• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flag-burning amendment

Thank God we have people who are willing to take a stand and protect us from flag-burning same-sex married advocates of third-world condom distribution. Such folk would surely ruing this great nation. More short sighted representatives might be spending all their time trying to get the economy on track or figuring out why the world hates us or improving education or something. Then where would we be?
 
Michael Redman said:
Thank God we have people who are willing to take a stand and protect us from flag-burning same-sex married advocates of third-world condom distribution. Such folk would surely ruing this great nation. More short sighted representatives might be spending all their time trying to get the economy on track or figuring out why the world hates us or improving education or something. Then where would we be?
Your post suggests that the distractions are too great to overcome.

This is government. It is by definition political. There always has been and always will be distractions.

Leading indicators are up. The economy is on track. I don't care why the world "hates" us. Besides, I don't think the world does hate us and trying to please the world is a fools errand.

I disagree with those who want to pass these laws/amendments/bills whatever and I wish that the congress would leave them be but I hardly think that if they did we would see great progress. In fact, our legislative branch is working pretty much as planned.

So you figured out that the politicians are playing politics. Welcome to the real world. No, you don't have to like it but to survive with your mental health you are going to have to accept the fact that- where there are politicians there will always be some level of politics.
 
Nasarius said:
Excellent. You've just demonstrated exactly why a significant portion of the world hates the US and its foreign policy.
Right, we have to care about them but they don't have to care about us. Sorry but this is such BS. Everyone's feelings are hurt because we won't kiss their a$$. Sorry, get over it. Those whose feelings are hurt are not kissing our a$$. None of those who hate us go out of their way to find out what our problems are or show that they care about us so why is it that we have to bend over and take one in the rear only to get on our knees to kiss everyone elses rear end?

No thank you. Friendship is not one sided. We are willing to work with those who are willing to work with us. To those who hate us. Good bye.

If you can get over your hurt feelings and would like a relationship then we can extend our hand and work things out.
 
Randfan posted:
"This is government. It is by definition political. There always has been and always will be distractions.
Leading indicators are up. The economy is on track. I don't care why the world "hates" us. Besides, I don't think the world does hate us and trying to please the world is a fools errand. "

Nasaruis then took the post out of context, trimming it to read only "I don't care why the world "hates" us", and leaving off the qualifying statements, as a preface to:
Nasarius said:
Excellent. You've just demonstrated exactly why a significant portion of the world hates the US and its foreign policy.

So if the US admits that it isn't productive to worry about something that is unattainable, (namely making all parts of the world not hate us) that makes the US responsible for the hate?

Or did you have a specific and direct method for making the world not hate us?

You can start with those who hate us because in the US women and minorities aren't chattel, or those who hate us because in the US we refuse to kill and persecute members of certain religions to suit *their* religious hatreds.
How exactly do you suggest that the US make *them* love us?

Because without a concrete and workable solution to that one, you too are admitting that the victims of hate can't help it that they are hated.
 
It's stuff like this that make me not even consider voting Republican.

It's the bones they thow to the rubes, without even caring what people who love the Bill of Rights think.

I find it cynical, and I fear the right because they wouldn't know Thomas Paine if he bit them on the ass.

Every time there's a bill to amend the constitution to deny rights to citizens, or grant the government rights that the Bill of Rights denied it, you can bet which party's behind it.


It's the party of "freedom".
 
Silicon said:
It's stuff like this that make me not even consider voting Republican.

It's the bones they thow to the rubes, without even caring what people who love the Bill of Rights think.

I find it cynical, and I fear the right because they wouldn't know Thomas Paine if he bit them on the ass.

Every time there's a bill to amend the constitution to deny rights to citizens, or grant the government rights that the Bill of Rights denied it, you can bet which party's behind it.


It's the party of "freedom".

Every time? The Democrats have NEVER sponsored a bill that would deny rights to citizens, or give the government intrusive powers?
:rolleyes:
Glad to see you are basing your statements on rigourously cited research instead of knee jerk agit prop and hate mongering.
 
Silicon said:
It's stuff like this that make me not even consider voting Republican.
Hmmmm.... something tells me you would never consider voting Republican anyway. Have you ever considered voting Republican? Why?

It's the bones they thow to the rubes, without even caring what people who love the Bill of Rights think.
Republicans don't love the bill of rights or have contempt for those who do? Do you really believe this?

I find it cynical, and I fear the right because they wouldn't know Thomas Paine if he bit them on the ass.
So, only the right would ever infringe on rights?

Every time there's a bill to amend the constitution to deny rights to citizens, or grant the government rights that the Bill of Rights denied it, you can bet which party's behind it.
Sounds specious to me.

To be fair, Republicans tend to be security and law enforcement minded. They favor victims rights whereas Democrats tend to favor the rights of the accused.

You see the world with blinders and make judgments in a vacuum. You should read more than just left leaning propaganda. Being a bigot is poor way to go through life.
 
Silicon said:
Every time there's a bill to amend the constitution to deny rights to citizens, or grant the government rights that the Bill of Rights denied it, you can bet which party's behind it.
Oh really,

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which resulted in the forcible internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry. More than two-thirds of those interned under the Executive Order were citizens of the United States, and none had ever shown any disloyalty. The War Relocation Authority was created to administer the assembly centers, relocation centers, and internment camps, and relocation of Japanese-Americans began in April 1942. Internment camps were scattered all over the interior West, in isolated desert areas of Arizona, California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming, where Japanese-Americans were forced to carry on their lives under harsh conditions.
That wascally republican Roosevelt.
 
RandFan said:
So you figured out that the politicians are playing politics. Welcome to the real world.

I'm not in denial about the real world... but when they play politics with the Constitution IMO they weaken it, even if what they propose never passes. The idea remains, and keeps resurfacing.

And regarding Roosevelt's Executive Order... that wasn't a constitutional amendment. Nor was it "Playing Politics" IMO... Although I join you in condemning it.
 
Ladewig said:
ACLU story


I don't recall any flag burnings in the past several weeks or several months or even years. I wonder why this bill made it out of committee today?


----------------------

Perhaps George M. Cohan said it best, "Many a bum show has been saved by the flag."

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

I also notice that in spite of all these purported crisies America is facing, congress is still going on vacation soon....
 
gnome said:
I'm not in denial about the real world... but when they play politics with the Constitution IMO they weaken it...
I disagree. The founding fathers never invisioned that the consitituon would not be challenged or that politicians would not try to circumvent it. That is why they seperated powers. Challenges make us stronger. It exposes the issues and stirs debate.

...even if what they propose never passes. The idea remains, and keeps resurfacing.
And if passed the courts will likely strike it down. Smart thinking those framers. I think you underestimate the strength of our system.

And regarding Roosevelt's Executive Order... that wasn't a constitutional amendment. Nor was it "Playing Politics" IMO... Although I join you in condemning it.
I was responding to silicon who said in part.

...or grant the government rights that the Bill of Rights denied it
I would think the actions of Roosevelt would qualify to silicon's claim.
 
fishbob said:
Therefore the best way to protect flags from being burned is to pass legislation requiring every citizen to burn a flag each year. Possibly on April 15.

Conversely, I believe that the best way to ensure that as many flags as possible get burned is to pass some kind of law prohibiting it.
 
RandFan said:
I disagree. The founding fathers never invisioned that the consitituon would not be challenged or that politicians would not try to circumvent it. That is why they seperated powers. Challenges make us stronger. It exposes the issues and stirs debate.


The only "debate" that happens is people getting pissed off that someone's trying to change the constitution for something so useless, and its proponents not respecting the constitution enough to care except to score points by saying how much they hate flag-burners... it gets awfully tiring to fight that battle...

And if passed the courts will likely strike it down. Smart thinking those framers. I think you underestimate the strength of our system.


The courts cannot strike down a constitutional amendment, if it's passed properly.
 
gnome said:
The only "debate" that happens is people getting pissed off that someone's trying to change the constitution for something so useless, and its proponents not respecting the constitution enough to care except to score points by saying how much they hate flag-burners... it gets awfully tiring to fight that battle...
I disagree, any debate is good. And I don't completely agree that this is only about playing politics. But that does not really matter. Much of what is debated in congress is, I think, useless. Just because I think something is useless does not make it so. I certainly understand your frustration. I also understand why you find it useless. I have no problem myself with concentrating on this or any issue.

The courts cannot strike down a constitutional amendment, if it's passed properly.
It's not easy to amend the constitution. It was made a difficult process for a purpose. Long before being ratified the issue will be vetted and debated. If it passes which I find very unlikely then it would upset me but I would live with it. Our system is not perfect but it is good, very good. BTW it is also possible to repeal an amendment and you can be sure that those who are against the amendment will fight vigorously to defeat it. I will be on your side of that fight.
 
RandFan said:
Oh really,

That wascally republican Roosevelt.

I was talking specifically about events in my lifetime. Otherwise I'd vote Republican forever because of just Lincoln and Teddy.

I would have voted against any party which interred Japanese citizens, were I alive then and had my same morals.


Yes, I would have voted for republicans, except that I hate what they do when they think they're passing laws on morality. I'm economically moderate, but fiercly libertarian when it comes to "morality" and anti free-speech laws.


I'm not saying that no democrat ever tried to pass a law that restricted some freedom.



I'm talking about CORE, Bill of Rights type freedoms. And by and large, these are fought against by Republicans.

Stuff like the state sponsoring a prayer to ram down your kids' throat at school.

Stuff like passing Colorado's law that banned any gays from passing antidiscrimination laws.

Stuff like California's prop 187 which tried to kick American citizens out of public school if their parents were illegals.

Stuff like flag burning.

Stuff like the Communications Indecency Act, which would have made a private love letter to my wife a Federal Offense!

Stuff like chip, chip chipping away at Miranda.

Stuff like chip chip chipping away at search and siezure.

Attempting to overturn for the last 20 years reproductive freedom.

Gag rules which forced doctors getting Federal funding from mentioning abortion.


Attempting to overturn right to die laws enacted by states.





This is the stuff that chaps me about the Republican party.

They can have all the tax breaks they want. Seriously. I'm all for low taxes and small government, if it can actually get government out of my bedroom and out of my doctor's office.

The republicans get all the props for standing up for the 2nd Amendment.

by my count, that's one down and about 7 to go!
 
Silicon said:
I'm talking about CORE, Bill of Rights type freedoms. And by and large, these are fought against by Republicans.

...

This is the stuff that chaps me about the Republican party.

They can have all the tax breaks they want. Seriously. I'm all for low taxes and small government, if it can actually get government out of my bedroom and out of my doctor's office.

The republicans get all the props for standing up for the 2nd Amendment.

by my count, that's one down and about 7 to go!
Agree and disagree. I consider myself libertarian. I agree with many of your points but don't see them in the extreme that you do. That is fine, I respect your POV.

One I strongly disagree with you on is,

Stuff like California's prop 187 which tried to kick American citizens out of public school if their parents were illegals.
The United States should not be a lottery ticket for those who break the law and have children here. We have a very real and demonstrable problem. I am all for immigration. I just happen to think that those who come here ought to follow the rules. Also illegals are draining an enormus amount of our revenue. Bear in mind that California is a democratic state. Many Democrats and many hispanics supported 187 because it made sense.

Immigration And The State Budget Deficit

Writing on VDARE.com, Ed Rubenstein, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants and a noted public policy statistician, has calculated the net cost of immigrants, both illegal and legal, on the California budget. According to Rubenstein, based on the array of state subsidy and spending programs, immigrants in California receive about $9.3 billion more in state expenditures than they pay in state taxes. He concludes that "nearly one-quarter (24.5 percent) of California's current $38 billion state budget deficit stems directly from immigration." Rubenstein's aggregate figures seem plausible when one considers the cost of immigration to specific government programs.

Why can't Californians expect our immigration laws to be enforced and demand that finite resources be spent on those who came here legally? Why can't Californians take affirmative steps to keep us out of the red financially?
 
RandFan said:
Hmmmm.... something tells me you would never consider voting Republican anyway. Have you ever considered voting Republican? Why?

I was a big Reagan fan when I was young. I think it was the strong anti-abortion rights movement that pushed me the other direction when I became voting age. Also, I met a lot of very poor debaters on the Republican side, and some very intelligent democrats (a lot of very dumb dems, too.)

I was a political moderate at my California university, I despised radicalism.

About this time, the Republican party started a fierce anti-gay push, and I had it up to here with them when Buchanan declared cultural war on the first night of the republican convention. The way the crowd booed and hissed after he sneered the words "Gay rights", I fumed.

I had a lot of gay friends and family. This was the era of AIDS and gay bashings. This was the era when the LAPD couldn't be counted on to patrol West Hollywood, and walking to your car wasn't safe, nor was it intended to be. I remember fear of harm walking down the sidewalk with a friend.

And to see the republican crowd hiss and boo and sneer the very idea of "gay rights," openly and unashamedly, I wanted to vomit.

So that's when they just about lost me for good. The republicans used to be about better ideas than that. Ronald Reagan stood up for gay rights as a governor, and the Log Cabin Republicans were born.



Republicans don't love the bill of rights or have contempt for those who do? Do you really believe this?

Not all. But when they do things like the Flag Burning Amendment, the School Prayer Amendment, the Anti-gay Marriage Amendment, etc... I move further from ever supporting them.

I do wonder, with crap like the Communications Decency Act if they've ever read any First Amendment law.




So, only the right would ever infringe on rights?

Sounds specious to me.

Your words, not mine. I never said "only the right".



To be fair, Republicans tend to be security and law enforcement minded. They favor victims rights whereas Democrats tend to favor the rights of the accused.

I think that is a fair phrasing. Although in political talking points on Crossfire it's usually phrased as "Democrats tend to favor the rights of the criminal". Which is why "innocent until proven guilty" seems to be antithema to the indefinate detention without charge or access to a lawyer era of Ashcroft.


You see the world with blinders and make judgments in a vacuum. You should read more than just left leaning propaganda. Being a bigot is poor way to go through life.

To paraphrase George Will:

If any Americans want to short-circuit complex discussions by recklessly imputing bigotry to those who differ with them, such Americans do not usually turn to the Republican choice in our two-party system.


I've just dropped the proverbial "assload" of instances where my outrage meter was pegged by some attempt to repeal or restrict the already established and expected constitutional rights of individuals by the Republican party.

Is my memory merely selective? Perhaps. What are the current constitutional amendments being floated by the Democrats? Perhaps they're just as bad, or worse. But I think they're nonexistant at the moment (maybe one person's got an old copy of the ERA they're pushing).

Any insight as to why it seems like I can pull a huge laundry-list of these bills and laws from memory, but I can't seem to recall very much other than gun control and voluntary industry labeling of record albums from the democrats?

Is it me? Or is there something about the Republican party that makes it the party of the Proposed Constutional Amendment?
 

Back
Top Bottom