The W
Views: 95547108
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.4.14 1120
The W - Current Events & Politics - Flag Amendment Coming Soon
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.53
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(716 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (51 total)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 26 min.
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
It's almost time for the yearly hullabaloo over whether or not to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. According to this article (news.yahoo.com) the vote looks to be very close in the Senate this year.

While personally I think this is absolutely ludicrous, as a political observer with an obvious party leaning, I hope the Dems decide to abandon opposition to this and support it unanimously. I know it won't happen, but it would be really nice to defuse this issue. Eventually we're going to lose this one, as it's a case where the will of DC is different than the country (63% oppose the amendment), so why give the GOP one more reason to bash the Dems in crucial states? Fight on different ground I say.

(edited by spf on 15.6.05 0945)


Promote this thread!
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 911 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
It's sad that 63% of the country is against the amendment, yet our legislators are working on one anyway. I mean, if most of the country was FOR this obvious narrowing of free speech, so be it. But as it stands, this (Congress working on something the majority of Americans don't want) is a prime example money and time wasted.

Aren't there more pressing concerns that have public support?



(edited by DrOp on 15.6.05 1233)


DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02
    Originally posted by DrOp
    It's sad that 63% of the country is against the amendment, yet our legislators are working on one anyway. I mean, if most of the country was FOR this obvious narrowing of free speech, so be it. But as it stands, this (Congress working on something the majority of Americans don't want) is a prime example money and time wasted.

    Aren't there more pressing concerns that have public support?



    (edited by DrOp on 15.6.05 1233)


You and spf have to read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" to help you understand this stuff. It's out in paperback now and well worth the read.



Perception is reality
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 57 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
From the linked article:


    Still, "it's important that we venerate the national symbol of our country," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the amendment's chief sponsor.


Why?

Seriously. WHY is this important?

If Orrin Hatch holds his flag in deep respect and treats it delicately and solemnly, that's his business. Why does it matter to him at all how I handle mine, let alone SO MUCH SO that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to "defend" it? If I choose to burn a flag, whether as a political statement or to keep warm at night, why does my choice of actions frighten Hatch and his ilk so much?

Patriotism is annoying enough when people aren't seeking to make it mandatory.






Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 5 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
God bless the men of 2nd Bn, 127th Inf, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army Nat'l Guard...good luck, and come home soon.

    Originally posted by vsp
    Patriotism is annoying enough...


Wow...that may be the most disgusting statement I've ever seen. Our dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines since 1776 thank you very much, I'm sure.

But as much as it hurts me to say this...

    Originally posted by Gene Policinski, exec. dir. of Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Nashville, TN...from the Yahoo! News article
    "Many Americans consider it the ultimate test of a free society to permit the insult or even desecration of one of the great symbols of the nation."


...this guy is correct. We're going against our own principles if we make it illegal. This is one of those cases where what you heart tells you is the right thing to do may not be the legal thing to do.

Although, on the rare chance I run into a flag-burning demonstration, I'm going to jail for sure...after employing a fire extinguisher, shall we say, creatively.





Rebecca Louise Ross
1947-2005
R.I.P., Mom...

www.pancreatic.org

drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.41
    Originally posted by The Thrill
      Originally posted by vsp
      Patriotism is annoying enough...


    Wow...that may be the most disgusting statement I've ever seen. Our dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines since 1776 thank you very much, I'm sure.


I got the sense that he was referring to beat-you-over-the-head commercialized "patriotism", not a genuine love for country. The type of people who think it's enough to slap a "Support Our Troops" ribbon magnet or flag decal on their car.



You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"I'll understand if you all just threw up in your mouths reading that..." (Reverend J Shaft)

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
    Originally posted by drjayphd
      Originally posted by The Thrill
        Originally posted by vsp
        Patriotism is annoying enough...


      Wow...that may be the most disgusting statement I've ever seen. Our dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines since 1776 thank you very much, I'm sure.


    I got the sense that he was referring to beat-you-over-the-head commercialized "patriotism", not a genuine love for country. The type of people who think it's enough to slap a "Support Our Troops" ribbon magnet or flag decal on their car.


Perhaps jingoism would be a more proper term for what he meant.

And instead of worrying about flag burners, how about all these "patriots" with ratty tattered flags on their cares and houses showing proper respect?



Perception is reality
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 57 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Wow...that may be the most disgusting statement I've ever seen. Our dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines since 1776 thank you very much, I'm sure.


I do my best.

Rabid patriotism is like sports-team fanaticism. At the Olympics and similar sporting events, I find it to be quite appropriate, but much less so in everyday life or in matters of import.

Respect is not arbitrarily given to a symbol of _anything_; respect is earned. And, yes, there are millions of dead American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, inventors, entrepreneurs, politicians, statesmen, writers, performers, athletes, and people of other professions who have earned much respect throughout America's history. I salute those people and their accomplishments. The fact that they lived in one particular land mass divided off from other land masses by arbitrarily-drawn boundaries and/or water doesn't excite me all that much; what they _did_ and how they lived (or died) does.

If you look at what our country, our government and our citizens stand for, believe and do and find that worthy of continued respect, that's your call. As much as I play devil's advocate, I agree that much of it is, and that we have it much better off in America than almost anywhere else in the world in many respects. Being proud of one's fellow citizens' accomplishments isn't irrational.

Being proud of one's country _for no other reason than because you live there_ is. Saying things like "My country, right or wrong" or "Love it or leave it" is. Demeaning others who hold different opinions about the country, or who react to it or its symbols in a different way is.

And when the GOVERNMENT and LAW get involved and start trying to make particular interpretations of patriotism mandatory, it's even more distasteful. Don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about this country, or how I'm supposed to react to its traditional ceremonies and symbols. Don't tell me that I _have to_ rise for the National Anthem, or that I _have to_ recite a loyalty oath before my school day begins, or that I _have to_ treat a particularly-colored piece of cloth differently than I would any other piece of cloth.

If this country and its leaders are worthy of that respect and act accordingly, I will _want to_ do all that and more.


(edited by vsp on 15.6.05 1638)

Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
Jim Smith
Goetta








Since: 17.10.04
From: Bloomington, IL

Since last post: 2109 days
Last activity: 1541 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.77
    Originally posted by spf
    While personally I think this is absolutely ludicrous, as a political observer with an obvious party leaning, I hope the Dems decide to abandon opposition to this and support it unanimously. I know it won't happen, but it would be really nice to defuse this issue. Eventually we're going to lose this one, as it's a case where the will of DC is different than the country (63% oppose the amendment), so why give the GOP one more reason to bash the Dems in crucial states?


If 63% of Americans oppose the amendment, how can the GOP bash the Dems on this? "Don't vote for Joe Liberal, he had the audacity to agree with you on flag-burning!"

Odd take on this issue--how come the right is so obsessed with a) recognizing Christianity as the foundation of our government and b) banning the desecration of symbols of our government, but has never taken this to the logical conclusion and tried to c) ban the descration of Christian symbols? Not that I want them to, but I find it odd that they don't seem to care. Americans freak out if you burn a flag regardless of why, but the last thing that bothers Christians about the KKK is that they burn crosses.

I've always found this double standard odd, ever since I realized that it's taboo to let the US flag touch the ground, but I can leave my Bible lying around anywhere without reproach. If God doesn't care what you do with his stuff, why should the Founding Fathers be any more uptight?
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.60
I wonder how accurate that poll really is? It would seem obvious to me that if this actually passes, apparently at least the politicians think the wind is blowing a different way than this poll would indicate (at least among likely voters).

Also, given that this thing has to be ratified by individual states, I would think this type of national poll is about as useful as a national poll for Presidential elections, as in not very. It seems that a state-by-state poll would be more informative.

Of course, I think this type of amendment is "ludicrous" as spf said. I wonder what it would say about our country if, as tough as it is to add amendments to the Constitution, THIS is one that actually goes through?



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 57 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by ges7184
    I wonder how accurate that poll really is? It would seem obvious to me that if this actually passes, apparently at least the politicians think the wind is blowing a different way than this poll would indicate (at least among likely voters).


One can be opposed to flag-burning in and of itself and still oppose a Constitutional Amendment banning it. I don't like the Designated Hitter in baseball, but I don't want the Constitution amended to get rid of it. Save that process for matters that are actually, y'know, _meaningful_.



Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 289 days
Last activity: 289 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.27
We seem to be forgetting a small step in terms of Article V:

Ratification by the Legislatures or Conventions of 3/4 of all states. That means 38 of 50. If this were to get the 2/3 in each House, it would still need to get ratified by several "Blue States". Hell, the ERA got the 2/3, but it never got the needed 3/4 and died on the vine. State Government being used to counterbalance Federal Government, what an interesting concept.
And, on the 63%: Can the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center provide what model they used in getting their numbers? Polling data from one place has almost as much credibility as exit polls have had the past 3 November elections.

(edited by redsoxnation on 15.6.05 2245)
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2651 days
Last activity: 2379 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.76
    Originally posted by vsp
    If Orrin Hatch holds his flag in deep respect and treats it delicately and solemnly, that's his business. Why does it matter to him at all how I handle mine, let alone SO MUCH SO that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to "defend" it? If I choose to burn a flag, whether as a political statement or to keep warm at night, why does my choice of actions frighten Hatch and his ilk so much?


That is a pretty generic argument that can be used to justify just about anything. After all, why should lawmakers care what you do? It's not like its their job.

I don't know why Senator Hatch personally feels that there should be a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, but I imagine that he feels that it symbolizes everything America stands for and should therefore be respected. I would imagine that he feels the idea that burning a flag qualifies as speech is a ridiculous one. Of course, I can't speak for the Senator.


    Patriotism is annoying enough when people aren't seeking to make it mandatory.



    And when the GOVERNMENT and LAW get involved and start trying to make particular interpretations of patriotism mandatory, it's even more distasteful. Don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel about this country, or how I'm supposed to react to its traditional ceremonies and symbols. Don't tell me that I _have to_ rise for the National Anthem, or that I _have to_ recite a loyalty oath before my school day begins, or that I _have to_ treat a particularly-colored piece of cloth differently than I would any other piece of cloth.


No one is making patriotism mandatory. Burning the flag is clearly unpatriotic, but that does not mean that its opposite, not burning the flag, IS patriotic. If lawmakers said that every American must fly the flag on the outside of their home, THAT would be enforcing patriotism. This is not.

And aside from that, no one is telling you how to react to anything. No one is forcing you to do anything, either. The only thing such an amendment would do is restrict people from showing egregious disrespect to the most recognized symbol of our nation.


    Being proud of one's country _for no other reason than because you live there_ is. Saying things like "My country, right or wrong" or "Love it or leave it" is. Demeaning others who hold different opinions about the country, or who react to it or its symbols in a different way is.


Again, it's not a matter of making anyone be proud of anything or feel a certain way. You and I can agree or disagree about the direction that we want America to go, but I would think (and I may be wrong) that when it comes down to it, we are proud to live in America. Not because it is a land mass with "arbitrary" boundaries, but because of the principles that it was founded on: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And if you (not you personally) aren't, at some very basic level, proud and respectful of that, then you SHOULD leave. Not because I or anyone else can't stand the idea that people who don't like this country live here, but because it will probably make you feel better in the long run. If you don't like it here, then why stay?

And why is it irrational for a person to think differently of a person who doesn't like America and what it stands for? Why does it make me irrational if I think that people that reap the benefits of living here should show respect to the symbol of our nation?


    One can be opposed to flag-burning in and of itself and still oppose a Constitutional Amendment banning it. I don't like the Designated Hitter in baseball, but I don't want the Constitution amended to get rid of it. Save that process for matters that are actually, y'know, _meaningful_.


Like Congressional pay raises?

If a Bill jumps through all of the hurdles that it needs to actually become an amendment, then I'd say that it must be pretty damn important to a lot of people, whether its opponents think so or not.

Jim Smith
Goetta








Since: 17.10.04
From: Bloomington, IL

Since last post: 2109 days
Last activity: 1541 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.95
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by vsp
      If Orrin Hatch holds his flag in deep respect and treats it delicately and solemnly, that's his business. Why does it matter to him at all how I handle mine, let alone SO MUCH SO that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to "defend" it? If I choose to burn a flag, whether as a political statement or to keep warm at night, why does my choice of actions frighten Hatch and his ilk so much?


    That is a pretty generic argument that can be used to justify just about anything. After all, why should lawmakers care what you do? It's not like its their job.



Uh, yeah, that's the point. Just because the arugment can justify a lot of civil liberties doesn't mean it's a bad argument. Why should lawmakers care about things that don't hurt anyone?

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I don't know why Senator Hatch personally feels that there should be a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, but I imagine that he feels that it symbolizes everything America stands for and should therefore be respected.


But how does an constitutional amendment guarantee respect? Respect, as has been stated in this thread, is earned. You can't make someone respect anything through legislation. Senator Hatch may as well lobby for a bill requiring all Americans to believe he's a wonderful guy.

Which problem are we dealing with here--that people are burning flags, or that flagburners don't respect the USA? If it's the former, an amendment would fix that up fine. If it's the latter, the amendment will do no good, because the flagburners will find something else to do. They'll burn effigies of the Statue of Liberty, and Congress can outlaw that. They'll draw up "AMERICA SUCKS" on posterboard, and Congress can outlaw that. But none of it will cause people to say "Hey, my inability to display my displeasure with America has convinced me that America is the best! U-S-A! U-S-A!"

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I would imagine that he feels the idea that burning a flag qualifies as speech is a ridiculous one.


"Freedom of speech" is a broad term used to describe all forms of freedom of expression. Burning a country's flag to express your disapproval of that country's actions is an expression. Arguing that flag burning isn't covered by the First Amendment because it's not a form of speech is extremely specious reasoning.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    No one is making patriotism mandatory. Burning the flag is clearly unpatriotic, but that does not mean that its opposite, not burning the flag, IS patriotic. If lawmakers said that every American must fly the flag on the outside of their home, THAT would be enforcing patriotism.


But is forbidding unpatriotic displays any better than mandating patriotic displays? Is "You can't do that" somehow better than "You have to do this"? Either way, freedom is restricted--not because it might harm someone or deny someone their freedoms, but because someone might not like what you choose to do. That, in my mind, is a silly reason to restrict any freedom.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    You and I can agree or disagree about the direction that we want America to go, but I would think (and I may be wrong) that when it comes down to it, we are proud to live in America. Not because it is a land mass with "arbitrary" boundaries, but because of the principles that it was founded on: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


And these principles would mean nothing, if we sacrificed them to glorify the symbols that represent them. How backwards would it be to abandon actual liberty for the sake of a representation of liberty?

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    And if you (not you personally) aren't, at some very basic level, proud and respectful of that, then you SHOULD leave. Not because I or anyone else can't stand the idea that people who don't like this country live here, but because it will probably make you feel better in the long run. If you don't like it here, then why stay?


To fix the problem. Every single protester in the history of America has had the chance to leave and avoid the cause of their grievances, but instead chose to stay and do something about it. That's the way it works. If people just up and quit every time they weren't 100% satisfied with the US, there'd be no one left.

I don't personally know any flag-burners, but I'd venture to guess that the message they mean to convey is not "America is irredeemably flawed and we wish we weren't here." If that were the case then I too would recommend just leaving. Instead, I think the message is "America has pulled some huge boners and has lost our respect, and we want everyone to notice that so we can all work on fixing it."
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 356 days
Last activity: 222 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.16
And some are moronic anarchists with nothing better to do. But as long as these people aren't harming people, it is still their choice to burn property they bought. If they went around destroying public property, that's one thing, but it's their property, no one is getting hurt.

And really, this sort of amendment leads to all sorts of difficulties. If you burn or destroy one of those magnetic things for the car with flags on it, or bumberstickers with a flag on it, is that unpatriotic? Should it be outlawed? Is it just the physical flag?

Should it be illegal to put flags in commercials to sell stuff, which to me is a complete spit in the face of what this country stands for?

The flag is not the most respected symbol of this country for everyone. For me, for example, the sign saying "Bring us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe" means a whole lot more and symbolizes this country so much more then a flag could ever do. The countless kneejerk SUV drivers with flags on their vehicles has cheapened the flag for me. In my opinion, they disrespect the flag more then anyone.



Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 57 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Burning the flag is clearly unpatriotic

To YOU. According to YOUR perspective as to what the flag stands for and what the country stands for.


    And aside from that, no one is telling you how to react to anything. No one is forcing you to do anything, either. The only thing such an amendment would do is restrict people from showing egregious disrespect to the most recognized symbol of our nation.


Did you read this before you posted it?

"No one is forcing you to do anything. The only thing such an amendment would do is force people to refrain from burning flags, because other people view the flag differently and want it held to a higher standard for everyone than other private property."


    You and I can agree or disagree about the direction that we want America to go, but I would think (and I may be wrong) that when it comes down to it, we are proud to live in America. Not because it is a land mass with "arbitrary" boundaries, but because of the principles that it was founded on: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And if you (not you personally) aren't, at some very basic level, proud and respectful of that, then you SHOULD leave. Not because I or anyone else can't stand the idea that people who don't like this country live here, but because it will probably make you feel better in the long run. If you don't like it here, then why stay?


Because it's a lot harder to contribute to returning America to a better path from the OUTSIDE than from within.

Look, let's consider a couple of questions here.

* Is there a pressing national need for this amendment?

How often do you HEAR ABOUT flag-burnings, outside of this specific political context (laws and/or amendments looking to ban the practice?) Are people shooting flaming arrows at the flag at the Mets game on a regular basis? Are roving bands of al-Qaeda operatives invading Arlington National Cemetary and rendering it devoid of the red, white and blue? Is the smoke from flag pyres in America's small towns endangering the health of America's schoolchildren?

It just doesn't HAPPEN often enough to affect the lives of 99.99999% of Americans in any meaningful way.

If someone says "Well, we're at WAR," I reserve the right to throw up, as this amendment proposal is trotted out _every year_ regardless of the state of deployment of our military.

* Is the flag, in and of itself, a sacred object that can only be used and maintained in a particular context?

Hell no. See messenoir's post. Or just run down to your local Wal-Mart and see how much flag-related crap is on the shelf right now. Will the next amendment be to prohibit the flag's use on T-shirts, golf club covers, magnetic ribbons and cocktail napkins, because it's demeaning to Our National Symbol for someone to wipe his hands on an Old Glory napkin?

* Should "showing disrespect" to something be illegal?

Seriously. Is _anything_ so sacred that it should be placed by law above mockery, criticism and/or ironic commentary?

ANYTHING in this world?

Nothing that _I_ can think of qualifies.

All this proposed amendment is is an exercise in the Pigfucker Principle, as popularized by LBJ. (During a heated race in Texas, LBJ pondered running ads claiming that his opponent committed bestiality with his barnyard sows. An aide said "Christ, Lyndon, you can't really believe that the guy's a pigfucker," and LBJ replied "Of course not, but let's make the sonofabitch DENY it.")

It's called "Let's make Democrats, particularly those up for reelection, vote against this amendment, so that we can hammer them with ads in October saying 'This incumbent supports anti-American activities.'" It's a cheap political ploy, old as the hills, and it's far from the last time it'll rear its ugly head.

    Originally posted by ges7184
    I don't disagree with your statement, but I'm not sure I understand what the heck that has to do with my statement.


Only that how the poll is phrased can significantly change its results. "63% oppose a flag amendment" is very different from "63% support flag burning" or "Politicians who endorse flag burning enjoy 63% support." I need to know more about the poll before I give that number credibility, and I strongly suspect that many among that 63% and their representatives alike would prefer for the issue to simply go away.

(edited by vsp on 16.6.05 0925)

Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.60
    Originally posted by vsp
      Originally posted by ges7184
      I wonder how accurate that poll really is? It would seem obvious to me that if this actually passes, apparently at least the politicians think the wind is blowing a different way than this poll would indicate (at least among likely voters).


    One can be opposed to flag-burning in and of itself and still oppose a Constitutional Amendment banning it. I don't like the Designated Hitter in baseball, but I don't want the Constitution amended to get rid of it. Save that process for matters that are actually, y'know, _meaningful_.


I don't disagree with your statement, but I'm not sure I understand what the heck that has to do with my statement.

My point was that in a time where, at least in my opinion, most politicians view their number one job as getting re-elected, and thus spend a good portion of their time pandering for votes, I just don't see two-thirds of a group of politicians voting for an amendment that is unpopular among the voters (with less than 37% support according to the poll). So it would seem to me, at least, that the politicians must have some sort of indications that the amendment has wider support than the poll indicates (ie feel that this will help them get re-elected). So either the poll is inaccurate, or the politicians (who probably have their own polls) have miscalculated.

(Just to use your example, if an amendment actually passed about the DH-rule in baseball, I think it would be indicative that at least those who voted for it at least thought that this amendment would be popular among the voters. That wouldn't make it any less stupid.)

As far as my personal view goes, I thought stating that it was ludicrous would cover it, but to be more clear, I'm against a flag-burning amendment.





The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.86

    A poll released last week by the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Nashville found 63% oppose a flag amendment, up from 53% last year.


Anybody stop to think that a survey conducted by some place called the FREEDOM FORUM FIRST AMMENDMENT CENTER, might lean a bit to the "let them burn it" side of the fence?


As far as Flag burning goes, while I don't agree with it, or for what I personally believe it stands for, I do think that the constitution protects 'speech'. Let them burn it if they so wish. But, dont be suprised if some person who feels it IS unpatriotic to burn a flag kicks the flag burner in the ass. After all, he is only voicing his displeasure with what the flag burner stands for.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 57 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    As far as Flag burning goes, while I don't agree with it, or for what I personally believe it stands for, I do think that the constitution protects 'speech'. Let them burn it if they so wish. But, dont be suprised if some person who feels it IS unpatriotic to burn a flag kicks the flag burner in the ass. After all, he is only voicing his displeasure with what the flag burner stands for.


As long as they have no problem with going to jail for escalating "voicing displeasure" into physical assault, fine by me.

I'm not entitled to kick your ass for waving your flag; you're not entitled to kick mine for treating mine differently. If I'm trying to burn _your_ flag (as in "personal property"), that's another story.



Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.33
If we're going to have an amendment against burning the flag, can it include clauses dealing with those douchebags who felt a jolt of patriotic pride after 9/11 and were compelled to put the flag out in front of their house and HAVEN'T TOUCHED IT SINCE, leaving it to fray and fade and look like crap? Personally, THAT guy offends me a lot more with his not caring than someone trying to make a political statement by burning a flag.

(edited by JayJayDean on 16.6.05 0706)


“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.
I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it."
-- Guru Zim

"Speak English or face admin retribution." -- CRZ

Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 4.53
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Canadian gov't passes bill while Opposition is (literally) caught sleeping
Next thread: Karl Rove makes bold statement
Previous thread: 48 hours to stop the broadcast flag
(716 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
As a teacher, my contract is agreed upon for the next three years. It contains varying salary increases depending on your years of service. I'm getting a raise of about $2000 over each of the next 2 years.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Flag Amendment Coming SoonRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.141 seconds.