Who's stance on flag-burning do you prefer?

[LoZoccolo]

I would also be curious why people prefer one over the other.

[Nimrod2005]

1. This is not an important issue, just a bone she is throwing to them

[bowens43]

6. Not an important issue!?!?!?!?

Of course it's an important issue. She came out in favor of limiting our Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

this is a HUGE issue.

[FSogol]

9. Not really. Is there a rash of flag burning incidents?

Was anyone unable to get to work because of all the burning flags?

[Telly Savalas]

44. The problem here...

is that instead of making the sort of wonderfully lucid and witty comment you made, a lot of members of the Democratic leadership are engaging in cheap shameless pandering.

The flag-burning "debate" is a perfect opportunity for the Democrats to point out how the emperor has no clothes. Instead, they too are stripping.

[Nimrod2005]

10. I agree with you, but whether people burn the flag or not

or whether they mary their same sex lovers or not, or we call it Christmas or Holiday....are all none issues. The right uses them as wedge issues and it works, she is using this in the same way.

[bowens43]

14. The castration of the First Amendment is VERY important.

What next? How many of our rights are you willing to give to win an election? If it is a case of her using them as the right does then that brings her integrity into question.

[jobycom]

12. No she didn't, she's being Swiftboated, and DUer sheeple are gulping it

down.

The bill bans burning someone else's flag or using flag burning to intimidate someone in the way cross burning does. The bill takes away no right you have now. You can burn flags all day long under this bill. All the bill does is let Hillary say "See, I'm all for protecting the flag. Now, let's get on with other issues."

[bowens43]

15. So in your book misleading the American poeple is ok?

The more I hear from her the worse she gets.

[jobycom]

19. What?

In my book rhetorical questions of the "Have you stopped beating your wife" sort are not okay.

[karynnj]

28. I would assume it's already illeagal for me to burn someone else's

flag, coat, car, etc. If this is what her bill really says - it beyond useless and it should be exposed as such. This is a waste of tax payer's time.

[MrSandman]

49. So we federalize property destruction....

Both those cases would fall under destruction of property or assault in most states.

[mrhopeforwes]

26. not necessarily...

even though we're right, if they only take an inch, then it's no big deal. that's all this is. everyone on here is arguing that taking an inch inherently means that then they'll take the mile. ...but it's not so. ....in the future, when we get the real issues under control, then the average Joe will be ready to listen to reason on this one.

[Oceansaway]

2. Howies for sure

[LoZoccolo]

3. Why? n/t

[Oceansaway]

7. i'm not into anything

Hillary has to offer

[LoZoccolo]

34. The question is about the flag-burning issue. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. But they have the same stance on the issue

It is amusing how people imprint their own value on thier heros.

[datadiva]

4. This is not my quote and I can't remember who said it,

but: "I would rather be wrapped in the constitution, burning the flag, than wrapped in the flag burning the constitution". :patriot:

[joefree1]

5. Oooh, good quote.

That's going on my web site. Thanks.

[genie_weenie]

57. With all Props to Fred

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes.
"Whither is the Constitution?" he cried; "I will tell you.
We have killed It---you and I.
All of us are It's murderers.
But how did we do this?
How could we drink up the sea?
Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?

[quisp]

8. Howard Dean speaks for me!

most of the time.

[blm]

11. Trick question cuz Dean advocated criminalizing flag burning in the past

while rejecting a Constitutional Amendment.

So, unless he changed his stance, they share the same position.

[lojasmo]

20. Pffft. Proof? Until you give some.... Well....EOM

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[lojasmo]

31. No you said "he advocated criminalizing flag burning"

Which is simply another of your lies about Howard Dean. Please see my post with his actual quote.

Perhaps your comprehension is what you are questioning...or your own accuracy.

Dunno.

At any rate, his position is NOT the same as hillary's

[blm]

36. The debate at the time was congress criminalizing flag burning. He said he

would support that legislation while REJECTING a Constitutional Amendment.

Where is the mystery for you?

[lojasmo]

39. The mystery is why you won't back up your claim.

I request a specific quote of dean "advocating anti flag-burning legislation" That's your claim....back it up.

I suspect the answer to the mystery is that you have no basis for the claim that you made, and can't back it up.

[blm]

40. And I think you haven't read the other posts in this thread. WHY do you

think the original poster posted this thread?

There are more links to articles confirming this analysis here, as well:

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

>>>>>>

The issue re-arose in Vermont two years ago, when the state 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.

Though Dean's supporters may now see him as a straight-talking, no-nonsense leader, during the debate on protecting the flag, Dean desperately wanted to have it both ways.

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.

In fact, Dean's wavering was even more complicated. As Joe Conason noted last week, Dean insisted that all Vermont lawmakers should announce their position on a flag amendment before voters went to the polls in 2002. But as the Rutland Herald explained at the time, "Dean is not apparently holding himself to that standard. He refused to reveal his position on amending the U.S. Constitution banning flag desecration, noting coyly that he would not be a candidate in 2002."
>>>>>>>

This is consistent with the point I always made that prior to Iraq war Dean had planned to run in the primaries as a centrist governor. He EVOLVED into a more progressive voice during the primaries because of his supporters.

I have no beef with Dean, and give him kudos for his turn left which I have said many times apppears to be sincere. I credit the devotion of his supporters for that left turn, and I believe he would, too.

[lojasmo]

41. Again, nothing to support your clam

that Dean "advocated criminalizing flag-burning"

More sophistry, and dishonest, at that.

bravo/brava

[blm]

42. He was FOR the measure congress wanted which meant criminalization.

Why are you pretending that it's anything different?

Punishment means criminalization. If he was for punishment as per congress's wishes he was for criminalization. There is no way to spin it differently.

I guess even Joe Conason's analysis is dishonest? Did you check out his link there?

I think YOU never knew Dean's position and your attack on me was just more knee-jerk reaction. Most Dean supporters acknowledge his centrist past and don't attack those who point to it as a matter of accuracy about his positions, past and present.

I think YOU need to stop accusing people even AFTER links are posted that PROVE you are wrong.

I also don't see you attacking ANY OTHER POSTER who points out that Dean and Hillary have the same positions - just me. How interesting.

[lojasmo]

45. He did not "ADVOCATE" for criminalization

He said that congress should do what they think is right.

He certainly did not sponsor a bill (as hillary is)

Their actions on the issue are not the same, though their positions may be similar.

Your accusations are spurious.

[blm]

47. He came down on the side of criminalization, no matter how you slice it.

.

[lojasmo]

58. But he sure didn't sponsor a goddamned bill like Clinton did.

ACTIONS speak louder than words, and certainly louder than opinions.

[blm]

60. True - what Clinton did is uber-advocation.

.

[Selatius]

55. I would have to disagree

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.

It seems to me he advocated criminalization at the time. It's just that he didn't want to go so far as to amend the 1st Amendment, just so far as having Congress pass a law against flag burning. Something can be criminalized without having to resort to a constitutional amendment procedure.

[LoZoccolo]

35. WINNER!

This poll should be zero-to-zero no matter where everyone stands.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. People tend to imprint their own value on thier heros rather than

try to find out how their heros actually stand.

[MrBenchley]

51. Or one to one...

Great post.

[Dark]

13. People tend to not listen to arsonists.

Sorry, but use words to convey your ideas, not fire. That's why we have them.

[bowens43]

16. You're kidding right?

You think the First Amendment only applies to spoken communication?

[Dark]

23. It also applies to written communication.

And I don't understand why people want to burn the flag. It doesn't win us supporters, doesn't make a stand on anything, and is a very pointless issue when you consider that there are so many other, more important issues.

[stray cat]

17. We don't allow cross burning as freedom of speech nor should we.

[pop goes the weasel]

18. actually, we do

What we don't allow is for people to set fire to stuff on other people's property. If you want to burn crosses on your own property, you can do that, pursuant to local laws. Since open fires are illegal in most municipalities, burning crosses is also illegal in most places. The same goes for flags--the cops can already bust you for setting fire to flags in most public spaces, unless you are, say, burning them in a BBQ pit, which sort of stifles the public statement.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Three points: 1) Flag burning incidents are exceedingly rare, and

2) There are clear first amendment issues involved. What's next--it's illegal to burn a photo of the president?

3) Here's one especially for the fundies--Treating a symbol as more important than the concepts it stands for is the sin of idolatry. The flag is just a piece of cloth. To place its existence and integrity above the principles that it is supposed to stand for is just plain idolatrous, like worshipping a statue of Jesus and ignoring all his teachings.

[ibegurpard]

25. According to flag etiquette...

...burning the flag is the proper way to dispose of an old or tattered flag. Why is this not brought up more?

[ProudDad]

67. Too rational

that's why...

[expatriot]

27. a few points....

First, I would like to see a reporting of the most recent time a flag was burned in public protest within the United States and how many times this has occured in the last thirty years. Who the HELL would burn a US flag - talk about political suicide for whatever cause you were representing.


Second, what would constitute a "flag?" Would it have to conform to the offical U.S. code definition of a flag? Would you be acquitted of the charge if the flag had 51 stars or the dimensions were slightly off? IF it doesn't have to be a US flag as defined by the U.S. Code then how about U.S. flag bumper stickers? boxer shorts? Where would you draw the line?

Third, the whole thing is assinine and I can't help but admit that I am losing all faith in Hillary. God damned her. She is just so stupid. I mean her grasp of the political situation must be so effing weak.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. One American burned a mock US flag in the Middle East a few years ago

You are correct in in your assessment that it is political suicide to burn the flag in the US. Although the above pictured individual did have enough sense not to do this in the US, she did not have enough brains to get out of the way of an a bulldozer. She will not be burning any more flags.

[ProudDad]

68. If you're speaking about Rachel Corey

she was a patriot.

And yes, since the Israelis saw fit to bury her alive, she won't be burning anything any more...

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. They both have the same stance

No Constitutional amendment, but would support laws punishing it.

[NYCGirl]

33. You have no place in your poll for NEITHER. NT

[jonnyblitz]

62. that would ruin the whole point of his thread if he included that.

he is trying to show the Dean supporters as hypocrites and if he included "neither" as an option that would ruin his attempt.

[last_texas_dem]

38. Neither

I am against flag burning, but also against criminalizing it.

[FrenchieCat]

43. I don't give a damn about Flag Burning, one way of another.....

There are so many issues that are so much more pressing....to select this one to debate is time lost, IMO.

This is like the Gay marriage Amendment that became an issue in the 2004 election....it's a red herring thrown at us (doesn't matter if it's Hillary that threw it) to argue over while all kinds of shit that affects us daily are being passed by this piss ass congress!

Take your eye of the ball, and it may just hit you in the face!

OK.....sorry to have interrupted.....please resume the "debate"

[flpoljunkie]

46. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning protected by 1st Amendment.

Why do pandering politicians hate our Constitution?

[mtnsnake]

48. According to post #36, their stances are indentical so this is just a DU

popularity contest, one which Hillary Clinton could never win because she's just not far radical left enough to satisfy most of the posters here.

At least she's got a CLEARCUT stance, which is a lot more than I can say for so many of our other candidates. BTW, she's not out to have our freedoms limited, she's out to protect them in the long run with this flag-burning legislation she's co-sponsering. Bottom line, this is her way of protecting our rights by not altering the Constitution with some Republican amendment. It's called COMPROMISE.

[flpoljunkie]

53. A "compromise" which limits the first amendment right to free speech.

This kind of compromise we can do without. It is political pandering no matter how you slice it. The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning is protected by the first amendment. Why do pandering politicans hate our Constitution?

[mtnsnake]

56. With her compromise, Hillary just might be PRESERVING our first ammendment

That's why it's called compromise. It's a helluva lot better than losing that right altogether, which could very well have happened under this BRUTAL Bush regime if this intelligent lady hadn't stepped in so vocally back in June of '05 with her outcries AGAINST amending the Constitution.

It's practically a waste of time to try rationalizing anything this lady does on this forum. If it were any other candidate doing what she has tried to do on our behalf concerning our rights or the rights of the flag, most of the people here would be whooping it up as if it were some sort of patriotic act of heroism that both protected our rights and protected the American flag at the same time. But since it's Hillary, it's bad bad bad.

[flpoljunkie]

61. Why do pandering politicians hate our Constitution?

The Supreme Court held in 1989 that flag-burning was protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Passing a statute to make flag-burning a criminal offense is odious and political pandering of the worse sort.

You are, in effect, saying we must destroy the first amendment to save the first amendment. That is absurd on its face.

[renaissanceguy]

71. Just like how DOMA and DADT

really "preserved" rights. Gimme a break. This is all a smoke screen because she has no courage to speak out on REAL issues.

[mtnsnake]

76. "she has no courage to speak out on REAL issues." Hahaha, if this isn't

a REAL issue (and I'm not arguing whether it is or isn't), then why are there so many looooooong threads about it here on this forum??

[MrBenchley]

50. LOL!

I'm also proud to say I prefer Hillary Clinton's stance to John Murtha's stance on this issue.

[MindPilot]

52. No one would oppose flag-burning if some corporation

could figure out how to make money off it.

If they are against flag desecration, how about making it illegal to make and sell flag clothing, every imaginable trinket, decals, advertising, car dealers using huge flags to skirt billboard ordinances, and disrespecting the flag by flying a threadbare stars and stripes from your SUV?

Burning a flag is a particularly highly charged--so highly charged it is almost never used--form of political speech and THAT is what they are trying to suppress. It has nothing to do with protecting the flag. Both Hillary and Howard are pandering to the right...again.

Edited because I can't type.

[MindPilot]

54. If they want to make laws to give the appearance of patriotism

which is all this really is--let's be honest here; it's pandering--make a law requiring that all American flags sold in the United States be MADE in the United States.

[MissMarple]

59. Howard Dean's. It has to be better than Hillary's.

Oops, I misspelled Hillary.

[LoZoccolo]

63. And you know this? n/t

[mmonk]

64. Only the constitution's stance and established precedent.

This is a fake "patriot" test, nothing else.

[killbotfactory]

65. Neither, but I'll choose Dean

Hillary is making this an issue for some bullshit political reason, so she loses. If it was in reaction to right-wing politicians trying to paint anyone who opposes criminalizing flag-burning as unpatriotic it might be more excusable.

[ProudDad]

66. Abby Hoffman's stance

He sat on it....

It's just a damn rag, get over it...

Piss on All Flags!!!

[wyldwolf]

69. Hillary's because although hers and Dean's position are the same...

...she was much articulate in expressing it.

WAIT! Did I say they were the same?

hmmmm...

Hillary said, "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."


But Howard Dean indirectly supported a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning! Although in 2002 Dean said, "I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment," he supported a VT state legislature decision 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."

Further, according to Joe Conason, "Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year."

[mmonk]

70. Why not both?

As long as we're not going to stand up for free speech and the constitution, we can do a "double republican" with our strategy of if you can't beat em join em and get elected.

[LaurenG]

72. Because Howard consistantly uses common sense

around all of the issues. Hillary is another story and I'm not up for hearing what a goddess she is. She is a dishonest politician nearly as hopeless as lieberman, the pasty, little pansy.

[IndianaGreen]

73. Trick poll, Hillary and Dean have similar stands!

A better poll would be to ask people if they are willing to surrender their rights under the First Amendment in order to protect a piece of fabric.

[guidod]

74. Another Rediculous Poll.....

Stop with the dumb wedge issues already.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Neither, I agree with Jon Stewart's

If you asked the fire and police workers who were at ground zero on 9/11 what they think about flag burning, they would probably say "Where's that $125 million in health benefits you promised us? assholes"

[tirechewer]

77. Regardless of who said what...

I don't favor any law which inhibits free speech. I wouldn't burn a flag myself, but this has been a head thumper since the war in Viet Nam.

The flag is a symbol of the US. I think we should be more worried about maintaining the meaning of freedom which the flag represents than trying to legislate how people express dissent. It means whatever it means to each individual.

What about the Iraqis who are being burned with White Phosphorous? When is someone going to introduce a bill to stop stuff like that.

[rman]

78. so, what *are* their stances?

or are we supposed to decide based on how much we like the person?

[wyldwolf]

79. here

Hillary said, "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."


But Howard Dean indirectly supported a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning! Although in 2002 Dean said he said essentially what Hillary said, "I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment," he supported a VT state legislature decision 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."

Further, according to Joe Conason, "Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year."

[rman]

80. then i support neither

if the flag is touted as a symbol of how wonderfully the US is, then it should be allowed to be used as a symbol to the contrary by those who think the US is not so wonderfully.

Freedom of expression and all that.

I particularly don't like Hillary's comparison of the flag to a religious symbol - separation of church and state and all that.

[Skidmore]

81. This is such a non issue. No different that "stealing Christmas"

and any of the other stuff the RW jerks the ignorant around with. That the Dems appear willing to do this now says to me that noone is serious about addressing the needs of the nation.

[baldguy]

82. Only an asshole burns a US flag.

But, as the Republican Congressional delegation proves daily, you've got a right to be an asshole.