Hillary's bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/07wed2.html?th&emc=th

Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode

Published: December 7, 2005

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

It's hard to see this as anything but pandering - there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.

The bill attempts to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law. It's a ridiculous comparison. Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government.

[Loonman]

1. Kiss that Repub ass Hil, yeah.....

You know you like it.

[cantstandbush]

21. She's right if the burning takes place at the hands of Iraqis, Native

Americans, Vietnamese, etc. Everything is relative.

[dajoki]

23. there is no way...

you can equate flag burning and cross burning.

[marmar]

2. What the f..k is wrong with her?

I've got to believe she's listening to a lot of really bad advice.

[dajoki]

5. maybe...

they brought the toe sucker back.

[mechanical mandible]

8. Like Hillary's base wouldn't vote for her if she was running against Jeb B

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. This is disgusting!

Flag burning has been done in the US not to intimidate or frighten, which was the point of cross burning. Flag burning was done by people who wanted to change US policies, not people who hate another group of people. Hilary really disappoints me on several levels, and this is just another example of why she doesn't need to try and run for the Democratic nomination for president. Doesn't she realize that all she is doing is alienating the Democratic activists without winning any appreciable number of people from the right?

[dajoki]

12. the rightwing...

will never back her, ever. she is alienating many dem groups, that's why this is so mind boggling.

[merwin]

4. I'd feel personally and physically threatened if there was a burning flag

on my front lawn when I woke up.

I'd feel personally and physically threatened if I found a burning pile of dog crap on my front lawn as well.

[Bucky]

56. Ha! Speaking of "a burning pile of dog crap" ....

*sniff, sniff* *ew*

[Kipling]

6. Surely a march of 10,000 flag-burners could be arranged?

[tocqueville]

7. How about Bibles ?

[jonnyblitz]

9. she is off her fucking rocker. what a horrible analogy.

she must think we are stupid.

[me b zola]

71. I think you hit it there

The dlc, in general, believe the voting caucus to be stupid. That is why they have been trying despirately to run out the thinking/informed Dems from the ranks. It is far easier to run a campaign when the voters have not a clue as to what the issues are let alone what the candidate stands for.

[gratuitous]

10. I don't get this at all

Clinton is a lawyer, fer crissakes. And by all accounts, a pretty good one. Why she is screwing around in this kind of cesspool is just beyond me. I can't think of a single good reason for her to weigh in -- one way or the other -- on the bogus issue of flag burning. Sadly, I have to agree with the New York Times: This looks like pandering, plain and simple. And it's pandering to a constituency that isn't going to vote for her, anyway.

[dajoki]

11. exactly...

"And it's pandering to a constituency that isn't going to vote for her, anyway." and it's going to ruin her standing with the constituency she needs.

[Jacobin]

15. Chasing cheap easy flag waving side issues

Whoring to try to garner votes from the mentality of people who would never vote for her if their lives depended on it.

It is sickening to watch her devolve even further into the pit of irrelevance. I'm just glad I'm seeing this before she gets any further down the road to 2008.

This kind of smarmy pandering crap, with the issues facing this country proves to me that she is utterly the wrong person to nominate for president.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Would you believe my Hannity-listening courier still thinks she liberal?

I told him he was in for a rude awakening when we don't vote for her in the primaries.

RW talking point regurgitating idiot.

[jonnyblitz]

14. hell, many of them I have enountered believe she is a socialist!!

anything she does that is remotely moderate or conservative they think is a dishonest ploy on her part. there is NO WAY she will EVER convince any of them to like her. I used to listen to all sorts of RW radio and read all their periodicals back in the 90's when she was first lady . they basically thought she was the anti-christ back then when I was listening and reading and I am sure they think the same now no matter what spin she is putting on things.

[dajoki]

16. she is wasting her time...

and support if she thinks this will change anything.

[SaveElmer]

35. She is a liberal...

And if you would take the time to look at her voting record, and her ratings from advocate groups ranging from women's groups, environmental groups, to unions...you would see this is the case!

[me b zola]

72. Clinton is a Liberal????????

What glue have you been sniffing? Could it be....Elmers....???

[mtnsnake]

87. Typical response of a Hillary hater who rides the winds of this forum

Yes she is a liberal, just not as liberal as most of the people here would like her to be. More importantly, she's 100% Democrat, whether or not you realize it.

It's a joke how so many people on this forum make blanket statements about her with not an iota of evidence to back up their claims. Bandwagon jumper.

[SaveElmer]

91. The glue of truth...

Take a look at her voting record, her ADA rating, her ratings from educational,environmental, womens, and Union organizations....and show me someone with a better record.

I think you have been sucked in by the Hillary Haters club and might want to look at this yourself!

[dajoki]

109. i don't hate...

Hillary. i just think it's stupid for her to be a co-sponsor of this bill.

[Politicub]

17. Who is advising her?

Bob Shrum?

[dajoki]

18. like i said...

above, the toe sucker.

[Politicub]

19. I will vote against the GOP no matter what, but

the toe sucker is a putrid excuse for a human being. I hope someone other than Hillary rises to the top in the Dem primaries as I'm growing more disillusioned with her by the day.

[dajoki]

20. so am i...

at this point she would have trouble in the primary not to mention the general election.

[jonnyblitz]

24. Dick Morris always come to mind when I hear bizarre stuff

coming from her. I doubt it's him though, but you never know...

[radio4progressives]

37. don't think so, it must be Al From./it has that fascist quality signature

so From-esque.

[MrBenchley]

80. Maybe John Murtha is advising her....

Of course she disagrees with him on whether the Constitution should be amended to achieve the aim or not...

"WASHINGTON, DC June 4, 2003 – Flag-protection legislation introduced by Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Randy “Duke” Cunningham of California was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday.
The legislation would amend the U.S. Constitution. "

http://www.house.gov/murtha/news/nw030604.htm

[Politicub]

98. Thanks for the link

Politics does indeed make for some strange bedfellows.

Honestly, how many people really get their panties in a bunch over flag burning? You would think all of America's problems have been solved and now we can focus on a boatload of stupid shit.

I wish Hillary were out there talking about the reckless tax cuts and how the GOP has voted to transfer the US' debts to our children and future generations.

[MrBenchley]

99. And you get your wish!

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=18306

"how many people really get their panties in a bunch over flag burning?"
We sure seem to have a bunch of "progressives" here who have their panties in a bunch over it.

[MrBenchley]

22. What an astonishingly stupid editorial in every way....

"A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened."
He also has every right to be angry instead of threatened, as a moment's reflection will tell you. Nor would his Jewish or Hispanic or Oriental or Muslim or Atheist neighbor think, "Oh that's just directed at black folks so I don't give a shit." (and that little list is far from the full list of the Americans the Klan might want to make a statement against.)

"Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government."
But it's also directed against anyone who thinks that government of the people, by the people, for the people is a pretty good idea. When the flag is burned, you're being told by those burning it that you're an idiot and you idea was worthless.

AND it's also directed against anyone who ever served or had a loved one serve in the armed forces. When the flag is burned, you're being told by those burning it to go fuck youtrself in no uncertain terms.

AND it's also directed against anyone who loves American institutions or ideals. When the flag is burned you're being told by those burning it that those institutions and ideals aren't worth shit.

[closeupready]

25. I see we have some familiar names on this thread

from recent topics. :D

Hi, there! :hi:

[MrBenchley]

26. Hello yourself....don't recall you....

Quite apart from the preposterous claim that someone expressing open contempt and rejection of the Constitution ought to be able to hypocritically claim protection for his rejection of the Constitution and its principles under it in the next breath....

Don't you think that flag burning is an utterly idiotic act that ends up alienating potential supporters?

[closeupready]

27. It's speech, even if symbolic, and speech should not be restricted,

unless necessary, such as the axiomatic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example.

And I believe, as others have said, that she is alienating those who would be most likely to support her in a race against bad candidates, and she is also doing nothing here to attract conservative voters, when all the current "conservative" voters support the flag and anti-flag burning laws.

And back up a minute - are you suggesting that an American who claims to reject the Constitution should have his constitutional protections taken away and be punished? And you're a Democrat or what, exactly?

[MrBenchley]

32. "Fire in a crowded theatre" isn't restricted because it's necessary

it's restricted because it abuses free speech rights, and creates a danger of producing evil. Worth noting that subsequent narrowings of the original ruling speciically have said that while speech was protected, violent actions (such as setting a fire) were NOT.

http://www.answers.com/topic/schenck-v-united-states

"I believe, as others have said, that she is alienating those who would be most likely to support her in a race against bad candidates"
I don't buy that for a New York minute. In fact, I'd love to see anybody in this thread produce a post from the past in which he or she announced even a speck of support for Hillary.

"are you suggesting that an American who claims to reject the Constitution should have his constitutional protections taken away"
If some chump quits the fruit of the month club, is anything taken away from him when the pomegranates don''t arrive next month that he was entitled to expect? If burning a flag doesn't say that you completely reject this country and its institutions, including the first amendment, what does it mean?

It's both hypocritical and idiotic for Claude Clueless to set fire to the flag, thus announcing he doesn't give a rats' ass for the Constitution or anything else American--and in the next branch demand that I not only offer him the rights he just rejected, but accept his peculiar interpretation of those rights.

Fuck that shit, as they say in Brooklyn. The only difference I can see between burning a cross and burning a flag is that the asswipe burning a flag is expressing hatred for all Americans, not just some particular subset of all Americans.

"And you're a Democrat"
Yeah, I'm a Democrat. And a patriotic one too.

I just hope this mindless din from the Hillary bashers doesn't set off some "progressive" into lighting up a flag somewhere. That would sure be a feather in our cap, wouldn't it?

[SaveElmer]

38. Mr Benchley...I'm glad you are around...

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one speaking up for Hillary. Hard to get through the din of the Hillary Haters Club here at DU!!!

[MrBenchley]

47. Thank you!

Imagine that we also seem to be the only ones here who think there's anything at all disgraceful about burning an American flag. ...or to have any facts about the bill in question.

[SaveElmer]

48. Very true...

It does seem that way...dissent from the DU orthodoxy is not tolerated here!

[MrBenchley]

50. Our teen progressives are too busy

being "oppressed" because they can't burn a flag without universal approval.

[SaveElmer]

51. Because burning a flag is the commonly accepted. form of protest...

Not entirely sure how it is different from cross burning!

[dajoki]

28. flag burning...

is a form of protest. cross burning is pure hatred and racist.

[MrBenchley]

29. Flag burning is no less a form of pure hatred

and I'd bet the chinless knights of the NRA, er, KKK, claim THEY burned that cross only as a "protest" too.

In fact, the numbnutz whose cross burning case was lost in the Supreme Court burned his cross on private land with no-one but his fellow inbreds present, and his lawyer argued that since every one of their jerkwater jamborees ended with a cross burning, it was inconceivable that anyone present was actually scared.

Didn't work then, either.

[dajoki]

31. the history...

of each act says otherwise. i personally am not a flag burner type, but if someone wants to use it to protest against the government, no harm. but c'mon cross burning is a totaly different subject.

[MrBenchley]

40. Cross burning to me is no different....

except insofar as cross burning is expressing contempot and hatred for a particular subset of Americans--and flag burning is expressing those same feelings for ALL Americans.

"if someone wants to use it to protest against the government"
Then they're an idiot. The flag doesn't belong to just the government but not average patritoic Americans, and you'd have a helluva time pretending it does.

left...
"The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country."

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers19.html

right....
"The American flag belongs to all Americans, not just to the President, the White House, or any political party or faction."

http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.6386/content.content_view.htm

left...
"In memory of Casey Sheehan and the other courageous American soldiers who have died needlessly in the Bush war, I have begun to fly the American flag at half staff, and will continue to do so until our troops have returned safely from Iraq, and this CORRUPT President is removed from office! The American flag belongs to all of us."

http://talk.ocregister.com/showthread.php?t=17272

right...
"What is important is not the piece of cloth, but what it stands for: the unitas ordinis of our people, our heritage, the nation’s dignity and our sovereignty."

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/why_we_must_defend_old_glory.htm

left...
"Our party is filled with people who revere that flag, who served it in uniform, who pledged allegiance to it their whole lives and who are standing for office, or working in politics or in business or in government or in uniform because they believe in that flag and the ideals it represents. And that flag belongs to us. It belongs to all Americans and no one is going to take that flag away from us!"

http://securingamerica.com/speeches/2004-06-12

left....
"Last Monday when Howard Dean said 'we call ourselves simply, Americans' and that the flag belongs to all of us, something awoke inside me: a kind of hope an faith that I can be proud to be American, that the flag does belong to me. It's amazing how you don't realize you are missing something until you have a chance to get it. Howard Dean has given me hope. Today I proudly call myself American."

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1229

[dajoki]

61. you made my point!!

thank you.

[MrBenchley]

74. Burning a flag is no different than burning a cross....

And from the comments of those cheering for flag buyrning here, it appears to attract the same low mentality and lynching spirit as cross burning.

[dajoki]

105. i'm not cheering...

anything, if you read one of my responses to you i said that i'm not the flag burning type. but flag and cross burning ARE NOT THE SAME!!!! and you want to talk mentality, go analyze yourself, don't even think you can make a broad statement like that about anyone who doesn't agree with you. besides you keep repeating the same thing over and over, come up with something new to back your point.

[MrBenchley]

110. Flag burning is exactly the same as croos burning

The only difference is that the cross does not represnet all Aemricans; the flag DOES.

"come up with something new"
That's the thing about truth and principle; they don't change just because a mob starts howling.

[dajoki]

112. huh?

[MrBenchley]

113. Symbol + match + hate.

Don't cry to me because you're slow on the uptake.

[dajoki]

115. i'm not...

crying, i'm laughing at your annoyingly lamebrain posts.

[MrBenchley]

116. It shows.

[dajoki]

117. good!!

[radio4progressives]

39. wtf? Flag burning is burning the Constitution? is that what you are

asserting?

:wow:

[Clark2008]

44. Not really

Don't you think that flag burning is an utterly idiotic act that ends up alienating potential supporters?

Not really. Most people who aren't pre-disposed to jingoistic faux patriotism realize the flag is just a piece of cloth. Those who ARE pre-deposed to jingoistic faux patriotism won't vote for any Democrat, anyway.

Her stance really makes no sense if she's trying to win a Dem primary.

[MrBenchley]

45. Now who actually thinks that the flag is nothing but

jingoistic faux patriotism?

I hope to Christ you don't say that out loud in public.

[radio4progressives]

52. Seems like an argument for Nationalism (= Fascism) to me..

what charges should be brought against me, if i were to piece my own flag together with corporate logos to replace the stars, and perhaps bleed the red stripes? Not original I realize, but it would be an expression of how i think of our flag these days.

So, what punishment should be brought against me, MrBenchley?

Should it be considered a "hate" crime? and who is the victim?

Oh you said, all Americans. Then should it be considered an act of Treason ?

How many years in prison? death ?

[MrBenchley]

53. I think just jeering at your silliness

is more than enough.

[radio4progressives]

54. Silly? A "Hate Crime" isn't a "Silly" matter - Neither is Treason

If you are intent on making flag burning a Hate Crime, which will eventually become an act of treason (since it's actually the same logic - and your extremists breathern will take it there next) you better consider what is the appropriate punishment.

[MrBenchley]

55. Flag burning IS a hate crime...

Whoever burns a crime is demonstrating through violent action how much they hate Americans and all things American.

On the other hand, your nattering is just silly.

[dajoki]

62. hate Americans and all things American?

c'mon now, where do you get this from. it is used to protest government policies, not the American people or the constitution. don't forget that cross burning is associated with hatred of groups of Americans, black and white. oh, yeah, remember the lynchings, i don't recall flags being burned in support of that evil act.

[MrBenchley]

73. Burning a flag says you hate Americans and all things America

"it is used to protest government policies"
Bullshit....the flag DOESN'T stand for the government. Nobody, left or tright, even pretends it does.

When Cindy Sheehan and her followers display the American flag, are they signalling support for guvernment policies? Only a dishonest pinhead would claim such a thing.

"don't forget that cross burning is associated with hatred of groups of Americans, black and white."
And flag burning is HATRED of all Americans.

"oh, yeah, remember the lynchings, i don't recall flags being burned in support of that evil act."
And that's the reason for your support of flag burning? That the shitheads who do so haven't lynched anyone yet?

Jeeze, by that "standard of decency," the Enron swindle was saintly. Ken Lay hasn't lynched anyone yet, either.

The flag belongs to ALL Americans. When you burn it, you are telling the world you HATER all Americans. It's a violent act, no different than cross burning.

left...
"In this diffident milieu, we retain a love of our country, and we love the flag for the distinctly American ideals it represents. We believe too that the flag belongs to all Americans, liberal or conservative, activist or apathetic, dove or hawk. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/04/19_flag.html

center...
"Pennsylvania's Ron Conley, a union steward for Steamfitter's Local 449 in Pittsburgh and a member of The American Legion's National Executive Committee, told the crowd the flag belongs to all Americans."

http://www.cfa-inc.org/oldglory/ogn1201a.htm

left...
" We cannot let those who want to bomb Iraq or those who protest the bombing hijack the flag for their cause. It belongs to us all.""

http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Patriotic%20Progressive

center....
"Dean, one of seven Democratic presidential candidates to address the Arab American Institute's national leadership conference in Dearborn, pointed to an American flag and named some of the people he said it did not belong to.
"It does not belong to General Boykin, or John Ashcroft, or Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson," the former Vermont governor said to cheers in the packed hotel conference room in the Detroit suburb which is home to one of the highest concentrations of Muslims and Arabs outside the Middle East.
"This flag belongs to every single American, including every single American in this room, and is the hope and aspiration for many other folks who are not yet citizens," he said. "

http://www.rr-bb.com/archive/index.php/t-112823.html

left (or according to our teen progressives, Repukecon DLC traitor)...
" He took issue with the Bush attitude that “you’re either with us or against us” and that it is unpatriotic to question our leadership, “but our flag belongs to all Americans” Kerry said. Referring to his military service in Vietnam he said he still knows how to fight for America and will do it to bring leadership that will bring America together again rather than divide us. "

http://www.ilcaonline.org/print.php?sid=281

[radio4progressives]

107. Talk about Fring Extremists - Flag burners Hate Americans is EXTREMIST

position - my gawd . get a clue. :nopity:

[MrBenchley]

111. Rubbish...flag burning is no different than cross burning

except in the number of Americans that the burner hates.

[dajoki]

108. what the fuck do you mean...

by this: "And that's the reason for your support of flag burning? That the shitheads who do so haven't lynched anyone yet?" on second thought, don't even tell me, because it'll just be the same old "pinhead" shit you've been saying.

[Bucky]

58. Depends on the spin, of course.

Lots of protests are offensive. They're meant to make people think about what's going on? Is it effective? Usually not. Mostly it's idiots who did it. But I do remember reading about a black man in Alabama who issued a statement in the '60s before burning his flag--the one he was given as a gift while serving America in uniforn. He said the flag stood for the liberties he'd risked his life for--and that under segregation those liberties were dead.

It was a damn powerful statement.

But obviously it was a little to easy to copy (like right wing talking points) so lots of knuckleheads have been doing it since to little point. But let's not pretend it never meant something. It's just, like Lenny Bruce's once crass sounding humor, it doesn't hold up under the light of loosened social mores.

[MrBenchley]

82. Not even close to true....

"But let's not pretend it never meant something."
Who done that?

[flpoljunkie]

36. No, MrBenchley, those who fight and die do so because they have been

ordered to do so by their Commander-in-Chief, regardless of how they feel about the necessity for same. Fighting and dying to "uphold our freedom" is upholding the right for those who wish to show their disapproval of their government's policies by burning the flag. This is "free speech" in it highest and purest form.

Hillary Clinton ought to know better than to support Bennett's bill. Dick Morris must be smiling.

[MrBenchley]

46. Bull fucking shit.

I'd love to see you prove that anybody enlisting in the armed forces is informed that they're fighting for people who hate them.

"This is "free speech" in it highest and purest form."
It's imbecilic hatred and contempt for America and its institutions being swaddled in dishonest sophistry.

[Bucky]

59. Actually, I've heard exactly that from veterans.

They don't hate the antiwar protestors (well, a few might, obviously). What they despise is the fence sitters. One told me, "Support the war and help us or oppose the war and bring us home. Just don't take the freedom I'm protecting for granted."

Apathy is what they hate. Me, too.

[MrBenchley]

75. I believe you. Thousands wouldn't.

[dajoki]

63. who the hell ever said...

flag burning means you hate the armed forces? it may mean you hate the policies that sent them to war.

[MrBenchley]

81. Bullshit

The flag doesn't stand for policies. If you want to protest the policies, burn a copy of the Downing Street Memo or shares of Halliburton or something.

The flag stands for all Americans and our institutions, including the armed forces. Burn it, and you're committing a vioent act announcing THAT's what you hate.

[FredScuttle]

83. Thanks for your narrow definition of our right to dissent

although I believe Texas v. Johnson settled the matter.

[MrBenchley]

85. Dissent all you like, skippy

There's a difference betwen dissent and committing a violent act that expresses hatred for Americans and all things American. It's the same as burning a cross, although even more so. A cross doesn't represent all Americans; the flag does.

"I believe Texas v. Johnson settled the matter"
Not even close to true, but if that's what you believe then you got no kick coming, do you?

[FredScuttle]

89. So you're defining how I may use the flag?

Who are you, the friggin' flag police?

on edit: my reference to the Texas v. Johnson decision was that the SC "held that the defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

[MrBenchley]

92. The flag belongs to all Americans

and burning it is like burning a cross...only more so.

[FredScuttle]

93. Sez you

I'll take my direction from Texas v. Johnson, thanks

[MrBenchley]

94. Says pretty much everyone except a handful of fringe leftists

Left and right, this is going to be a bill with wide bipartisan support, which is as it should be. And I feel sure the narrow definition in this bill is going to satisfy the courts on Constitutional grounds.

[FredScuttle]

95. the bigger question is

why are Democrats giving cover to Republicans on social wedge issues like these which have absolutely ZERO impact on 99% of the nation? Outlawing killing puppies would have broad bipartisan support too, but is that our priority? How are we differentiating ourselves from the incompetents who've run the store for 5 years?

[MrBenchley]

97. No, the bigger question is what kind of idiot burns a flag?

"social wedge issues like these which have absolutely ZERO impact on 99% of the nation?"
Which is how it is that we have hordes of teen progressives here wailing about how horrible it is that they're prevented from lighting up Old Glory.

"How are we differentiating ourselves from the incompetents who've run the store for 5 years?"
Don't let the door hit you in the ass then. If you can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats, maybe you ought to make another choice.

[FredScuttle]

100. Let's see if you can follow:

1) Are we seeing mobs of these "teen progressives" in the streets lighting up the flag? Maybe in your city...haven't noticed an uptick in flag burning in my community from its current occurence rate of FUCKING ZERO

2) I didn't say there's no difference between the parties...I was asking how the Democrats are portraying themselves to the voters as different from the GOP instead of tagging along on these nonsensical issues. If there is a lesson to be learned from the last election, it's that people are looking for clear distinction from the current policies, not watered-down "centrist" versions of the same.

[MrBenchley]

101. Why would I possibly want to follow that dreary blah?

"If there is a lesson to be learned from the last election, it's that people are looking for clear distinction from the current policies, not watered-down "centrist" versions"
Says who? In fact, one of the biggest winners was DLC member Tim Kaine of Virginia.

[FredScuttle]

102. Kaine ran as a Democrat

not Republican-lite. Nuff said.

[MrBenchley]

103. Kaine ran as a centrist Democrat and is a DLC member

[CTLawGuy]

84. All our laws should be subject to the "Fidel Castro test"

If Fidel Castro passed the same law, would the US say it's "another example of Fidel Castro oppressing his people?"

If the answer is yes, the law would be invalid.


Let's apply that to criminalizing flag burning....

[MrBenchley]

86. Wow, what a silly fucking test.

[CTLawGuy]

88. No your state is silly

this test is good.

Go learn how to pump your own gas and stop being an asshole.

[wiley]

70. Those who fight and die do so regardless of how

they feel about the necessity for same? You mean that?

[SaveElmer]

30. So to all those bashing Hillary for this...I assume we'll be seeing

Threads started bashing Senator Conrad who was the first Democratic co-sponsor...

http://bennett.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=240121

I guess its only fun bashing Hillary

[SaveElmer]

33. Lets at least give proper information...

The Bill is not Hillary's bill...it was introduced by Senator Bennett of Utah, and Senator Conrad of North Dakota. Senator Dorgan also of North Dakota is a co-cponsor...

As a matter of fact, Hillary is not yet even listed as a co-sponsor.

Lets also be clear...the intent of the bill is to prevent flag-burning where the act is intended to incite violence...this according to Senator Conrad.

I doubt these will be the only Democratic co-sponsors...so when they sign on I expect all of you bashing Hillary about this to be as equally incensed when others do the same thing.

Hillary has made it clear, if you look at her statement when she voted AGAINST the amendment to ban flag burning, that she supported any constitutional legislation to accomplish this. This is the same position taken by everyone's hero (and mine) Howard Dean during the 2002 Presidential campaign.

It is also a less severe action than Mark Dayton, Wes Clark, Tom Lantos and other Democrats who favor a constitutional amendment have advocated. A position Dennis Kucinich agreed with until he flip flopped (as he did on abortion).

[radio4progressives]

41. This bill was reported as a "Frist/Clinton" bill ...

co-sponsored a Frist bill of all things... sheesh..

[SaveElmer]

42. Here is a link to the bill in question....

Actually it is Bennett and Clinton...and is one of a few bills for the same purpose...here is the latest

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01911:@@@P

Here is the previous...as you can see both ND senators and Robert Byrd are co-sponsors

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01370:@@@P

[dajoki]

64. i thought you said...

she is not even listed as a co-sponser. that's not what it has on the link you provided.

[MrBenchley]

76. That's because

it turns out there's more than one version of this bill...and both have Democratic cosponsors.

[SaveElmer]

90. Look below....

There are two bills...both introduced by Sen. Bennett...the first was co-sponsored by Sens. Dorgan, Conrad, and Byrd...the second is co-sponsored by Hillary. I wasn't aware there were two.

[SaveElmer]

43. Update...there is more than one bill...Clinton, Dorgan, Conrad, Byrd

For the Democrats signed on to one of these two bills...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01370:@@@P

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01911:@@@P

[closeupready]

96. I get so tired of seeing dems cave to nationalist GOP demagogues.

Only in this case, it's not a response to any prominent GOP criticism - it's a pre-emptive move in advance of 2006 and 2008 (in Hillary's case). That's disgusting.

[radio4progressives]

34. Very well put ...seems obvious - classic case of "bad intelligence" of

politicans, once they've been elected to office.

or is it a case of extraordinary rendition of common sense?

on edit: to coin a David Sirota phrase, equating Flag burning to Cross burning is yet another case of "incomprehensible stupidity".

[MrBenchley]

49. Seems more like a case of "no intelligence"

by our teen progressives.

[dajoki]

66. there are more than...

"teens posting here.

[MrBenchley]

79. Hahahahaha....

[dajoki]

65. very good quote...

to coin a David Sirota phrase, equating Flag burning to Cross burning is yet another case of "incomprehensible stupidity". to me that is the point, you cannot compare the two.

[Bucky]

57. Great. While she's protecting the flag, who's saving the Constitution?

I wonder how Bartcop is gonna apologize for her on this issue?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[dajoki]

67. why?

[NuttyFluffers]

68. i'm so glad i've washed my hands of her. :)

it's rather freeing, y'know. and until 2008 primaries i don't have to think about her or think of any compromising situations about her running vs satan himself.

it's nice when you can live life free with your principles and not worry that most of my representatives have their heads firmly lodged up their ass.

[closeupready]

78. I'm getting ready to, esp. when her supporters defend this crap -

it's positively Rovian.

[1932]

69. Cornel West would say she's worshiping false idols.

[MrBenchley]

77. Would he? Be sure and trot out his quote.

Nothing expresses the ineffible honesty and decency of the "we hate Hillary so let's burn a flag" crowd than these invented quotes by Cornel West and David Sirota.

Next up, what Jerry Mathers would have said about Hillary if he hadn't gotten killed in Viet Nam....or was that Eddie Haskell?

[NYdemocrat089]

104. As much as I like Hillary this whole thing kind of disgusts me

One: Who gives a rat's ass about flag burning. We're in the middle of a war, the rethuglicans are passing more tax cuts for Bushy's rich buddies, global warming is only getting worse, it has been months since Katrina and the Gulf Coast is still a mess, gas prices are going through the roof and we aren't doing anything to decrease out dependency on oil...we have much more important things to talk about Senator.

Second: It is against the first amendment.

[dajoki]

106. that is...

one of the best and truest responses to this issue that i've read. thank you.

[OldSeahorse]

114. It's about time

I've never been overly fond of Hillary but I hope her bill passes