Hillary Clinton making Flag Burning a CRIME !

[radio4progressives]

just reported on CNN..

this fascist move is really beyond the pale - of all the things that she wants to appear "moderate" - is to criminalize flag burning.

ok, all you Hillary Clinton supporters - DEFEND THAT MOVE!

[Leilani]

1. co-sponsered with Bennett of Utah!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

103. This is the new definition of "craven"

Howard Fineman tonight on Hardball seemed to think this was a nice strategy of Hillary's to solidify her right wing credentials with little or no cost to her base. W R O N G !!!!!!

Hillary is over as far as I am concerned. And I re-iterate - there are more politicians in this country WITHOUT the name BUSH or CLINTON than those who do carry those monikers. We need fresh faces and new blood to truly unify our country in the future.

[enough already]

138. She has no "right wing credentials"

And now she's lost the progressives. Fineman and Matthews think this is "smart" because they've been in DC too long. They're tone deaf to what real people like us think. She'll win NY, but she's finished nationally. If we nominate her, it will be an electoral disaster of monumental proportions.

[amandabeech]

166. You are so right about everything!

No more dynasties! No more panderers! I just want some relatively progressive candidate with a core and who says what he or she thinks or wants to do.

[Deep13]

2. Do you mean she is supporting a Const. Amendment?

Either way, it is to combat the rash of flag burnings everywhere we go. I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a burning flag. Constitutional Amendments are for truly compelling problems.

[northzax]

5. no, she is doing this in lieu of the Amendment

it's a simply federal law, criminilizing flag burning in certain circumstances.

[papau]

12. Exactly - in lieu of the Amendment. And changable and Court reviewable

But some would rather have locked in stone - no Court Review allowed - Constitutional Amendment.

Why do folks think we can stop a Constitutional Amendment from passing the Senate?

And this is limited - "a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property."

[chicagiana]

73. Those are ALREADY crimes ...

Public endangerment, assault, battery, destruction of property, vandalism.

This is STUPID!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Direct violation of 1st amendment.

"a protestor intimidating any person' - how freaking vague can one get. Why limit it to flag burning. Why not ban all signs that 'any person finds intimidating'? How about a picture of a flag being burned? What part of free speech don't you folks get?

[papau]

115. I agree and expect a Court to reject -but Courts can not reject Amendments

Hillary is doing the smart thing - and folks on DU are not seeing it as smart.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. Supporting odious legislation is not smart.

It is vile and manipulative. The smart thing - heck with that - the RIGHT THING TO DO is to stand up and say that this is wrong, that free speech is protected, that political speech is more protected than any other form of speech, and that burning your own flag is political speech.

I am sick to death of Democratic Politicians so scared of their own beliefs and principles that they feel compelled to support positions that are diametrically opposed to those princples. We don't lose elections because we are too liberal, we lose electiosn because we refuse to stand for anything.

[Deep13]

13. If the amendment was in danger of passing ...

... this could take the wind out of its sails.

Just to be clear, we are against this sort of thing because we do not think the 1st Amendment needs to be modified or restricted and because all political expression, including that which elicits negative gut reactions, is legitimate and necessary. Right?

Oh yeah and look, look, look at the shiney thing!

[Zynx]

26. A law will be struck down by the court.

Even Scalia voted with the majority in Texas v. Johnson.

[radio4progressives]

31. I hope you're right.. and if this law is challenged, and Free Speech wins

I hope that this co-sponsorship isn't forgotten.

it will need to be raised high like a flag) with every appearance she makes fomenting RW propaganda in the future.

campaigning for '08 is she? hah!

she will not win legitimately, only if it's a fixed election, Liebold style.

[iconoclastNYC]

41. DING DING DING

The only Democrat to win the Presidency (in how many years?)...wins in narrow victories.....looses the Congress.....happens to be the most conservative Democratic president ever and in his second term he has a huge scandal that cripples the party.

Makes you wonder.....I'm convinced elections are fixed in this country.

Our country fixes elections over seas, overthrow democratically elected leaders, blockades countries in violation of UN resolutions...all because we're at war! (We've always been at war with Oceania)

I have no confidence in elections here, the Republicans have always had ways to screw with elections. The Diebold innovation just makes the task less labor intensive.

[formernaderite]

123. LOL...the DLC as a secret arm of the repub party

on a more serious note, it is true that the politics of triangulation left the public so confused because the political lines became blurred, that we lost the house and senate. Yea....I blame Clinton.

[radio4progressives]

11. It's apparently a bill not an amendment but still a fascists law.

This is a report on CNN just now, i haven't found an press piece on this yet..

[chicagiana]

72. They're for stirring up the rubes ...

And it's about time the Democrats learn that this can be used to their benefit.

Introduce a privacy amendment that takes care of the government in our private affairs AND in private medical decisions (like abortions).

Introduce a human dignity amendment that SPECIFICALLY overturns the farsical notion that corporations are human beings.

Introduce a "Corruptive Influence" amendemdment that would allow congress to introduce sweeping campaign funding reforms.

Introduce a "Fair Representation" amendment that would peg the number of representatives to a number of constituents. This would allow the House to grow to over a 1000 individuals. The net effect would be to reduce the amount of money needed to run for congress, reduce the effect of gerry-mandering, and increase access to each persons elected representative. In addition the amendment would increase the number of Senators per state to 3 so that a state electorate can exercise their opinion in EACH election cycle. Washington DC would be alloted proportional representation in the house and a single US Senator. I would make the #2 finisher in the presidential election into a special 4 year Senator. Dissent is ALWAYS a good thing.

[itzamirakul]

139. I must be in a complete vacuumn because I haven't been hearing about

these flag burnings. That's why the Hillary thing seemed so unnecessary to me.

I watch the news boradcasts everyday, several times a day but I haven't seen a thing nor have I read anything.

Where are the burnings going on and what groups are doing it?

[tavalon]

155. You're not in a vacuum

They don't happen. This is a non issue, like the whole Christmas bullshitarama.

[tavalon]

152. You too!

Man, that flag burning sure is getting out of hand, isn't it? :eyes:

[murray hill farm]

3. this move did me in on hillary

..but it was getting more and more difficult to maintain any support for her for a while now.

[northzax]

4. now to be perfectly fair

the bill in question bans the burning of the flag as a method of intimidation, a hate crime, bans the burning of someone else's flag (which is already a state misdemeanor, right?) and the desecration of the flag on US government property. I go with the first two, but the last is just silly.

[chicagiana]

74. The correct response ...

The correct response is to point out that the flag is not a material object, it is a symbol. You cannot BURN a symbol. It's something that exists in people's mind.

Quite literally, people who are against flag burning have no respect for the strength and resiliency of the US flag. People who introduce flag burning amendments weaken our nation.

[tavalon]

154. I'm not sure I would go that far

I think what weakens our nation is things like starting wars of aggression using some stupid ass concept like pre-emptive war. However, I do think it makes Hillary look like a lame ass fool, something she's been doing a lot lately. I wonder if she's getting her plays from the Lieberman book on how to win over the right wingers and look like one at the same time.

Hey, there's an idea, let's solidify the fascists control and run H. Clinton/Lieberman as our candidates for '08. :woohoo: :eyes: :woohoo:

[leveymg]

6. In which Party is she going to run for President?

Even the fricking SCOTUS has said that the Constitution protects stupid political speech.

[leftstreet]

20. Not OUR Party!

A 1995 Gallup Poll found that 62% of Americans would like to see a third party. The DLC needs to go start one. Give the Dem Party BACK to labor.

[formernaderite]

124. I think they've already stolen it....

maybe it's time for more of you guys to move to a third way. We Greens are open minded.

[paulk]

172. just a thought on "labor"

I worked a blue collar job for over twenty years - a union job - you know, the "labor" that the Democrats are supposed to get back... and every single one of those people I worked with would get pretty incensed at the idea of people burning American flags... not that I shared that feeling... BUT - people like you - the far left, the third party types, etc., flat out don't know what the FUCK you're talking about when it comes to the real world of why people vote the way they do...

And not one of them would have known what the DLC was or cared about it if they did, either...


ed for punctuation

[grateful581]

7. Is flag burning really a problem in the US?

all the US flag burning I see is overseas. There has to be better issues for the Senate to work on.

[Deep13]

15. Oh yeah, it's everywhere.

I'm burning one right now.

[appal_jack]

34. like yer sig Deep13!!! (nt)

[Johnny Noshoes]

50. Found this the other day.

It was two blocks from Madison Sq Garden.

[tavalon]

156. LOL

I love your sig line.

[gulfcoastliberal]

8. Unreal

I think she'd be better off switching parties nd trying to moderate the repukes. Because she mkes a lousy dem - voting in favor of CAFTA and the bankruptcy "reform" bill showed her sympathy to the American worker. Which, like the repukes, is none. Even Bill vetoed that piece of repuke heartless garbage.

[Deep13]

19. ditto to that

Both of those measures sucked ass. You think we wouldda learned after NAFTA.

[AZBlue]

9. Why do you want to see our flag burned? Specific instances only covered.

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

What's wrong with these restrictions?

[radio4progressives]

14. it's not about what i want to see, it's about the principle of free speech

sheesh!

[AZBlue]

21. Under that logic you should be able to kill a public official if you don't

agree with their policies. Or bomb a corporation if you got turned down for a job. You're just expressing your free speech, right?

[radio4progressives]

28. Excuse me? Flag Burning isn't Destroying other Peoples Property or Killing

a human being. give me a fucking break on this lame ass response.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

18. Actually, the first two are probably banned under state law.

The last is probably banned already under a Fed. arson statute. This really is not anywhere near as bad as the Amendment the Rs try to push through anytime they get into trouble. This symbolic gesture could kill the anti-1st Amend. effort.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

22. For one thing, all of Washington DC is "federal Property"

so that makes it a crime to do it there.

Not enough of a problem?

Can you prove that flag belongs to you? You have a sales receipt or a chain of custody?

What if someone claims you burned their flag... who are the cops gonna believe?

[AZBlue]

29. Um, no it's not.

Secondly, proof would follow along the same lines of someone claiming you stole their TV or stereo. Or should we eliminate that law too?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

49. Sadly, yes, Washington District of Columbia is

ALL under federal jurisdiction, and any public place would be considered federal property.

[MrBenchley]

24. Worth noting

that about the only thing that could lift Republican approval is for some so-called "Democrats" to run around burning flags...or even lamer, threatening to.

[Zynx]

27. It is symbolic political speech which is protected WITHOUT exception.

[AZBlue]

30. That's just your definition of it.

[Zynx]

93. That's the Supreme Court's definition of it.

And it is also the opinion of virtually every constitutional expert who matters.

[Realityhack]

55. easy

intimidating any person by burning the flag - Serious intimidation is already illegal. This is just designed as a loophole to intimidate those using flag burning as a protest action.

lighting someone else's flag - Already illegal. Why the fuck would we need another law about that?

desecrating the flag on federal property - No protest on federal property? Thats rediculus.

[leesa]

136. It's a non-issue. It's a non-existent issue put out by propagandists

and you bought into it.

It is nonsense legislation.

[Nordmadr]

157. Intimindating someone by burning the flag

is very vague and leaves it open to some uneven enforcement or abuse of enforcement. It is already illegal to burn someone elses flag, it's called vandalism. On federal property? So your standing at a protest outside of some federal building with your burnng flag...arrested. Federal government owns lots of property.

Olaf

[spaniard]

10. Will Kucinich back it?

[wyldwolf]

16. hmm. Good question.

[radio4progressives]

17. LAME QUESTION n/t

[wyldwolf]

32. Why? He supported a constitutional amendment banning it.

Didn't you know?

And this isn't even a constitutional amendment.

[radio4progressives]

35. If true, that would be a stunning departure from his progressive positions

it's hard to believe that he would have done that. And if he did, it's not widely known - i'll want to see his rationalization behind it, it just doesn't square with his civil libertarian values.

[wyldwolf]

37. 'tis true. And it is widely known

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dennis+Kucinich+flag+burning

[bornskeptic]

46. Actually, he flip-flopped.

He voted for it(2003)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll234.xml
before he voted against it(2005).
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll296.xml

[spaniard]

48. like his stance on a woman's right to choose?

[radio4progressives]

52. LOL! Wonder what made the difference?

Kucinich was my 'man' in the primaries, and i didn't know about this vote - i did know about his positions on the war, the patriotic act, universal healthcare and education among other things i care about.

Had I known about his position on the flag, i would have sought his explanation and probably let him know that any vote to ban flag burning is antithetical to his strong civil libertarian principles.

Looks like someone pursuaded him.

[Idioteque]

122. Sherrod Brown did the same...

...I guess the Ohio guys got together and decided that a constitutional ban is stupid. We shouldn't attack people for flip-flopping to the right side of an issue.

[SaveElmer]

58. He did...and he was anti-choice at one point as well...

He changed his position on that one...guess that would make him a flip-flopper eh?

[Imalittleteapot]

23. The crime will be if Hillary gets the nomination. n/t

[election_2004]

181. Well said

The MSM whores will have succeeded in slamming the final nail on any semblence of democracy in this society.

[Zynx]

25. To hell with her. I knew she would do something crass and rightwing

for 2008, but I didn't know she would go that far.

[Einstein99]

33. This cinches it for me

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll just stay home on election day.

[wyldwolf]

38. Hey! Dennis Kucinich and Wes Clark support a constitutional amendment...

...banning the burning of the flag.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/11/national1729EST0649.DTL

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dennis+Kucinich+flag+burning

..unless, of course, they've changed their minds.

And what Hillary supports isn't a constitutional amendment.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Here's an important difference for me

When Kucinich and Clark expressed their opinions, both men knew damn well that their positions would not be popular with the left leaning Democratic base that votes in primaries. And they were right. It was perhaps the only position Clark took that I strongly disagreed with, though I understood where he was coming from and why. With Clark I knew it was an unpopular but principled stance that he took which, if anything, would hurt his chance to win the Democratic nomination. I assume the same is true for Kucinich.

I can't say for a fact regarding Hillary, but I am suspicious that this is part of her wanting to shake off her image as being a "Liberal" to make her more acceptable to middle of the road and Republican voters. That's just an opinion, but it's mine.

[wyldwolf]

47. It may be an opinion, but it's also a justification

FYI, Kucinich voiced his support for a constitutional amendment long before he ran for president.

...and Hillary voted against making it a constitutional amendment earlier this year.

Dueling quotes:

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer."

Hillary Clinton, July 2005


“I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances... I do believe the flag ought to be protected, I don’t think you should amend the (U.S.) Constitution without a deep purpose. Protecting the flag is certainly a deep purpose, but I don’t believe you can amend the Constitution for that.”

Howard Dean, January 2002

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Justification for an opinion about Hillary?

I'm not completely sure I got where you are coming from on that. Thanks for the information.

[SaveElmer]

62. It probably is...and is a smart move...

Hillary is a ruthless politician, and know's how to play the game...if she can appear more moderate by co-sponsoring this meaningless law, it works for her...good politics if you ask me!

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Hmmm

If I were convinced this was a meaningless law, and if Hillary really needed political cover BADLY, because she was getting raked over the coals for fighting HARD for a full spectrum of meaningful Liberal causes, I might have some sympathy for this type of "playing politics".

[SaveElmer]

66. It is meaningless...

Its application is so narrow I doubt it will ever even get invoked...and outside the DU bubble, Hillary is perceived as a liberal, and when the 2008 campaign rolls around and the Republican slime machine gets cranked up, she will be able to point to votes like these to counter it.

At the same time she has not changed her position on the issues, or taken a position many Democrats haven't already taken. Dean, Kerry I believe, and Hillary, have always said they would support a law banning it, just not a constitutional amendment. She is forcing the media to report this "change" in position, when in reality it is no change at all!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. I know Hillary is perceived as being a Liberal by the general public

But I feel more comfortable with a politician needing to find cover for taking actual Liberal positions rather than perceived Liberal positions. Hillary is running toward the right from close to center because the center thinks she is over toward the left. This doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Rather it feels like the worst of both worlds. Democrats get into trouble when they spend too much time trying to convince Republicans that they have nothing to worry about from them.

Clinton is popular in New York. The Republicans are in disarray here (I live in New York). Actually Hillary is free to move slightly toward the left if the spirit moves her, UNLESS she is concerned with battling popular misconceptions about her elsewhere in country that might get in the way of her becoming President. If that is the case, do we have two more years of her leaning to the Right to look forward to while she works on that image problem?

[SaveElmer]

91. Hillary does have a liberal record...

95 from the ADA, perfect ratings on abortion rights, the environment, and from unions...other than her stand on the war, which is more nuanced than the screeds on this board, she has a solidly liberal record...more than enough fodder for the right wing sleaze machine!!!

And the fact is she is not leaning to the right...she is creating the perception she is leaning that way. This flag burning nonsense is no different than the position she has always taken...she just repackaged it to get the publicity.

[formernaderite]

125. You guys are amazing....

I bet you lost no sleep at all over your win at any cost strategies. Of course that's why the Clintons lost the publics trust....triangulation. Agreeing with everyone, while doing absolutely nothing positive on social issues. Clinton started hammering the nails into our social coffin, when he voted for welfare "what?" reform, and Hillary continued the attack on Americas middle clas with her bankrupcy bill vote.

But who cares...the materialists will continue to shout they're making money!

[purji]

142. Don't forget Money is more important than people.

It's the American way.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Great lets support lots of odious fascist laws

because 'they will never get passed' or 'they will just get ruled unconstitutional' so we can pander to idiots and once again try to be just as vile and stupid as the Republican Party.

Great strategy.

[eridani]

121. In the case of Kucinich--

--he has a brother who is permanently insttitutionalized because of what happened to him in Vietnam. This brother specifically requested sponsoring any and all flag protection measures, and was not interested in any other legislation. That may make the prior support of Kucinich for a flag burning amendment easier to understand, but it's also a great illustration of how leading from your gut makes for really lousy public policy.

[radio4progressives]

168. Interesting about Kucinich's brother lobbying for banning flag burning

I wondered why the blatent contradiction of Kucinich's otherwise very strong civil libertarian positions.

[eridani]

174. "Lobbying" might not be the right word--

--considering that the poor guy is really out of it most of the time. It was the only interest that he has ever expressed in anything that Dennis has done in his entire political career.

[chicagiana]

78. Well there is a strategic issue on this ...

It's actually not such a big deal. A court ruling from a Roberts led course against flag burning could lead to all kinds of nasty rulings against other forms of public discourse.

Specifically banning flag burning in a constitutional amendment separates this ONE issue from other issues of dissent and discourse.

It also neutralizes a lame issue that Republicans bring up before EVERY election and conveniently forget AFTER the election until the next cycle comes around.

If my right to burn a flag was specifically taken away, I would not be all that worried. But if my right to sedition was taken away as part of a ruling against flag burning, I would be really pissed off.

[eridani]

120. Don't know about Clark

Kucinich has, though.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-10

[wiley]

167. Clark does not support American Flag burning

and said so during the primaries. Yet another example of a person who stands up for what he believes. Americans have the right to burn a Torah or The Bible, don't you? Or is that a hate crime? Don't hear much about the "Defense of Marriage Act". Give up on that particular piece of fascism or just don't care because you're not that way....you know, an American citizen who is affected by it?

[SoCalDemocrat]

39. How many flags have you burned lately?

Seriously, if this helps her gain standing with the right for upcomign elections, more power to her.

Personally I think it's a really dumb idea. Besides the right hate her so much there really isn't anything she can do to turn them around. Every day is bash Hillary day in the right wing agenda playbook.

[iconoclastNYC]

54. When was the last time you were tortured?

Oh well if Hillary's new support for torture helps with the right, more power to her.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"

[iconoclastNYC]

40. Hillary makes FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION a Crime

It's not a wide leap from criminalizing the descretation symbol (The FLAG) to criminalizing talking badly about the president at a time of war.

Liberals fight the criminilzation of the burning of the flag because our FREEDOMS are worth defending the symbol.

The FLAG represents our FREEDOM to burn the flag. We must protect our freedom.

FRAMING FRAMING FRAMING.

[IndianaGreen]

44. As President, Hillary will keep Bush's First Amendment zones

and she will continue Bush's practice of surveillance and imprisonment of antiwar activists.

[wyldwolf]

42. hmm.. Howard Dean as well... bit murky, though...

In 2001, the Vermont Legislature passed a resolution voicing support for protecting the flag and suggesting Congress pass a constitutional amendment as an option in providing such protection. Specifically, the resolution urged Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag."

In his final year as governor, Dean supported this measure, despite its vague support for an amendment.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/850.html

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2003/11/clark-and-flag-burning.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040313075622/http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/40830.html


So, now we have Kucinich and Clark supporting an amendment to ban flag burning and Hillary and Dean supporting some sort of action short of an amendment.

[question everything]

45. One would think she'd know that she first has to win the primaries

and then move to the center.

Yet, Bill showed, right before the New Hampshire primaries, that it paid to sign the execution of a mentally retarded person so she figured she can, too.

The difference is. several, actually. During the 1992 primaries, papa Bush still enjoyed a high approval rate, with his Gulf War and any Democrat who was going to go against him was viewed as pathetic and a loony.

Second, we were not as polarized then as we are now. At least, papa Bush was a real Ivy Leaguer who was more moderate and easy going - and therefore was deserted by his rabid flank.

[iconoclastNYC]

56. Maybe she saw what

Her DLC was able to do with DEAN in the primaries.

How far ahead was he in IOWA and NH before the DLC and big media killed him off?

[Voltaire99]

69. She has sold out well in advance, a sign that...

...she and the DLC feel no need whatever of support from progressives.

Fine, then. She sure as hell won't get any.

Let's see if the NASCAR-Kill-Iraqis-Protect-The-Flag vote can carry her into office on a tide of hatred and ignorance.

It'll be an absolute pleasure to vote third party.

[question everything]

87. Always remember. At this time last round, Lieberman

was the front runner for the Democrats.

[stickdog]

53. Why burn the flag when you can burn the Constitution instead?

[Realityhack]

57. Honestly if she is our nominie I may have to boycot the ellection.

Fuck Hillary.

[iconoclastNYC]

59. Yeah I think you might be right.

If the DLC can kill frontrunner dean in the lead up to IOWA they'll probably do the same to whomever the anti-Hillary candidate is.

[paulk]

173. still dragging that moldy old pile of horseshit around?

LOL

[iconoclastNYC]

179. Yeah horseshit. There was no coordinated "anti-Dean" campaign

From the right-wing of our party. That totally didn't happen. THE DLC has no record of bashing liberal DEMS thru the press. If someone tells you that they are a tin-foil hater. And i've got some land in NOLA to sell you.

Corporate america has taken root in our party and is acting against our best interests.

The corporatists know Republicans are going to loose now and then so they are hedging thier bets by trying to turn the Democratic party into the Republican's JV squad.

Pull your head out of the sand.

I'm not saying abbandon the party yet. I'm saying kill the DLC and put the DNC on notice that the base wants the Democratic party to be the people's party and if this is impossible then be prepared for a split in the party.

[paulk]

180. eighteen percent in Iowa

you aren't the base

you aren't the "people"

and instead of conspiracy theory on Dean's meltdown - if the left wants to learn anything - maybe the real reasons for his loss might be useful... the fact is, the majority of Democrats don't support your agenda. Period.

Shrill anti - corporatist rhetoric doesn't play well with the masses - even Dean knows that. Dean's acolytes - people like you - had a lot more to do with Dean's defeat than Dean did.

And next time why don't you pick a real "liberal" to hang your hat on - Dean was and is a centrist. And he would laugh in your face at the "kill the DLC" nonsense...

[iconoclastNYC]

182. SO mean spirited you are.

I think you protest way too much my friend. You are the one being shrill.

And just about evertything you say is wrong. Americans are very distrutful of corporations. Everyone but the DLC interlopers who tell us the path the victory is up the asshole of CEOs.

Nobodies buying that crap anymore and I bet it makes you sad.

[paulk]

183. is that the best you can do?

denigrate me?


you want to know what makes me "sad"?

that two years after the Democratic primary you're still pissing and moaning about it...

that's sad, "my friend".

[onenote]

60. before everyone gets all in a lather about this, consider the following

The "Flag Protection Act" is a bill that is introduced every year. Sometimes, like this year, its even introduced more than once. Among those who have co-sponsored this bill in the past: Sen. Durbin, Sen. Conrad, Sen. Byrd (all of whom voted against the IWR, by the way). Its a sham -- but that's okay. If the repugs want to play politics with the constitution by proposing an utterly unnecessary flag burning amendment, I have no problem with Conrad, Clinton, etc tossing the flag protection legislation back at the repubs as a form of cover. Neither side really wants what they are proposing..the repubs want to keep the issue alive so they can use it in fundraising. The Dems don't want anything to pass.

I don't recall a lot of people screaming about Conrad (and Byrd) when they joined with Bennett to introduce a virtually identical bill in July of this year. If it didn't merit a lot of screaming then, why does it merit so much screaming now?

And I should add that I have lot more trouble with the Democrats who support a constitutional amendment on flag burning than those who play their part in the legislative charade.

onenote

[Minnesota Raindog]

147. There's a BIG difference between Conrad/Byrd's actions and Clinton's

"I don't recall a lot of people screaming about Conrad (and Byrd) when they joined with Bennett to introduce a virtually identical bill in July of this year. If it didn't merit a lot of screaming then, why does it merit so much screaming now?"


Maybe because I don't recall Conrad or Byrd wanting to be the next president of the United States. Fuck the war-mongering senator from New York. She'll be the death knell of the Democrats if she wins the nomination in '08. And we don't need any further erosion of our civil liberties--particularly from Democrats, thank you.

[The Magistrate]

61. It Is A Non-Issue, Ma'am

It is its very triviality and unimportance that commends it to political posturing. People who burn flags are few in number and foolish; people who care that flags are burned are a little larger in number, and just as foolish. Anyone who cares about what a politician says on this matter, certainly anyone who allows it to influence their vote, really ought to excuse themselves from participating in the political process altogether.

[SaveElmer]

64. Right on point...smart political move...

This is a political move to help her position herself more favorably among moderates and independents. This law is meaningless, it has her on record as being opposed to flag burning while still opposing a constitutional amendment for that purpose, and the MSM, who is too lazy to look into things will report that she is supporting a law outlawing flag burning...

This is the kind of bare-knuckle politics it's gonna take to win in 2008, and Hillary is a master of it.

[radio4progressives]

71. If this issue is so trivial, why are flag burning cases constantly brought

to the United States Supreme Court?

They don't seem to dig hearing trivial cases very much. (as a rule)

[Jacobin]

76. Haven't you gotten the memo?

Freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment is 'trivial'

Stay tuned for the next item the government bans you from demonstrating by desecrating.

[The Magistrate]

79. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Are you calling me an agent of the current regime, directed in my comments on matters that strike me as worth notice here by covert direction from that entity...?

[Jacobin]

89. You and I have both been here too long for your question

to be serious.

I simply disagree that restricting the First Amendment to patronize a few RW voters is 'good politics"

[The Magistrate]

95. Still, Sir

The habit of accusing persons who disagree with one's own views of being directed by other, nefarious fellows to do so is a pernicious one, and contrary to the rules of the place. Statements like that are liable to be removed as personal attacks, beinmg a species of accusing a member of being a conservative or a disruptor.

[Jacobin]

96. Pernicious?

I think you are reading a bit too much into my post. As a moderator you are free to delete my post if you feel it was a personal attack. I don't think any fair minded third party would read it that way. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

Why is being against a restriction of the First Amendment such a hot button item on this board?

[The Magistrate]

77. Everyone Needs A Break From Serious Matters, Ma'am

Even the Justices of the Supreme Court....

As an abstract issue of free speech and meaning of the First Amendment, such cases do have some importance, but as actual events, they have no importance at all. They communicate nothing meaningful; they rally no support to the cause in which they are carried out: they are mere acts of self-indulgence carried out by persons who proudly own themselves to be on the outer fringes of political life. The burning of a flag affects nothing at all. Therefore it is of supreme unimportance as an act.

[radio4progressives]

98. To you and others that agree with you, but a flag burning case was just

heard in SCOTUS last week. I didn't pay too close attention to it, heard a little of the back and forth in an audio, but someone brought that case, the SCOTUS thought it important to hear it, (they could have rejected it, right?) I don't know the specifics, but I imagine some sort of decision will be handed down in the next week or so?

we're talking contemporaneously, sir.

[Jacobin]

104. It was held to be unconstitutional in the 1980's. See below

U.S. Supreme Court
TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
491 U.S. 397

TEXAS v. JOHNSON
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No. 88-155.

Argued March 21, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989

During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a State Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.

Held:

Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 402-420.

(a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 402-406.

[radio4progressives]

118. Thanks I read this with great interest, why does the issue keep coming

back to the Supremes?

Answer to my own question: for the same reason why abortion cases keep back?

[onenote]

151. what case -- I've searched and see no sign of a recent SCOTUS flag case

Since you brought it up, I'd like to see some back up. I've searched and I see no evidence that the Supreme's have considered a flag burning case in 15 years.

onenote

[radio4progressives]

171. sorry, i wasn't paying too close attention. it was broadcasting on C-Span

a few days ago..

there were two cases being heard, or rather being broadcast but i was busy with other things and wasn't paying attention. maybe search the C-span archives?

[onenote]

176. it must've been a very old audio

Here's a link to articles about recent supreme court arguments. Typically, audio tapes of arguments are only released at the end of the term. Occasionally exceptions are made. The first such exception this term was the abortion case argument last week. Doesn't look like any case involving flag burning has been argued this term.

onenote

[onenote]

150. Constantly? I'd like to see some evidence

Please provide some back-up for the assertion that flag burning cases are "constantly" brought to the US Supreme Court. I can think of exactly one, 15 years ago.

onenote

[Jacobin]

75. You would have to admit though

That politicians who pander to those who find these trivial things important give us a glimpse into what they are capable of. If the First Amendment and freedom of expression are indeed trivial things....

[The Magistrate]

80. Certainly They Do, Sir

They show in doing so that they understand certain realities of politics. The choice of enemies is, in politics, of even greater importance often than the choice of friends. If a sizeable group can be placated or wooed by offense to a tiny group, and this in a matter of no real importance whatever, no professional will let pass the opportunity to do so.

"Politics ain't bean-bag."

[Jacobin]

90. I question the idea that

Those who would be enamored by a flag burning amendment would support Hillary for that or any other reason.

I live in a bright red state and she could personally wrestle Osama to the ground and handcuff him in a cave in Pakistan on live TV and most people (who she appears to be trying to woo) wouldn't piss on her if she were on fire.

[The Magistrate]

92. There Is Something To That, Sir

But there is some advantage to taking even a little of the edge off a good hate, too. Even just a reduction in the energy an opponent brings to a fight is worth having....

[Jacobin]

97. I see your point. I simply disagree that monkeying with the

First Amendment for cheap political pandering is good use of a candidate for president's time, regardless of the marginal and highly questionable gains that might result.

(running off to find that Ben Franklin quote that is appropos but which I can't even begin to paraphrase.)

on edit:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.

Well, it fits in a round about way

[radio4progressives]

101. This, No matter of real importance, SIR?

politics trumps the Bill of Rights?

(edit typo)

[stickdog]

63. Why burn the flag when you can burn the Constitution instead? (nt)

[Jacobin]

99. LOL. Perfect response

BTW, I googled this up and the Supreme Court has already held that this is protected speech, so Congress is gonna have to do a constitutional amendment, NOT a simple statute to deal with this.

U.S. Supreme Court
TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
491 U.S. 397

TEXAS v. JOHNSON
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No. 88-155.

Argued March 21, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989

During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a State Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.

Held:

Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 402-420.

(a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 402-406.

[IndyOp]

148. Good one!

:kick:

[Voltaire99]

67. There's a cancer on the party, and its name is Hillary.

Pro-war, pro-outsourcing, pro-corporate tax breaks, pro-fascist flag laws....

She's beyond the pale now. We can drop any further discussion of her future and begin working to find a replacement for her.

[killbotfactory]

68. How fucking annoying

Stop it with these goddamned symbolic, meaningless, wedge issues.

[chicagiana]

70. More mush-mouth ...

More mush-mouth moments from "safe, rare and legal Hillary".

Goddam dems, get some fucking balls.

[SaveElmer]

81. Wesley Clark support amendment to ban flag-burning...

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000842.html

According to DU polls anyway, the frontrunner for the nomination in 2008

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. We are having this conversation up thread, about context

Clark was asked at a Town Hall meeting where he spoke during his 2004 Campaign if he would support such an amendment. It wasn't a part of his platform or anything he was planning to address, but true to nature he gave an honest reply of his first reaction. Clark was running mostly to the Left during the primaries, with endorsements from people like Gaylord Nelson, George McGovern, and Michael Moore. His activist base that he was counting on to raise money for him did not like that answer one bit, and he knew it.

Clark explained that the flag holds very deep meaning for him. It was his job in the Army to build cohesion among very diverse soldiers; some middle class, some poor, some White, some Black, some Northern, some Southern, some well educated, some poorly educated etc. He did that under an American flag which he taught belonged equally to each and every one of them. They fought together as a team, and some died, under an American flag; and when soldiers died he personally handed the American flag to many grieving families at funerals held for them. Clark also believes that protests against our government can and should be held with the American flag proudly displayed by dissidents, because to right to protest is deeply American. Clark thinks our nation needs a symbol of what joins us together as a people. The Bill of Rights is part of the fabric of Clark's American Flag.

Maybe it is for Hillary also, but I doubt she has literally bled under the American flag, and watched soldiers die under the American flag. I disagree with Clark on this, but I allow him this difference out of respect.

[ultraist]

119. Yes, Clark does support a Constitutional amdmt to ban flag burning

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/12/clark_backs_a_ban_on_flag_burning/

Clark backs a ban on flag burning

Candidate who praises dissent also defends proposed amendment

By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark, who has repeatedly decried the Bush administration for discouraging dissent, said yesterday he would support a constitutional amendment that outlawed desecration of the American flag.

Clark offered his view in response to a voter's question at an American Legion post in Manchester, on a day when he campaigned at several veterans-related events. It was the first time Clark had voiced a public opinion on the proposed amendment, and it was news to some of his aides -- who quickly said the position was an emotional response.

[SaveElmer]

82. Howard Dean supports law protecting the flag...

<snip
He told the Rutland Herald in January 2002, "I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment…. A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances." He added, "I do believe the flag ought to be protected… I don't think you should amend the Constitution without a deep purpose. Protecting the flag is certainly a deep purpose, but I don't believe you can amend the Constitution for that."

Everyone follow that? Dean supported a resolution encouraging Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary" to protect the flag, plus he insisted that a "deep purpose" is a prerequisite for an amendment and he described flag protection as a "deep purpose." At the same time, he argued that he opposed an amendment.

When asked to reconcile his support for the resolution with his opposition to a constitutional amendment, Dean said, "The resolution was crafted so that people like me could take a position supporting the flag without supporting an amendment." What a courageous stand in support of the Bill of Rights.
<snip>

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/850.html

[Warren Stupidity]

111. Howard Dean is worng for doing so. nt.

[SaveElmer]

83. Dennis Kucinich supports an amendment banning flag burning...

<snip>
He voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, as well as for the resolution calling for an investigation into President Bill Clinton's role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, two stances also not consistent with those of his party.
<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

[Warren Stupidity]

112. Dennis Kucinich is wrong for doing so. nt.

[radio4progressives]

113. He voted in favor before he voted against it. look up the thread...

[SaveElmer]

114. So that would make him a ....

flip flopper...just like on abortion...

But I'm sure he didn't do it for political reasons!!!

[radio4progressives]

126. dunno why he flip flopped - it would make an interesting question in the

next media interview...

oh but wait, it isn't Kucinich that's working on an '08 presidential campaign - it isn't Kucinich whose political career is being scrutinized because of implications these positions would bring to our nation. The media isn't interested in Kucinich because he doesn't factor in the nation's political landscape.

It's Clinton's positions that matter.

[SaveElmer]

129. Do you know Kucinich isn't making another run?

In fact of the two who has actually run...and isn't it a coincidence that the two issues which would get him in the most trouble with liberals(aside from the war) are abortion and flag burning...and which two issues do you suppose he switched on?

Clinton's position on the issue has been consistent if you bother to take a look back. In her ststement voting AGAINST the flag burning amendment she stated she believed that a law that would protect the flag could be crafted that met constitutional muster. She is sticking to that position. I'm not really on board with that, but if it helps position her for the election I will go with it. On a purely political level it is a smart move

[radio4progressives]

130. Political Strategies

I very much doubt if Kucinich is going to toss his hat in again, his numbers in the 2004 primaries were very low in the run up to super tuesday, except for Hawaii if I remember right. Dean always did better than Kucinich if I recall, I would think that would be the benchmark for an anti-war, universal health care platform. I just can't see Kucinich being in play in 2008. If I'm wrong, you can bet that I'll ask him about the flag. I did alreadyt know about his pro-life position. It was an interesting thing to learn about him, but it didn't sway my support for him, because I knew that his pro-life position was very consistant with his anti-death penalty, and anti-war, pro-child care, pro-health care issues. I understand that - he felt very strongly about it - and you know what? I could live with it because it was PRINCIPLED. I might take a different position with regard to a woman's right
to choose, but his position never seemed to me to be threatening for the simple fact that he wasn't basing his political career on that issue. He cares too much for many other important matters, and preserving the Constitution is one of them.

And thats where I'm coming from.

Playing political strategy games around Constitutional issues seems to me to be very unwise, and it begs the question as to how far she would go in that direction, just to seek personal/political gains. Where does she draw the line? What is too far?

[SaveElmer]

133. The line has been drawn...

Hillary Clinton is very strong on the record as being opposed to a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. There is no ambiguity in that position.

I'm sorry, Kucinich is a wonderful guy, I brought up his positions on those two issues to illustrate that politicians change their minds about things, and the excessive Hillary bashing often has a whiff of hypocricy when other Democrats are not called on the carpet for the same thing.

Fact is, Kucinich could never be elected President, he does not play the political game, and we need people who don't. But, if we ever want to take back the white house from the cabal in there now we are going to have to. Hillary Clinton knows damn well that first this bill will probably never become law, if it does will most assuredly be struck down. If not, she has signed on to the most meaningless anti-flag burning law she could...and say what you want she has been consistent in saying she would support a law such as this.

Have the people in this country vote for petty, ignorant reasons (nor other way to explain Bush), and pandering is the only way to get them sometimes. Not a perfect world, but the one we are living in now. I trust Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat to protect my liberties more than any Republican, and if she has to pander a bit to get there, I'm willing to live with it.

[radio4progressives]

134. You make an important. It appears I may have over reacted.

We'll see how far this bill goes. It will be tested if it passes.

it just has a certain stench... if you get my drift.

[SaveElmer]

84. Mark Dayton Supports constitutional amendment banning flag burning...

http://newpatriot.org/2005/07/dayton-and-flag-burning.html

[radio4progressives]

110. So what? They are WRONG! Dismanteling the First Amendment is NOT

defendable. Just because some people in Congress don't get it, don't make it right. These are the same people that voted in favor of bombing Iraq. They were wrong about that and they're wrong about this.

[SaveElmer]

85. Tom Lantos supports amendment banning flag burning...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/22/MNflag22.DTL

[radio4progressives]

107. Lantos is a reactionary - he doesn't understand the Bill of Rights

I think he's largely forgiven because he's a holocaust survivor, was involved in nazi resistance, but he was also involved in anti-communisim which I think carries a certain amount of baggage that blinds him to the importance of the bill of rights, especially with regard to the first amendment. Lantos is not someone I'd laud as consitutional defender. He's also pro business over citizen rights.

[SaveElmer]

86. Hillary Clinton opposes amendment banning flag burning...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagburning/%5Cnews.aspx?id=15461

[Jacobin]

102. Okay. Now she's not being honest

A statute of this sort has ALREADY BEEN HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The only way out of this is to do a constitutional amendment. She's a lawyer. She's no dummy. She's pandering and being utterly dishonest.

See supreme court decision below:

U.S. Supreme Court
TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
491 U.S. 397

TEXAS v. JOHNSON
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No. 88-155.

Argued March 21, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989

During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a State Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.

Held:

Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 402-420.

(a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 402-406.

[SaveElmer]

105. Yeah not the point...

She is positioning herself politically...

I for one have no problem with it. She takes this position on a meaningless amendment that if it were to be upheld might never be invoked it is so narrow. She is on record with the lazy media as opposing flag burning, her opposition to an amendment is buried in the publicity, and she is able to position herself with independents and moderates.

This isn't about policy it's about politics...a game the Republicans have been kicking our asses at recently.

[radio4progressives]

108. I'm stunned that the 1st Amendment is considered as "Meaningless".

this is amazing, no wonder our consitution is in shreds.

[papau]

116. She is stopping an amendment from passing - and this is dishonest?

Does anyone here look more than one move ahead?

[Warren Stupidity]

128. Yes.

Of course it is dishonest. That is exactly the case for this odious crap that you and others are putting forth: it is a sneaky dishonest end run around the right wing odious amendment. She isn't 'really' for putting flag burners in jail, no the Lofty Hillary is protecting flag burners by proposing legislation to put them in jail that she knows is unconsitutional. She knows the legislation is unconstitutional, therefore she doesn't really support it, therefore she is behaving dishonestly and unhonorably. Hillary, and the rest of the weak willed pandering lot of sorry-assed Democratic 'leaders' are disgracing themselves on a daily basis.

No wonder that, despite the worst record for any modern president, perhaps for any president in our history, despite the most corrupt congress since the late 1800's, despite a failed imperial adventure based on lies and deception, despite bankrupting the federal government after being handed a positive balance sheet, despite playing the guitar while an entire city drowned and all but disappeared, despite all of that, these incompetent corrupt arrogant fools have a good chance at retaining control of congress next year and are certainly not out of running for the presidency in 08.

By all means let our pathetic leaders bring forth more stupid intiatives pandering to the worst, stupidist prejudices and fears in the population. Certainly that is the smart, strategic thing to do.

[Hippo_Tron]

100. I loved Jon Stewart's take on this last time

If you asked the men and women who were at ground zero on 9/11 about a constitutional ammendment to ban flag burning they'd probably say, "Hey, what happened to that $125 million you promised us in health benefits, asshole!"

[Che_Nuevara]

141. AMEN! (n/t)

[zulchzulu]

127. Buh bye Hillary...

You crossed the line. This is pure idiotic jingoism that spits at our Bill of Rights.

Is taking a crap in my USA flag underpants worthy of getting me jail time? I'd like to send Hillary a pair and see what she does...

[Blasphemer]

131. This kind of politicking can only ruin the party

further. Continues to perpetuate the idea that a Dem has to pander to the right to win and if they do win, certain people point and say "see?" ignoring the dynamics of the election season (and the particulars of the candidate) that would have given the Dem nominee anyway and ignoring all of the years where the strategy failed miserably. The funny thing is in that in '92 Clinton did not really run pandering to the right (his Presidency is another thing entirely) - he didn't have to and the '08 nominee won't have to either.

[d_b]

132. Wow, what a hardass.

Her makeover as the female Ted Nugent is almost complete for 2008.

Flag burning? What other meaningless bullshit is she going to 'tackle' in the next few years?

Video games: Check
Flag burning: Check

I got $20 on 'Saving Christmas'. Who's with me?

[hiley]

169. lol!

:smoke:

[Neil Lisst]

135. now she's gone too far

I understand her strategy of moving to the middle, but this is the kind of thing that crosses the line.

Flag burning is probably covered by a half dozen laws reguarding starting fires in public, burning toxic materials, etc. It's NOT a problem. There are no outbreaks of mass flag burnings.

She makes me sick, but this is bad even for her.

[CTyankee]

137. I like Hillary but I see no upside for her doing this

The flag burning issue is simply not on very many people's minds nowadays. Far more important issues, such as substituting ID for evolution, the war against women, the war against gays, and The War should be sucking up all of the oxygen.

I'm at a loss for her reasoning here. Oh well, I am going to Sicily for two weeks and maybe I'll have a real clear look at things by the time I get back.

[win_in_06]

140. Defend that move? Why would anyone defend U.S. Flag burning?

[jonnyblitz]

145. because it's an expression of free speech protected

by the constitution. you were kidding right?

[win_in_06]

158. No, I wasn't. I can't imagine why you would want to defend flag burning

or expect an elected leader to defend flag burning.

[jonnyblitz]

178. I expect our leader to defend free speech, not to pander

to people who wig out over a piece of cloth being burnt.

[radio4progressives]

163. If you don't already intuit the answer to that question, then there's some

fundelmental matters regarding the first amendment you don't understand.

[Benhurst]

143. Recommended. It disturbs me that Hillary Clinton or any other

Democrat would vote for such legislation in an attempt to "moderate" her stand against an anti-flag-burning amendment.

As Barry Goldwater, a great favorite here on DU :rofl: said, "... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

And on that, he was correct.

How come the Republicans can remain steadfast, and usually WRONG, on issue after issue, when Democrats such as Hillary Clinton feel it necessary to pander to the opposition even when they are RIGHT?

[fudge stripe cookays]

144. God, I hate that corporate witch. n/t

[klook]

146. At least she is taking a stand on this vitally important issue

rather than wasting her time on trivial stuff like health benefits for all, reducing auto emissions, structuring a tax system that's fair for working Americans, restoring our shredded public education system, ending the war in Iraq, rooting out corruption and cronyism in Washington, halting the turnover of our national parks to private mining and oil drilling interests, bringing the deficit under control, saving Social Security, etc. etc.

:crazy:

[Fovea]

149. triangulation

it's so nineties.

[jonnyblitz]

162. it's so "Dick Morris". nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

153. Bad move, Hillary. Bad move.

If this were a Harry Potter movie, Hillary would be turning into Professor Umbridge.

[onenote]

159. the repubs play political games all the time, why shouldnt' we fight fire

with fire. I can't count the number of times posters on DU complain about how the repubs try to paint Democrats into a corner by pushing some piece of legislation for purely symbolic purposes and how the Democrats are unable/unwilling to fight back. Well, the flag desecration act, which has been introduced year after year for a number of years, is such an attempt by the Dems to fight back. If it was okay for Byrd and Conrad and Dorgan and Durbin and the other Democrats that have co-sponsored this bill over the years, I don't see why its suddenly a big deal that HC co-sponsors it. Yeah, maybe is positioning for a presidential run. Do you think it wasn't positioning (albeit for their Senate races) for those other Democrats?

onenote

[earth mom]

160. Hillary's a TOTAL rethug-it's been obvious for a while now.

This should get her some rethug support-just what she intended. :puke:

[hiley]

170. exactly

:popcorn:

[Mabus]

161. But *YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BURN* the American flag - American tradition says

"When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner." http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html

How am I supposed to destroy the flag when it is no longer fit to be used as a symbol if I can't burn it as tradition and etiquette dictates?

:shrug:

[Nimrod2005]

164. She is really reminding me of Bill's days, when he kept stealing

the Pukes agenda, and ran with it....It always worked, he was popular and they hated him for it.

This flag issue is not important to me, I am going to burn a little flag in my fireplace tonight!

[Selteri]

165. And there go more of our rights. Shall we Goose Step Comrad?

And when that law is passed I _will_ burn a flag and I _will_ fight it to the supreme court wrapped in a suit that is a print of our greatest documents, the bill of rights and the constitution.

[nicknameless]

175. If she wants to improve her image, why does she keep being an asshole?

:shrug:

[tblue37]

177. I have never burned a flag, nor have I ever felt the urge to do so.

But the minute such a law gets passed, I and most of the people I know will take to the streets with flags aflame!

This really, really enrages me.

[jrd200x]

184. I think it's a strategy to avert something worse

I won't try to defend her - sometimes I am not sure what she stands for.

But on this issue I think she is trying to avert discussion about a constitutional ammendment to ban flag burning - something the whackos are talking about right now in Congress.
I think, in a strange way, she is hoping to difuse the issue by introducing it as a law, instead of an ammendment.

Just a thought.

[mtnsnake]

185. At least she HAS a position, unlike some of the other Dems including Kerry

'Uhm, I don't think people should be arrested for desecrating the flag if it's already wind-torn or stained, but if it's brand new then maybe it should be a crime or at least they could pay a fine but then again if they're a repeat flag offender they could do community service fixing up old flags in need of repair while they're in jail, oh wait a minute I already said they shouldn't go to jail, but that was 5 seconds ago so what I was tryin to say was they only should go to jail if Republicans object but if Democrats object they shouldn't spend time behind bars, however if Dems and republicans both object maybe we could settle it by tossing a coin especially if the offender was mislead by someone with bad advice. Yeah lets go with that.'

Face it...this is being spun to death that Hillary is out for your freedom of speech, when the reality is that she's one of the few Democrats who stood up with authority back in June and denounced any Republican efforts for a new flag burning amendment. There aren't too many other Democrats who've worked harder to protect our basic freedoms than she has.