmm:

You feel more sorrow for those that die randomly than those who died in service and provide you with the very freedom you use to post your hippy ass peacenik BS.

Nice for you to finally show us what your really about.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 11:53 AM
What sort of facist is against freedom of the press?

I didnt realize leaking classified info was 'freedom of the press' either. Back in the day, it was bad to give info to the Soviets, I didnt realize that changed.

Clint in Wichita
06-28-2006, 11:54 AM
Interesting, you support those who would burn the flag in judgement but do not support the rights of those that serve and protect our country to same right. :hmmm:

You feel more sorrow for those that die randomly than those who died in service and provide you with the very freedom you use to post your hippy ass peacenik BS.

Nice for you to finally show us what your really about.

This lame argument again.

I feel for those troops overseas. They are doing jobs I wouldn't do for wages I couldn't live on, and it is all in vain.

However, to say that those troops are defending the freedom of Americans is absolutely wrong. You could make a case that they are defending the freedom of Iraqis, but not Americans.

sedated
06-28-2006, 11:56 AM
slippery slope

Clint in Wichita
06-28-2006, 11:57 AM
I didnt realize leaking classified info was 'freedom of the press' either. Back in the day, it was bad to give info to the Soviets, I didnt realize that changed.


Yes, leaking classified info falls under "freedom of the press", just like freedom of speech protects the KKK and Fred Phelps.


What conservatives should be concerned with is: How did the media get the info?

sedated
06-28-2006, 12:01 PM
If we don't burn the flag, then the terrorists have won

Chiefnj
06-28-2006, 12:02 PM
What is flag desecration? Burning it, okay. What about wearing a flag as a piece of clothing? I know some people were mad at Kid Rock a few years ago for doing it. What about American flag bikinis, is that okay?

Does it have to be an actual flag? What about a picture of a flag? Can you burn that? What about those little flags you see everyone waving at parades. Can you toss them in the garbage at the end of the weekend?

Clint in Wichita
06-28-2006, 12:02 PM
If we don't burn the flag, then the terrorists have won


If we CAN'T burn the flag, the terrorists have achieved a small victory.

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 12:03 PM
This lame argument again.

I feel for those troops overseas. They are doing jobs I wouldn't do for wages I couldn't live on, and it is all in vain.

However, to say that those troops are defending the freedom of Americans is absolutely wrong. You could make a case that they are defending the freedom of Iraqis, but not Americans.

Yep....

They get paid to take a chance with death. I don't want to do it, I'm glad they do.

Dave

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 12:04 PM
Yes, leaking classified info falls under "freedom of the press", just like freedom of speech protects the KKK and Fred Phelps.

What conservatives should be concerned with is: How did the media get the info?

Excellent logic... I didnt realize the rights of the press supreceded those of the citizens of the US not to be killed by terrorists.

You realize of course, to get to the leak, would require the press to reveal where they got their info.

Moooo
06-28-2006, 12:04 PM
What I don't understand is if this was determined by the Supreme Court to be a freedom of speech, then why bother with passing a bill saying you can't do it? Wouldn't the bill just be declared unconstitutional?

Moooo

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 12:05 PM
What is flag desecration? Burning it, okay. What about wearing a flag as a piece of clothing? I know some people were mad at Kid Rock a few years ago for doing it. What about American flag bikinis, is that okay?

Does it have to be an actual flag? What about a picture of a flag? Can you burn that? What about those little flags you see everyone waving at parades. Can you toss them in the garbage at the end of the weekend?


Very nicely stated and much more well thought out than my quicky off the cuff remarks. Rep!

Dave

FAX
06-28-2006, 12:05 PM
So, we can burn the American flag. Ok.

But, didn't someone in Tucson recently go to jail for burning a Mexican flag? I think he was arrested for criminal damage or reckless burning or something.

FAX

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 12:05 PM
This lame argument again.

I feel for those troops overseas. They are doing jobs I wouldn't do for wages I couldn't live on, and it is all in vain.

However, to say that those troops are defending the freedom of Americans is absolutely wrong. You could make a case that they are defending the freedom of Iraqis, but not Americans.

Yea our military has never provided freedom for Americans. Great come back Clint. Another thing, if you believe for 2 seconds we would have freedom without our military you make Denise look like a ****ing genious.

As far as the Iraq war goes (that I was never for) nobody really wants to talk about the real reason we are there so going that direction really serves no point. You just can't go tell the average Joe why we are doing what we are because our wealthy culture has allowed us to become WAY too soft.

sedated
06-28-2006, 12:06 PM
What is flag desecration? Burning it, okay. What about wearing a flag as a piece of clothing? I know some people were mad at Kid Rock a few years ago for doing it. What about American flag bikinis, is that okay?

Does it have to be an actual flag? What about a picture of a flag? Can you burn that? What about those little flags you see everyone waving at parades. Can you toss them in the garbage at the end of the weekend?

what about this?

like I said, slippery slope

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 12:07 PM
What I don't understand is if this was determined by the Supreme Court to be a freedom of speech, then why bother with passing a bill saying you can't do it? Wouldn't the bill just be declared unconstitutional?

Moooo

This is an excellent question. You see, the evil Republicans are attempting to modify the Constitution in a way actually prescribed in the Constitution itself. What has happened is the Supreme Court, only limited by what the Constitution says, determined it WAS Constitutional to burn the flag superceded authority that had previously been the perview of the States. So, in order to constrain the Supreme Court, the Congress is starting the Amendment process.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 12:07 PM
Yep....

They get paid to take a chance with death. I don't want to do it, I'm glad they do.

Dave

No you're not. You feel worse for someone who dies slipping on a bannana peel.

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 12:08 PM
So, we can burn the American flag. Ok.

But, didn't someone in Tucson recently go to jail for burning a Mexican flag? I think he was arrested for criminal damage or reckless burning or something.

FAX

I think it was someone elses flag... Sort of a difference there.

Dave

Also no word on Roaf retiring everyones gone right now and no one has any idea on him or Priest.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-28-2006, 12:08 PM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.

I can add that we should also be allowed to abort certain people at any age, that's pro abortion i guess. What's the difference between a coat hanger or a gun? The gun would be much less painful.

MOhillbilly
06-28-2006, 12:11 PM
Well you do have the legal right to a trial after you beat them, if you can convince a jury of your peers it was the right thing to do. You don't go to jail. So in that respect I suppose you do have that right.

ill take my chances.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 12:12 PM
I think it was someone elses flag... Sort of a difference there.

How so? Do the laws of Mexico apply to US Citizens? The laws of the US dont apply to Mexican citizens in the US.

FAX
06-28-2006, 12:14 PM
I think it was someone elses flag... Sort of a difference there.

Dave

Also no word on Roaf retiring everyones gone right now and no one has any idea on him or Priest.

Thanks, Mr. Dave Lane. I found a link and, interestingly, I see no mention of the flag in question belonging to someone else. You're probably right, though. The article is not rich with detail.

Mexican Flag Burning Article (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/124317.php)

Also, thanks for the Roaf update. But, when you say no one has any idea, does that mean that there is a real possibility that he may retire?

FAX

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 12:14 PM
How so? Do the laws of Mexico apply to US Citizens? The laws of the US dont apply to Mexican citizens in the US.


If I burned your flag that is illegal. If I burn my own well currently there is no problem with that.

Dave

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 12:16 PM
How so? Do the laws of Mexico apply to US Citizens? The laws of the US dont apply to Mexican citizens in the US.

I may be mistaken, but I think he means the flag was owned by someone else.

ie.

I buy a flag and burn it = ok

I take your flag and burn it = not ok

ChiefaRoo
06-28-2006, 12:16 PM
This lame argument again.

I feel for those troops overseas. They are doing jobs I wouldn't do for wages I couldn't live on, and it is all in vain.

However, to say that those troops are defending the freedom of Americans is absolutely wrong. You could make a case that they are defending the freedom of Iraqis, but not Americans.


I couldn't disagree with you more Clint. Geopolitics is complicated and what is going on in Iraq is a long term gamble by the Bush Administration to start changing the culture of the ME which has never known democracy. It will take at least a decade to know whether or not it is going to work. If it does it gives future Presidents more options that are non-military in nature. If it doesn't then it threatens our economy (oil supply) and our people as terrorists with oil money and the will could eventually attack us again this time with real weapons. If we bail and leave that part of the world alone and they come along and attack us with Nukes, Gas etc in 10, 20 years then some future Presidents only option would be to retaliate with even more terrible and powerful weapons. I am hopeful that what we are doing in Iraq and the ME region as a whole will make the world safer in the future.


Regarding Flag burning. I'm against it. I don't think it serves the public discourse. That being said I don't want a constitutional amendment to fix it inspired by pols in an election year. I simply want the police to arrest the ahole for burning in the city limits. Let them sit in a cell for 12 hours or so and then pay a big fat fine.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 12:17 PM
If I burned your flag that is illegal. If I burn my own well currently there is no problem with that.

Dave

Why should it matter? Why do you want to impinge on someones freedom of speech?

feh...this is finally in DC, my work is done here.

Moooo
06-28-2006, 12:19 PM
This is an excellent question. You see, the evil Republicans are attempting to modify the Constitution in a way actually prescribed in the Constitution itself. What has happened is the Supreme Court, only limited by what the Constitution says, determined it WAS Constitutional to burn the flag superceded authority that had previously been the perview of the States. So, in order to constrain the Supreme Court, the Congress is starting the Amendment process.

Okay, I had a dumb moment. Hard for something to be unconstitutaional if its in the constitution (kinda like the non-American president).

But I thought you had to have 2/3rds vote of all the states in order for it to become an amendment. I know it takes some sort of miracle to get one passed (which is why we don't even have 30 of them).

Moooo

oldandslow
06-28-2006, 12:21 PM
Why should it matter? Why do you want to impinge on someones freedom of speech?

feh...this is finally in DC, my work is done here.

because private property trumps free speech. You can burn down your house any time you want (as long as their is no insurance fraud) but don't try to burn down mine.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 12:22 PM
Okay, I had a dumb moment. Hard for something to be unconstitutaional if its in the constitution (kinda like the non-American president).

But I thought you had to have 2/3rds vote of all the states in order for it to become an amendment. I know it takes some sort of miracle to get one passed (which is why we don't even have 30 of them).

Moooo

2/3rds of the Senate, House and States must ratify an ammendment. I kind of like that process better than judicial fiat. I think the libs disagree which is why the celebration.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 12:25 PM
because private property trumps free speech. You can burn down your house any time you want (as long as their is no insurance fraud) but don't try to burn down mine.

...and environmental regulation trumps private property rights...so maybe what the Republicans did wrong was not try to create environmental regulations stating that buring a flag hurt the ozone layer.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2006, 12:29 PM
Symbolism creates dumb people.

mlyonsd
06-28-2006, 12:33 PM
...and environmental regulation trumps private property rights...so maybe what the Republicans did wrong was not try to create environmental regulations stating that buring a flag hurt the ozone layer.

That's what I was thinking seeing as second hand smoke turns out to be so dangerous.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 01:00 PM
I think someone should have the right to burn a flag if they want to.

I also think that Any veteran should have the legal right to beat them with an object of their choice, to voice their freedom of expression.I love it. I use that example in class.

When someone says one is free speech, and the other assault....I point out that, technically, burning a flag is conduct/an action--just as assault is. Both could considered "symbolic speech"....by different people. It makes them think.

To be fair, I close by pointing out some would say the physical harm of assault, may be considered greater than potential "emotional harm" inflicted by flag burning.....but that I'd love to sit on a jury to decide whether a veteran was guilty of assault in such a case. Heh. :)

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 01:28 PM
The only acceptable flag-burning, IMO.

.So, what are the guidelines for "acceptable" burning?

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 01:31 PM
I love it. I use that example in class.

When someone says one is free speech, and the other assault....I point out that, technically, burning a flag is conduct/an action--just as assault is. Both could considered "symbolic speech"....by different people. It makes them think.

To be fair, I close by pointing out some would say the physical harm of assault, may be considered greater than potential "emotional harm" inflicted by flag burning.....but that I'd love to sit on a jury to decide whether a veteran was guilty of assault in such a case. Heh. :)I'd guess that you'd advocate one of your students putting a bullet in your head for the "emotional harm" that you've likely inflicted in your class?
:)

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 01:38 PM
I am an American who supports living in what is deemed a "private property" order. If it's someone's flag...they own it, it's theirs and they can do whatever they want with it whether or not it's offensive to others. I personally would never do it. And I may have the free speech to speak over others who make a statement by doing it...but only the statement.

How can any veteran defend what this country stands for, and then deny one their property rights?

I thank God I don't live in a communist or fascist country.

Sully
06-28-2006, 01:41 PM
If I wear a pair of boxers witht he flag as the pattern... and fart in them, is that offensive?

(I may be in trouble)

Donger
06-28-2006, 01:41 PM
So, what are the guidelines for "acceptable" burning?

It is the correct way of properly disposing a flag that is no longer suitable for display, e.g., it's faded, torn, etc.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2006, 01:42 PM
I am an American who supports living in what is deemed a "private property" order. If it's someone's flag...they own it, it's theirs and they can do whatever they want with it whether or not it's offensive to others. I personally would never do it. And I may have the free speech to speak over others who make a statement by doing it...but only the statement.

How can any veteran defend what this country stands for, and then deny one their property rights?

I thank God I don't live in a communist or fascist country.
That's how I feel.

However, I see burning ANYTHING in a public place full of people (pissed off or not) as disorderly conduct. That doesn't give anyone the right to assault them, though.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 01:47 PM
That's how I feel.

However, I see burning ANYTHING in a public place full of people (pissed off or not) as disorderly conduct. That doesn't give anyone the right to assault them, though.
That's a good point...I never thought of that.
Burning anythin however is what should not be allowed.
And it should be equally enforced.
That's kinda like that guy who had a flag on a pole at that demonstration.Officials had banned poles and stakes at public demonstrations. He was taken out for bringing the pole and the stake, not because it had a flag on it.

Beating someone for it is something a commie or facist-thug would do.

JBucc
06-28-2006, 01:47 PM
That's how I feel.

However, I see burning ANYTHING in a public place full of people (pissed off or not) as disorderly conduct. That doesn't give anyone the right to assault them, though.Can we spray gasoline on them?

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 01:48 PM
It is the correct way of properly disposing a flag that is no longer suitable for display, e.g., it's faded, torn, etc.Right. So a demonstrator who begins with a faded and torn flag would be ok.

Side note: When I was in HS, one of our math teachers was a us army veteran. He had a fiery temper and commanded respect. He was invited to speak to our government class about flag burning. Being adamantly against flag burning, I couldn't wait for him to shout down the hippies. However, once he began talking about his service, it became clear that defending the right to burn the flag was his primary focus. The thought of burning the flag made him angry, but he supported the right to do so. I remember being really disappointed that he didn't bring down the fire and brimstone. But, that experience has stayed with me.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2006, 01:49 PM
Can we spray gasoline on them?
That would constitute assault as well. Sorry. Has anyone here actually seen someone burn a flag in public?

JBucc
06-28-2006, 01:51 PM
That would constitute assault as well. Sorry. Has anyone here actually seen someone burn a flag in public?You can't burn anything in the city limits where I live. Not leaves not trash and probably not anything else protest or not. If someone around here did burn a flag it was out in the middle of nowhere and nobody noticed.

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 01:53 PM
That would constitute assault as well. Sorry. Has anyone here actually seen someone burn a flag in public?No, and I hope I never do. While I certainly don't see the need for an ammendment agaist it, I can't imagine how I would react to it.
:cuss:

Donger
06-28-2006, 01:53 PM
Right. So a demonstrator who begins with a faded and torn flag would be ok.

Side note: When I was in HS, one of our math teachers was a us army veteran. He had a fiery temper and commanded respect. He was invited to speak to our government class about flag burning. Being adamantly against flag burning, I couldn't wait for him to shout down the hippies. However, once he began talking about his service, it became clear that defending the right to burn the flag was his primary focus. The thought of burning the flag made him angry, but he supported the right to do so. I remember being really disappointed that he didn't bring down the fire and brimstone. But, that experience has stayed with me.

No, IMO. It's a question of intent.

1) Burning a flag as a method of disposal.
2) Burning a flag as a method of protest.

I, too, support the right of people to burn a US flag they own as a form of protest. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

Donger
06-28-2006, 01:54 PM
That would constitute assault as well. Sorry. Has anyone here actually seen someone burn a flag in public?

Yes.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2006, 01:58 PM
Yes.
You don't count.

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 02:04 PM
No, IMO. It's a question of intent.

1) Burning a flag as a method of disposal.
2) Burning a flag as a method of protest.

I, too, support the right of people to burn a US flag they own as a form of protest. That doesn't mean I agree with them.Intent as determined by whom? Could a hippie (rightly) claim disposal if his flag is torn and faded? Couldn't he also be doing it in protest? I know intent is critical in other areas of law, but I think this could be difficult to ascertain with little to gain.

Donger
06-28-2006, 02:17 PM
You don't count.

ROFL

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 02:19 PM
Intent as determined by whom? Could a hippie (rightly) claim disposal if his flag is torn and faded? Couldn't he also be doing it in protest? I know intent is critical in other areas of law, but I think this could be difficult to ascertain with little to gain.
So, you're gonna protest, but pretend you're NOT protesting?

Intrepid culture warrior, you!!

Huzzah!

Donger
06-28-2006, 02:19 PM
Intent as determined by whom? Could a hippie (rightly) claim disposal if his flag is torn and faded? Couldn't he also be doing it in protest? I know intent is critical in other areas of law, but I think this could be difficult to ascertain with little to gain.

Yes, very difficult. But since you mentioned a 'demonstrator,' I assumed that that person's intent in burning the flag would be clear. Take a peek at the pictures I posted and decide which you think is respectfully disposing the flag and which is protesting by burning it.

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 02:30 PM
Yes, very difficult. But since you mentioned a 'demonstrator,' I assumed that that person's intent in burning the flag would be clear. Take a peek at the pictures I posted and decide which you think is respectfully disposing the flag and which is protesting by burning it. I could certainly make contextual assumptions. In these cases, they would probably be "correct." I'm not convinced that all cases would be this simple (especially when people are trying to avoid prosecution).

Pitt Gorilla
06-28-2006, 02:35 PM
Does a picture of a flag have any less symbolism? Would one be able to recycle the "flag" that comes in the newspaper (that we hang in our window?)

Rausch
06-28-2006, 02:38 PM
So, what are the guidelines for "acceptable" burning?

Burn as many as you want, since that's the means used to properly dispose of an old flag or protect it FROM desecration.

Now, if you want to squat and drop a load on the flag it should be legal for a Vet to beat that man/woman near death...

sedated
06-28-2006, 02:39 PM
this is just another way for Bush to continue his control after he is out of office.

he already f*cked up the supreme court and filled it with a bunch of neo-cons, but now he's got to taint our constitution with this worthless crap.

of course, he'll just amend it to say he can serve more than 2 terms (because of the war) and we will have the beginning of the Bush dynasty.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2006, 04:57 PM
Now, if you want to squat and drop a load on the flag it should be legal for a Vet to beat that man/woman near death...
In that case, it should be legal for said protestor to break that Vets hip.

BIG_DADDY
06-28-2006, 05:00 PM
In that case, it should be legal for said protestor to break that Vets hip.

Liberal pussy ass protesters don't have the huevos for that. The only thing they are going to break is water.

alnorth
06-28-2006, 06:26 PM
I am a pretty solid Republican voter, but I am happy to see this amendment fail. I wish they would stop trying every few years.

At the heart of it, its just a piece of cloth. If it is illegal to burn cloth in a public area for safety concerns, fine, but it should not have special treatment under the law just because it is cut in a certain proportion and dyed a couple colors in a specific pattern.

If our nation is not strong enough to tolerate the burning of cloth, what good is it?

Adept Havelock
06-28-2006, 06:32 PM
I am a pretty solid Republican voter, but I am happy to see this amendment fail. I wish they would stop trying every few years.

At the heart of it, its just a piece of cloth. If it is illegal to burn cloth in a public area for safety concerns, fine, but it should not have special treatment under the law just because it is cut in a certain proportion and dyed a couple colors in a specific pattern.

If our nation is not strong enough to tolerate the burning of cloth, what good is it?

:clap: Well said.

penchief
06-28-2006, 06:44 PM
I find it interesting that this government wishes to ban free speech, ala symbolism, yet is willing to desecrate what our flag stands for with their neo-fascist agenda and their governmental conduct.

IMO, when people burn the flag in protest they are simply stating their displeasure with perceived digressions committed by a government that that they feel contradicts the meaning of that flag. I believe they are physically doing to the flag what they believe the government is doing to it's meaning.

I agree that it is extreme because one would have to work hard to overcome his or her own love of what that flag represents for them. But when the government betrays those principles represented by the flag some people may feel strongly enough to overcome those feelings.

Personally, I would never take that approach but I understand the reasoning and importance behind allowing demonstratons of free speech.

But it also doesn't suprise me that people are willing to continue believing and following this government. In my opinion, part of the problem is that Sesame Street doesn't address these issues in depth and civics classes are being eliminated from the high school curriculum. Basically, they're turning us into sheep.

Donger
06-28-2006, 06:52 PM
I find it interesting that this government wishes to ban free speech, ala symoblism, yet it is willing to desecrate what our flag stands for with their neo-fascist agenda and their governmental conduct.

IMO, when people burn the flag in protest they are simply stating their displeasure with perceived digressions committed by a government that that they feel contradicts the meaning of that flag. I believe they are physically doing to the flag what they believe the government is doing to it's meaning.

I agree that it is extreme because one would have to work hard to overcome his or her own love of what that flag represents for them. But when the government betrays those principles represented by the flag some people may feel strongly enough to overcome those feelings.

Personally, I would never take that approach but I understand the reasoning and importance behind allowing demonstratons of free speech.

But it also doesn't suprise me that people are willing to believe this government. IMO, part of the problem is that Sesame Street doesn't address these issues in depth and civics classes are being eliminated from the high school curriculum. Basically, they're turning us into sheep.

To me, our flag doesn't respresent our government. It respresents our country. When I fly it, I don't think of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. I think of America and her history.

If you have an issue with George Bush, go and get a flag with him on it and burn it. Have an issue with some Democrat? Go and get a flag with him/her on it and burn it.

The bottom line is this: the people who burn our national flag in protest are doing so BECAUSE it's risque. And, doing that just to be risque sullies a symbol of our country. Forgive me, but that's revolting.

Hell, make up a George Bush pinata instead, I'd probably take a few whacks at it myself, but leave our flag alone to satisfy your glory-seeking requirement.

alnorth
06-28-2006, 07:01 PM
I find it interesting that this government wishes to ban free speech, ala symbolism, yet is willing to desecrate what our flag stands for with their neo-fascist agenda and their governmental conduct.

IMO, when people burn the flag in protest they are simply stating their displeasure with perceived digressions committed by a government that that they feel contradicts the meaning of that flag. I believe they are physically doing to the flag what they believe the government is doing to it's meaning.

I agree that it is extreme because one would have to work hard to overcome his or her own love of what that flag represents for them. But when the government betrays those principles represented by the flag some people may feel strongly enough to overcome those feelings.

Personally, I would never take that approach but I understand the reasoning and importance behind allowing demonstratons of free speech.

But it also doesn't suprise me that people are willing to continue believing and following this government. In my opinion, part of the problem is that Sesame Street doesn't address these issues in depth and civics classes are being eliminated from the high school curriculum. Basically, they're turning us into sheep.

Couple comments

1) When I see a flag-burning, I dont get angry, I just dismiss them as a random idiot and dont give them the attention they so dearly crave. The message I get is "Hey look at me everybody!!! I'm mad and... well I'm too stupid to come up with a rational arguement, but I know how to burn things! Wheeee!"

That said, I will strongly defend an individual's right to be an idiot, within reason. (Its ok to be stupid, but if your going to be stupid in an area that can cause riots, do it a reasonable distance away from whatever it is your trying to disrupt)

2) I keep seeing people refer to government in the 3rd person, which is kind of odd. It isnt like space aliens from Pluto landed one day in a sea of chaos, named themselves "government", and create the USA, we are the government. If your in the minority in certain issues, or if the majority is too lazy and apathetic to act, then tough. Its up to you to convince and/or motivate your neighbors.

penchief
06-28-2006, 09:49 PM
Couple comments

1) When I see a flag-burning, I dont get angry, I just dismiss them as a random idiot and dont give them the attention they so dearly crave. The message I get is "Hey look at me everybody!!! I'm mad and... well I'm too stupid to come up with a rational arguement, but I know how to burn things! Wheeee!"

That said, I will strongly defend an individual's right to be an idiot, within reason. (Its ok to be stupid, but if your going to be stupid in an area that can cause riots, do it a reasonable distance away from whatever it is your trying to disrupt)

2) I keep seeing people refer to government in the 3rd person, which is kind of odd. It isnt like space aliens from Pluto landed one day in a sea of chaos, named themselves "government", and create the USA, we are the government. If your in the minority in certain issues, or if the majority is too lazy and apathetic to act, then tough. Its up to you to convince and/or motivate your neighbors.

1) Most people who burn the flag probably are idiots but on the other hand, at some time and for some purpose, burning the flag to make a particular point may have been appropriate and timely. Like most things, it probably lost it's original essence because it became chic and then demonized. As an exercise in free speech, it's genesis was probably natural and it's initial intent honestly motivated.

2) We are supposed to be the government but I don't feel like our government represents my views or the majority view. Even though Bush won the 2000 electoral college he lost the popular vote. Yet the administration acted as though they had a political mandate. They rammed an agenda down our throats that would have had no chance without the blessing of 9/11. They ignore laws passed by our representatives, they spy on us, and they lie to us. And because of voting machines, redistricting, purging of the voting rolls, and vote suppression tactics, we don't even know if they were legitimately elected.

When it comes to the real issues the majority has been screwed by this White House. How can anyone say with certainty anymore that we are the government?

alnorth
06-28-2006, 11:44 PM
2) We are supposed to be the government but I don't feel like our government represents my views or the majority view. Even though Bush won the 2000 electoral college he lost the popular vote. Yet the administration acted as though they had a political mandate. They rammed an agenda down our throats that would have had no chance without the blessing of 9/11. They ignore laws passed by our representatives, they spy on us, and they lie to us. And because of voting machines, redistricting, purging of the voting rolls, and vote suppression tactics, we don't even know if they were legitimately elected.

When it comes to the real issues the majority has been screwed by this White House. How can anyone say with certainty anymore that we are the government?

Wow.

I think I'll just say that if this is your honest opinion, then we have absolutely nothing to discuss, there would be no point or value to it.

Donger
06-28-2006, 11:48 PM
Wow.

I think I'll just say that if this is your honest opinion, then we have absolutely nothing to discuss, there would be no point or value to it.

It's rather amazing, isn't it?

"Yeah, he won the electoral college, and the US Constitution says that's all that matters, but..."

penchief
06-29-2006, 11:25 AM
It's rather amazing, isn't it?

"Yeah, he won the electoral college, and the US Constitution says that's all that matters, but..."

I'm not disputing the electoral college. We were talking about a government that is supposed to represent us. When a president loses the popular vote he most definitely does not have a mandate to impose an otherwise unpopular agenda.

Yet, the conduct of this administration does not take into account the will of the people when it comes to issues. That is not a government that represents. That is a government that dictates.

I understand the electoral college and don't necessarily have a problem with it unless one thinks that a single state can be rigged to ensure an electoral victory. It's the conduct of this administration that leads me to believe that they don't represent me, not the constitution.

But you guys go ahead and run with whatever you want while ignoring my intent.

stevieray
06-29-2006, 11:29 AM
I'm not disputing the electoral college. We were talking about a government that is supposed to represent us. When a president loses the popular vote he most definitely does not have a mandate to impose an otherwise unpopular agenda.

Yet, the conduct of this administration does not take into account the will of the people when it comes to issues. That is not a government that represents. That is a government that dictates.

I understand the electoral college and don't necessarily have a problem with it unless one thinks that a single state can be rigged to ensure an electoral victory. It's the conduct of this administration that leads me to believe that they don't represent me, not the constitution.

But you guys go ahead and run with whatever you want while ignoring my intent.

I think your intent is why your post is being "ignored."

I'll give you credit though, you only used "this adminstratin" twice.

Will of the people? Do we have spacemen from Mars in Congress?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 11:36 AM
As much as I dislike how the Bush administration turned out, he won the election in 2000 according all fully counted tallies as reported in all major and minor newspapers. It just does not wash.

The popular vote was too slight to make any major policy differences a mandate for the other side either.

As for reps, having to follow the dictates of the people...they do not.
They're supposed to first uphold the Constitution whether the people agree with it or not. They're also supposed to provide leadership too. They can vote against the people. Granted they can be voted out for this as well.

So how can one claim Bush is not following the will of the people...seems to me with elections as close as they've been there's a divide from the get-go.

I think more and more people are simply voting for the lesser of two evils today.

penchief
06-29-2006, 11:39 AM
I think your intent is why your post is being "ignored."

I'll give you credit though, you only used "this adminstratin" twice.

Will of the people? Do we have spacemen from Mars in Congress?

This administration is the current face of our government along with a lackey republican congress and a stacked supreme court.

IMO, this is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is an elitist government the pays lip service to our former democracy.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 11:42 AM
A stacked Supreme Court?

Hardly enough votes there for conservatives to erase enough from the past.

But what did FDR do?
Now that's stacking the SC .

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 11:43 AM
This administration is the current face of our government along with a lackey republican congress and a stacked supreme court.

IMO, this is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is an elitist government the pays lip service to our former democracy.
Another facet of the Dem Party I can't stand.

Dems in charge? Yeah!!! We won!!! F@ck off losers.
Repubs in charge? Hey, listen to us, we're citizens too!!

stevieray
06-29-2006, 11:46 AM
IMO, this is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Yes it is.

Iowanian
06-29-2006, 11:46 AM
And ALL were voted in, BY THE PEOPLE of their districts, states, and nation.

This administration is the current face of our government along with a lackey republican congress and a stacked supreme court.

IMO, this is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is an elitist government the pays lip service to our former democracy.

penchief
06-29-2006, 11:51 AM
As much as I dislike how the Bush administration turned out, he won the election in 2000 according all fully counted tallies as reported in all major and minor newspapers. It just does not wash.

The popular vote was too slight to make any major policy differences a mandate for the other side either.

As for reps, having to follow the dictates of the people...they do not.
They're supposed to first uphold the Constitution whether the people agree with it or not. They're also supposed to provide leadership too. They can vote against the people. Granted they can be voted out for this as well.

So how can one claim Bush is not following the will of the people...seems to me with elections as close as they've been there's a divide from the get-go.

I think more and more people are simply voting for the lesser of two evils today.

Actually, the same New York Times report that gave Bush the nod in the disputed counties also noted that if Gore had asked for a recount of the entire state he would have won the state. And it wouldn't have been nearly as close. That is a moot point now. I accepted the Bush victory in 2000 for about six months. Until it became obvious that they were not interested in pragmatic government but in imposing a narrow ideological agenda that even many of whom voted for him did not support. And it wasn't just their agenda, it was also the arrogant and abusive way in which they went about it.

I agree that the congress is culpable, as well. For the first three years of the Bush Administration I was more angry with democrats for not doing their job than I was at Bush. Now I'm just discouraged about the whole thing. Between rubber-stamp republicans and pussy democrats the congress has handed a neo-fascists White House a blank check. Goodbye civil liberties, goodbye privacy, goodbye prosperity. Get ready for the New World Order.

If right-wing fascism is the lesser of two evils, God help us.

penchief
06-29-2006, 11:52 AM
A stacked Supreme Court?

Hardly enough votes there for conservatives to erase enough from the past.

But what did FDR do?
Now that's stacking the SC .

He tried but I don't think he got away with it, did he?

stevieray
06-29-2006, 11:57 AM
Goodbye civil liberties, goodbye privacy, goodbye prosperity. Get ready for the New World Order.


That is definirely of the people, by the people, for the people.

Get ready for the New World Order? Clinton certainly hopes so.

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:03 PM
Another facet of the Dem Party I can't stand.

Dems in charge? Yeah!!! We won!!! F@ck off losers.
Repubs in charge? Hey, listen to us, we're citizens too!!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't recall the 90's being so abusive toward republicans. I don't recall dems calling cons traitors, etc. Hell, the conduct of the republican congress during the Lewinsky fiasco might be congress's most shameful period in history but dems just took it lying down. If anything was partisan during that time it was the republican congress's conduct. The high degree of shit that the cons stirred up over such a non-issue exemplifies the difference, IMO.

I don't ever remember gloating over a political victory or belittling someone who doesn't share my political philosophy. So I don't know what you're trying to say here. Unless you can point to specifics I think you're way off base making that accusation against me.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:07 PM
It's kinda hard to claim Dems not mistreating Repubs during the 90's when the the people voted in Repubs to congress in response to the blatant leftism of the Clinton admin after it ran its campaign on being centrist.

The people can't be fooled all the time.

BIG_DADDY
06-29-2006, 12:09 PM
Dems only care about freedom of speech when it's about things like pissing on our military or country. Try saying something about some pipe smoker though and they want to lock your ass up.

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 12:10 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't recall the 90's being so abusive toward republicans. I don't recall dems calling cons traitors, etc. Hell, the conduct of the republican congress during the Lewinsky fiasco might be congress's most shameful period in history but dems just took it lying down. If anything was partisan during that time it was the republican congress's conduct. The high degree of shit that the cons stirred up over such a non-issue exemplifies the difference, IMO.

I don't ever remember gloating over a political victory or belittling someone who doesn't share my political philosophy. So I don't know what you're trying to say here. Unless you can point to specifics I think you're way off base making that accusation against me.
Big Bill took the 92 presidency with much less %age of the popular vote than Big Dub in 00, and went right to work on Universal HealthCare and Gays in the military with no notion of 'hey, we need to consider the other side.' He vetoed Welfare reform lord knows how many times with no notion of respecting the thoughts of the legions of people clamoring for it.
And, though it's a singular incident, involving a guy who has since changed his views, but it's emblematic of the mindset I'm referencing.

When, at Clinton's inauguration, Ron Silver cursed the military as the flyover was going on, and someone remarked "settle down, Ron. They're OUR jets now!!"

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:12 PM
The people can't be fooled all the time.

The people are currently disproving your thesis.

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:16 PM
Dems only care about freedom of speech when it's about things like pissing on our military or country. Try saying something about some pipe smoker though and they want to lock your ass up.

Well, that's not a shallow depiction at all. You just summarized progressive in one sentence. You should be proud of your incredible insight and your brevity in stating the obvious so clearly.

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:20 PM
Big Bill took the 92 presidency with much less %age of the popular vote than Big Dub in 00, and went right to work on Universal HealthCare and Gays in the military with no notion of 'hey, we need to consider the other side.' He vetoed Welfare reform lord knows how many times with no notion of respecting the thoughts of the legions of people clamoring for it.
And, though it's a singular incident, involving a guy who has since changed his views, but it's emblematic of the mindset I'm referencing.

When, at Clinton's inauguration, Ron Silver cursed the military as the flyover was going on, and someone remarked "settle down, Ron. They're OUR jets now!!"

None of what you say here has any relevency to your claim, IMO.

Clinton won in '92 with much less than Big Al in '00. It's called a third-party candidacy.

Ron Silver is a right-winger so I'm a little confused about your comments concerning him.

All in all, I'm still not sure what you're point is. Is it the, "I know you are but what am I" defense? You know, just claim that everybody does the same thing so that nobody can claim there are differences in the degree of behavior.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:20 PM
The people are currently disproving your thesis.

Well yes and no. It would not qualify as ALL the time still...that's all I am saying. Now is it happening more than it should? Okay you got me there.

But many more are waking up, it seems.

All I was trying to say was: the 1990's didn't provide the environment to test your claim, imo. k?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2006, 12:22 PM
He vetoed Welfare reform lord knows how many times with no notion of respecting the thoughts of the legions of people clamoring for it.


It's my understanding that a lot of that welfare was written back in covertly and never heralded in our press.

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 12:26 PM
None of what you say here has any relevency to your claim, IMO.

Clinton won in '92 with much less than Big Al in '00. It's called a third-party candidacy.

Ron Silver is a right-winger so I'm a little confused about your comments concerning him.

All in all, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.
1. Ron Silver is a 9/12/01 Hawk. He was a different person in 92.
2. Saying 'third party candidacy' doesn't increase Bill's mandate, or mitigate his 'obligation' to be 'of, for, and by the people.'
3. You might not understand, but I'm confident my point is clear.

BIG_DADDY
06-29-2006, 12:27 PM
Well, that's not a shallow depiction at all.

Well I posted the liberal SF Chronical article that basically says the same thing but nobody in this circle jerk wanted make a comment on it. Guess the truth hurts Pen. Here is just one line.

Here in the United States, leftists often decry what they see as censorship emanating from the right, when in fact most of the true silencing of speech has come from within their own ranks. These days, liberal-dominated universities and colleges are one of the major promulgators of speech codes and draconian punishments for hate speech. Beginning in the 1980s, campus speech codes took on a life of their own, leading to countless trumped-up cases based on misunderstandings, perceived insensitivity or the ever-elusive crime of committing offense.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../cstillwell.DTL

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:35 PM
Well I posted the liberal SF Chronical article that basically says the same thing but nobody in this circle jerk wanted make a comment on it. Guess the truth hurts Pen. Here is just one line.

Here in the United States, leftists often decry what they see as censorship emanating from the right, when in fact most of the true silencing of speech has come from within their own ranks. These days, liberal-dominated universities and colleges are one of the major promulgators of speech codes and draconian punishments for hate speech. Beginning in the 1980s, campus speech codes took on a life of their own, leading to countless trumped-up cases based on misunderstandings, perceived insensitivity or the ever-elusive crime of committing offense.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../cstillwell.DTL

I must be missing a few brain cells today, or something. Because I'm having a hard time following the logic of some of these posts. You started by making a general statement that sounds like it came straight from the neocon handbook and then you start in on liberalism on college campuses and post a link that is not available.

Liberals love this country just as much as conservatives. It's just that liberals are less rigid and more idealistic (not always a good thing). Just because progressives are more open to change or differing viewpoints doesn't also mean they are less loyal.

JMO.

Baby Lee
06-29-2006, 12:42 PM
I must be missing a few brain cells today, or something. Because I'm having a hard time following the logic of some of these posts. You started by making a general statement that sounds like it came straight from the neocon handbook and then you start in on liberalism on college campuses and post a link that is not available.

Liberals love this country just as much as conservatives. It's just that liberals are less rigid and more idealistic (not always a good thing). Just because progressives are more open to change or differing viewpoints doesn't also mean they are less loyal.

JMO.
I think you really are missing his point.
His point is that liberals, particularly in insulated environments like thinktanks and college campuses or just as rigid and closed to differing viewpoints as anyone, perhaps moreso.

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:45 PM
I think you really are missing his point.
His point is that liberals, particularly in insulated environments like thinktanks and college campuses or just as rigid and closed to differing viewpoints as anyone, perhaps moreso.

I can buy that.

Does that mean that all of the conservative "think tanks" that started up in the late seventies and early eighties might have insulated themselves, as well? Are we paying the price for that now? Can the right-wing rigidity that we are currently experiencing be attributed to the same thing?

BIG_DADDY
06-29-2006, 12:45 PM
I must be missing a few brain cells today, or something. Because I'm having a hard time following the logic of some of these posts. You started by making a general statement that sounds like it came straight from the neocon handbook and then you start in on liberalism on college campuses and post a link that is not available.

Liberals love this country just as much as conservatives. It's just that liberals are less rigid and more idealistic (not always a good thing). Just because progressives are more open to change or differing viewpoints doesn't also mean they are less loyal.

JMO.

The whole article is a thread in DC called when speech becomes a crime.

Liberals want the freedom to be able to burn and piss on the flag in front of people who have put their lives on the line serving it yet they want to go after people would say anything bad about homosexuality. This applies to many different areas involving free speech and it is very hypocritical. When your own liberal publications are pointing it out it's getting really bad. This thread is just another great example of how disgusting the left has become.

penchief
06-29-2006, 12:59 PM
The whole article is a thread in DC called when speech becomes a crime.

Liberals want the freedom to be able to burn and piss on the flag in front of people who have put their lives on the line serving it yet they want to go after people would say anything bad about homosexuality. This applies to many different areas involving free speech and it is very hypocritical. When your own liberal publications are pointing it out it's getting really bad. This thread is just another great example.

I think there is a profound difference in saying that liberals want to "burn and piss on the flag in front of people who have put their lives on the line serving" and the more apt "liberals want to protect freedom of speech." Let's not forget that the ultra-conservative Fred Phelps has done exactly what you accuse liberals of doing.

I am a liberal but I would never burn the flag. It offends me, too. At the same time I am equally offended by those who want to impose unAmerican limits on freedom of speech.

I am a liberal that served my country. There are plenty of conservatives who have never served who will tell you that I am not patriotic or that I want to see my country fail. That is just not true. The truth is that, just like society, the service is made up of both conservatives and liberals.

The World War II generation was a liberal generation, per se. Those liberal values that motivated this country during WWII also proceeded to vault the U.S. to forefront of world hope after the war, IMO.

BIG_DADDY
06-29-2006, 01:05 PM
I think there is a profound difference in saying that liberals want to "burn and piss on the flag in front of people who have put their lives on the line serving" and the more apt "liberals want to protect freedom of speech." Let's not forget that the ultra-conservative Fred Phelps has done exactly what you accuse liberals of doing.

I am a liberal but I would never burn the flag. It offends me, too. At the same time I am equally offended by those who want to impose limits on freedom of speech.

I am a liberal that served my country. There are plenty of conservatives who have never served who will tell you that I am not patriotic or that I want to see my country fail. That is just not true. The truth is that, just like society, the service is made up of both conservatives and liberals.

The World War II generation was a liberal generation, per se. Those liberal values that motivated this country during WWII also proceeded to vault the U.S. to forefront of world hope after the war, IMO.

You are failing to address the hypocracy I pointed out when it comes to freedom of speech. Was that by design?

BIG_DADDY
06-29-2006, 02:39 PM
Still waiting for an answer pen

penchief
06-29-2006, 06:48 PM
Still waiting for an answer pen

I don't know what answer you're looking for. I still don't know what your point is. I tried connecting to your article but it's not working for me. As far as the excerpt you quoted goes, it sounds like whoever wrote that is trying to say something. Doesn't mean his premise is correct.

Where's the hypocricy? Spell it out for me. Maybe I'll agree with you but I'll have to understand exactly what you're trying to get at. Sorry.

listopencil
06-29-2006, 09:49 PM
That would constitute assault as well. Sorry. Has anyone here actually seen someone burn a flag in public?


No one's been stupid enough to burn a flag around me yet.

listopencil
06-29-2006, 09:54 PM
The World War II generation was a liberal generation, per se. Those liberal values that motivated this country during WWII also proceeded to vault the U.S. to forefront of world hope after the war, IMO.


It's difficult to describe that generation as "Liberal" or "Conservative" because the terms have been so used and abused. I consider myself truly Conservative and I have a lot in common with many people of that generation.

go bowe
06-29-2006, 10:10 PM
Interesting, you support those who would burn the flag in judgement but do not support the rights of those that serve and protect our country to same right. :hmmm:

You feel more sorrow for those that die randomly than those who died in service and provide you with the very freedom you use to post your hippy ass peacenik BS.

Nice for you to finally show us what your really about.man, you guys are sure hard on hippies...

now, anything that's been called that since the late sixties and early seventies is not a hippie...

a genuine hippie was not interested in politics, but was enamored of navel-gazing...

and sex, drugs, and rock and roll, baby...

hippies were the flower children, not the activists who fought with the police at the dem national convention in chicago in '68...

hippies were gentle people (as long as they were getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll, of course)...

not the crazed wild men and women of the anti-war movement...

just because they looked a lot alike, people have this bad opinion of hippies that isn't justified...

we were just a bunch of naive kids having a ball...

all those other nutjobs and such were not hippies...

(i was there...)

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 11:10 AM
I don't know what answer you're looking for. I still don't know what your point is. I tried connecting to your article but it's not working for me. As far as the excerpt you quoted goes, it sounds like whoever wrote that is trying to say something. Doesn't mean his premise is correct.

Where's the hypocricy? Spell it out for me. Maybe I'll agree with you but I'll have to understand exactly what you're trying to get at. Sorry.

I have spelled it out and so has the article which is written for the sole purpose of describing this hypocrisy. If you want to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room go ahead. You say democrats are for free speech but when they want to limit free speech they just label it hate speech and try to pass legislation that punishes said hate speech. Like anything could be more hateful than burning the flag in front of people with generations of families who have served it. "Democrats are for free speech" is just a catch phrase the party uses to try to make itself look riteous when in fact they are only for it if it fits into their agenda.

Mr. Laz
06-30-2006, 11:12 AM
[I].
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142993

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 11:12 AM
man, you guys are sure hard on hippies...

now, anything that's been called that since the late sixties and early seventies is not a hippie...

a genuine hippie was not interested in politics, but was enamored of navel-gazing...

and sex, drugs, and rock and roll, baby...

hippies were the flower children, not the activists who fought with the police at the dem national convention in chicago in '68...

hippies were gentle people (as long as they were getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll, of course)...

not the crazed wild men and women of the anti-war movement...

just because they looked a lot alike, people have this bad opinion of hippies that isn't justified...

we were just a bunch of naive kids having a ball...

all those other nutjobs and such were not hippies...

(i was there...)

Ok I'll take your word for it hippy. Dave Lane is a nutjob, better?

Baby Lee
06-30-2006, 11:20 AM
man, you guys are sure hard on hippies...
(i was there...)
That last little ellipse might be why.

Ooohh, there was once this magical time of love and peace that you'll never understand, but I do . . . I do because I WAS THERE.

j/k witcha. Actually people are, to my view, hard on hippies because it's easy and fun. They're a little feral, a little musky, a little out there, and EASY GOING, so you can get all 'Great Santini' on them and vent your general frustrations on society, and it slides of their back with a stoned "whatever, man. . . "

mlyonsd
06-30-2006, 11:22 AM
man, you guys are sure hard on hippies...

now, anything that's been called that since the late sixties and early seventies is not a hippie...

a genuine hippie was not interested in politics, but was enamored of navel-gazing...

and sex, drugs, and rock and roll, baby...

hippies were the flower children, not the activists who fought with the police at the dem national convention in chicago in '68...

hippies were gentle people (as long as they were getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll, of course)...

not the crazed wild men and women of the anti-war movement...

just because they looked a lot alike, people have this bad opinion of hippies that isn't justified...

we were just a bunch of naive kids having a ball...

all those other nutjobs and such were not hippies...

(i was there...)

Did you make it to San Fransisco during the 60's?

If not you're just a hippee wannabe.

Radar Chief
06-30-2006, 11:27 AM
man, you guys are sure hard on hippies...

now, anything that's been called that since the late sixties and early seventies is not a hippie...

a genuine hippie was not interested in politics, but was enamored of navel-gazing...

and sex, drugs, and rock and roll, baby...

hippies were the flower children, not the activists who fought with the police at the dem national convention in chicago in '68...

hippies were gentle people (as long as they were getting enough sex, drugs and rock and roll, of course)...

not the crazed wild men and women of the anti-war movement...

just because they looked a lot alike, people have this bad opinion of hippies that isn't justified...

we were just a bunch of naive kids having a ball...

all those other nutjobs and such were not hippies...

(i was there...)

Groovy, dude.

htismaqe
06-30-2006, 11:59 AM
http://www.the-earchives.com/scripts/download.asp?id=5108

penchief
06-30-2006, 12:01 PM
I have spelled it out and so has the article which is written for the sole purpose of describing this hypocrisy. If you want to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room go ahead. You say democrats are for free speech but when they want to limit free speech they just label it hate speech and try to pass legislation that punishes said hate speech. Like anything could be more hateful than burning the flag in front of people with generations of families who have served it. "Democrats are for free speech" is just a catch phrase the party uses to try to make itself look riteous when in fact they are only for it if it fits into their agenda.

First off, I've told you repeatedly that the link doesn't work for me.

Secondly, you've never heard me criticize someone for speaking their mind. Although I am very opinionated I believe I have shown respect for others who have different opinions. I don't believe I advocate hypocricy when I advocate freedom of speech. I believe that free speech applies to everyone equally. And that includes extremists on both ends of the spectrum. That's the only way it's going to work.

I agree with you about the hate speech part. People should be allowed to express their hate even if it is misguided or ignorant (racism, etc.).

If you are for freedom of speech (even unpopular speech), then you and I agree. If the giste of the article you posted suggests that "political correctness," when gone amuck can stifle free speech I'd have to agree with that, too. I'm not a fan of politically correct speech. I am a fan of common courtesy and respect, though.

It seems to me that people are equipped with the mental capacity to communicate ideas and differences without resorting to offensive language or petty behavior. There are times when I am offended enough to speak against what is being said but that doesn't mean I'm speaking out against the right to express that type of language. There's a difference, IMO.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 12:03 PM
If the flag amendment does eventually pass, I'm curious to see how biblical Christians will view it. Will they side with their patriotic side, and cheer the amendment? Or will they side with their biblicist side and condemn it as idolatry?

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 12:06 PM
"Democrats are for free speech" is just a catch phrase the party uses to try to make itself look riteous when in fact they are only for it if it fits into their agenda.
I agree. It's also equally true of the Republicans. I've heard both parties claim they are all about free speech, but only when it fits their respective agendas. Both are equally willing to censor or condemn free speech when it opposes them.

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 12:12 PM
I agree. It's also equally true of the Republicans. I've heard both parties claim they are all about free speech, but only when it fits their respective agendas. Both are equally willing to censor or condemn free speech when it opposes them.

I agree it was just in this case it was the Dems chanting they were for free speech. The Dems are actually the worst offenders though as the article I posted points out. That's coming from the very liberal SF Chronical too.

Nightwish
06-30-2006, 12:26 PM
I think both parties, especially the Dems, would do themselves a great service by losing the free speech rhetoric altogether.

BIG_DADDY
06-30-2006, 12:33 PM
I think both parties, especially the Dems, would do themselves a great service by losing the free speech rhetoric altogether.
ROFL Absolutely. The funny thing is Pen still fails to see the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Those are some pretty tainted shades he is looking at the world through.

It's gotta be tough when you only run with the party line though.

penchief
06-30-2006, 04:42 PM
ROFL Absolutely. The funny thing is Pen still fails to see the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Those are some pretty tainted shades he is looking at the world through.

It's gotta be tough when you only run with the party line though.

You keep talking about an 800 pound gorilla that has nothing to do with me. You didn't respond to my response. I told you where I agreed with you and I told you where I didn't.

Why do so many people on this board ignore what a person actually says just so they can twist words to support their own point?