|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 09:58 AM Original message |
Why would they need a Constitutional Ammendment on flag burning |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bloodblister Bob (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:01 AM Response to Original message |
1. What's Hillary's motivation? RAW POWER! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:03 AM Response to Original message |
2. Its a political maneuver. You vote for the law to look good to a ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:06 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. Why would anyone want their name on an unconstitutional law? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:08 AM Response to Reply #3 |
5. For certain voters it is a badge of honor.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tesha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:07 AM Response to Reply #3 |
24. She thinks you won't notice... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mattclearing (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 03:15 PM Response to Reply #3 |
52. The Patriot Act was unconstitutional as well, but no one has |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:07 AM Response to Original message |
4. She ought to be ashamed of herself |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
oneighty (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:16 AM Response to Reply #4 |
25. I disagree |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:29 AM Response to Reply #25 |
29. A law against flagburning is unconstitutional, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
oneighty (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:41 AM Response to Reply #29 |
33. This liberal thinker |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:11 PM Response to Reply #33 |
38. Good for you! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
oneighty (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:18 PM Response to Reply #38 |
40. I am a Korean war vet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OldLeftieLawyer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:19 PM Response to Reply #40 |
42. Again, good for you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SmokingJacket (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:08 AM Response to Original message |
6. What's so disappointing about Clinton's decision is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:10 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. That's exactly why she wants the law and not the amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:08 AM Response to Original message |
7. Pandering for right of center leaning votes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:09 AM Response to Original message |
8. It's politically shrewd is what it is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spinzonner (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:09 AM Response to Original message |
9. Idolatry |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FormerDittoHead (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:12 AM Response to Original message |
11. Just imagine what the commercial would sound like... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Liberal Veteran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:14 AM Response to Original message |
12. The better question is where is this epidemic of flag-burning occurring... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grrl62 (202 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:19 AM Response to Reply #12 |
14. good point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MN ChimpH8R (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:48 AM Response to Reply #14 |
17. Bingo |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JVS (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:01 AM Response to Reply #12 |
19. I don't know, but I imagine that if someone were to burn a flag in my... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yoda Yada (474 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:15 AM Response to Original message |
13. New Rule: All flags must be inflammable. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:43 AM Response to Original message |
15. Ask John Murtha...he cosponsored one with Duke Cunningham |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Norquist Nemesis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:03 AM Response to Reply #15 |
20. Whoa! Gotta disagree with you on that one. A hate crime? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:29 AM Response to Reply #20 |
30. It's a hate crime, pure and simple |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Norquist Nemesis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:36 AM Response to Reply #30 |
32. Which Articles of the Constitution put legal limits on anything |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:36 PM Response to Reply #32 |
44. Did you actually READ that editorial? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:17 AM Response to Reply #15 |
26. Then why be opposed to making the change legally by Constitutional Amendm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:25 AM Response to Reply #26 |
28. Ask John Murtha.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
iconoclastNYC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:57 AM Response to Reply #28 |
35. Big media and the DLC isn't forcing John Murtha on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:38 PM Response to Reply #35 |
45. You poor victim! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:43 PM Response to Reply #15 |
46. Violent hate crime? Against who? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 01:14 PM Response to Reply #46 |
47. Against Americans and all things American. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 01:46 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. My heart bleeds for poor victimized America. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 03:04 PM Response to Reply #48 |
51. One wonders why America doesn't give a shit about your agenda..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 03:16 PM Response to Reply #51 |
53. see my tagline for clarification |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrBenchley (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 03:46 PM Response to Reply #53 |
54. Yeah, I've read lots of Mencken...he would have had a field day |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:45 AM Response to Original message |
16. Given the GOP penchant for hiding a lot of fine print in things, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JVS (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 10:58 AM Response to Original message |
18. Because it plays well with their base. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Norquist Nemesis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:04 AM Response to Reply #18 |
21. Bingo! Another divide the Dems issue. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkofos (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:05 AM Response to Original message |
22. She is just being stupid. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cessna Invesco Palin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:06 AM Response to Original message |
23. Because the supreme court says it's unconstitutional. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProfessorGAC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:25 AM Response to Original message |
27. How About This? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:18 PM Response to Reply #27 |
41. What makes you so certain a right wing "Extreme Court" would overrule it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProfessorGAC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 01:57 PM Response to Reply #41 |
49. Because I Think It's Prima Facie Unconstitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dusmcj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:34 AM Response to Original message |
31. that's how politicians running for reelection wrap themselves in the flag |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Norquist Nemesis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:49 AM Response to Original message |
34. Why the big dust up on Hillary over this??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
iconoclastNYC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 11:58 AM Response to Reply #34 |
36. Are any of those the wife of a former president |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Norquist Nemesis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:06 PM Response to Reply #36 |
37. Until Hillary puts in her candidate's petition, she's not official |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toots (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 02:33 PM Response to Reply #37 |
50. She is "officially" a candidate for US Senate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
goodhue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:16 PM Response to Original message |
39. because the law would be unconstitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
walldude (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-13-05 12:22 PM Response to Original message |
43. Because their priorities are really fucked up |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:40 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC