| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
05 Dec 2005 04:40:49 PM |
| Object: |
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation
to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still
opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob
Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer,
when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she
didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation
making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
05 Dec 2005 05:21:34 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnWE05vAfXwneRVn-ig@giganews.com...
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation
to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still
opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob
Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer,
when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she
didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation
making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
Hillary is positioning herself for the election
in 2008. She wisely realizes that she cannot
win unless she does a few things to make
herself look like someone she is not. If she
succeeds, it's likely she will fool enough
voters to get elected as President of the USA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
05 Dec 2005 08:43:48 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> writes:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnWE05vAfXwneRVn-ig@giganews.com...
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress
last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was
debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional
ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to
desecrate the flag.
Hillary is positioning herself for the election in 2008. She wisely
realizes that she cannot win unless she does a few things to make
herself look like someone she is not. If she succeeds, it's likely
she will fool enough voters to get elected as President of the USA.
A more likely explanation is that she rightly opposed a constitutional
ammendment but she doesn't want to give the Republicans the
opportunity to lie about her and claim she supports flag burning.
See
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/11/22/BL2005112200521.html>
for an example of the sort of tactics Republicans will try to use.
We don't need a constitutional amendment to stop flag burning: it is
extremely rare to begin with, so public saftey/fire regulations can
make up the difference (after all, when the idea is to get people
mad, you don't do it in private where nobody can see you, and there
are legitimate reasons to not allow fires to be started on the steps
of City Hall due to interfering with access to the facilities, not
to mention a risk in some cases of burning down the building).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
05 Dec 2005 04:54:12 PM |
|
|
A crime to express disdain for the American symbol as
an expression of an individual citizen's opinion?
In Turkey people are thrown in prison for any negative opinon of Ataturk.
In Iran and other Muslim countries people would kill anyone expressing any
doubts about the Quaran.
Under Stalin citizens would be executed for burning the hammer and sickle.
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnWE05vAfXwneRVn-ig@giganews.com...
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new
legislation
to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still
opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob
Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last
summer,
when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then
she
didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation
making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 02:48:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:54:12 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com>
wrote in message <1w3lf.18158$wi2.8344@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
A crime to express disdain for the American symbol as
an expression of an individual citizen's opinion?
In Turkey people are thrown in prison for any negative opinon of Ataturk.
In Iran and other Muslim countries people would kill anyone expressing any
doubts about the Quaran.
Under Stalin citizens would be executed for burning the hammer and sickle.
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
I doubt any such law would pass a constitutional challenge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 02:51:56 PM |
|
|
(Boy Toy) wrote in
news:p7ubp11kg167ubf4h4ttbkevr359j31pqo@4ax.com:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:54:12 -0500, "Frank Arthur"
<Art@Arthurian.com>
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
I doubt any such law would pass a constitutional challenge.
That's what everybody thought about the so-called "campaign finance
reform" laws.
Bush was too much of a weeny to veto the "Campaign Reform Act of
2002" and expected the Supreme Court to bail him out.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 11:20:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:54:12 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com>
wrote:
A crime to express disdain for the American symbol as
an expression of an individual citizen's opinion?
In Turkey people are thrown in prison for any negative opinon of Ataturk.
In Iran and other Muslim countries people would kill anyone expressing any
doubts about the Quaran.
Under Stalin citizens would be executed for burning the hammer and sickle.
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
If they BAN 'flag' burning, there is no reason they could not... would
not ban other "un" patriotic speech... it's a very slippery slope they
are dancing above.
James, Seattle
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnWE05vAfXwneRVn-ig@giganews.com...
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new
legislation
to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still
opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob
Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last
summer,
when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then
she
didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation
making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 03:52:36 PM |
|
|
RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> writes:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:54:12 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com>
wrote:
A crime to express disdain for the American symbol as
an expression of an individual citizen's opinion?
In Turkey people are thrown in prison for any negative opinon of Ataturk.
In Iran and other Muslim countries people would kill anyone expressing any
doubts about the Quaran.
Under Stalin citizens would be executed for burning the hammer and sickle.
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
If they BAN 'flag' burning, there is no reason they could not... would
not ban other "un" patriotic speech... it's a very slippery slope they
are dancing above.
You'd be surprised by what past flag-burning laws have said.
Take the flag-burning test!
"Don't Torch That Flag, Hand Me The Lighter"
http://www.firesigntheatre.com/flag.html
If any flag-burning legislation passes, I will modify the above
game to email the attorney general's office with the timestamp
and IP address, along with the total number of flags burned by
the contestant. Then it will be the ONLY internet game where
losing means risking a prison sentence!
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 04:29:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:52:36 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote in message <11pc214tgk5ma93@corp.supernews.com>
RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> writes:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:54:12 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com>
wrote:
A crime to express disdain for the American symbol as
an expression of an individual citizen's opinion?
In Turkey people are thrown in prison for any negative opinon of Ataturk.
In Iran and other Muslim countries people would kill anyone expressing any
doubts about the Quaran.
Under Stalin citizens would be executed for burning the hammer and sickle.
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
If they BAN 'flag' burning, there is no reason they could not... would
not ban other "un" patriotic speech... it's a very slippery slope they
are dancing above.
You'd be surprised by what past flag-burning laws have said.
Take the flag-burning test!
"Don't Torch That Flag, Hand Me The Lighter"
http://www.firesigntheatre.com/flag.html
If any flag-burning legislation passes, I will modify the above
game to email the attorney general's office with the timestamp
and IP address, along with the total number of flags burned by
the contestant. Then it will be the ONLY internet game where
losing means risking a prison sentence!
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Not found.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 09:10:56 AM |
|
|
Boy Toy <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> writes:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:52:36 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote in message <11pc214tgk5ma93@corp.supernews.com>
RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> writes:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:54:12 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com>
wrote:
A crime to express disdain for the American symbol as
an expression of an individual citizen's opinion?
In Turkey people are thrown in prison for any negative opinon of Ataturk.
In Iran and other Muslim countries people would kill anyone expressing any
doubts about the Quaran.
Under Stalin citizens would be executed for burning the hammer and sickle.
Are you a supporter of oppression of the individuals
right to critisize or destroy symbols?
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
If they BAN 'flag' burning, there is no reason they could not... would
not ban other "un" patriotic speech... it's a very slippery slope they
are dancing above.
You'd be surprised by what past flag-burning laws have said.
Take the flag-burning test!
"Don't Torch That Flag, Hand Me The Lighter"
http://www.firesigntheatre.com/flag.html
If any flag-burning legislation passes, I will modify the above
game to email the attorney general's office with the timestamp
and IP address, along with the total number of flags burned by
the contestant. Then it will be the ONLY internet game where
losing means risking a prison sentence!
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Not found.
D'oh! I meant
http://www.firesigntheatre.com/flag/index.html
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 04:47:24 PM |
|
|
RainLover wrote:
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
We need to find a new symbol for our country. The old stars and
stripes used to be sacred, but it lost a little bit of its sacredness
every time it was burned. It sacredness was reduced to zero sometime
around 1993. So now our troops are, sadly, fighting a war for a flag
which is not sacred. We need a new, sacred flag. Ironically, the
best motif would incorporate a fire motif: the burning Bush, which
would symbolize how Bush II (like Moses) put us back in touch with God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jericho" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 05:07:09 PM |
|
|
Better yet, how about we actually burn Bush, take a picture, and put
that on a flag.
It'll be about us putting Shrub back in touch with God (sic).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
13 Dec 2005 04:36:41 PM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 14:47:24 -0800, "Timothy"
<Timothy.Horrigan@alumni.usc.edu> wrote in message
<1133995644.652275.58780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
RainLover wrote:
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
We need to find a new symbol for our country. The old stars and
stripes used to be sacred, but it lost a little bit of its sacredness
every time it was burned. It sacredness was reduced to zero sometime
around 1993. So now our troops are, sadly, fighting a war for a flag
which is not sacred. We need a new, sacred flag. Ironically, the
best motif would incorporate a fire motif: the burning Bush, which
would symbolize how Bush II (like Moses) put us back in touch with God.
Sacred flag? What crap. What next? Little idols of GWB for your
churches? Maybe ***** Cheney too? ROFLMAO! Sacred indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
13 Dec 2005 03:03:25 PM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 14:47:24 -0800, "Timothy"
<Timothy.Horrigan@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
RainLover wrote:
If this law passes, the next day you will find me ON THE STREETS of
seattle burning things that look suspiciously LIKE the American Flag,
but NOT... how about a flag with 14 stripes? 3 stars? 60 stars??
What if I burn a tee shirt with a silkscreened flag? What if I burn
an American Flag pair of underwear?
We need to find a new symbol for our country. The old stars and
stripes used to be sacred, but it lost a little bit of its sacredness
every time it was burned. It sacredness was reduced to zero sometime
around 1993.
So now our troops are, sadly, fighting a war for a flag
which is not sacred.
What in the hell are you talking about? The flag is RARELY burned in
the USA, and when it is to make a strong political statement, it
STRENGTHENS the U.S.; it doesn't weaken it.
NO ONE in any war is fighting for a 'flag'. If they are, they are
morons. A piece of cloth is meaningless. It SYMBOLIZES a country,
but it's not the COUNTRY, it's people, or its Creed.
It's a s.y.m.b.o.l.
We need a new, sacred flag. Ironically, the
best motif would incorporate a fire motif: the burning Bush, which
would symbolize how Bush II (like Moses) put us back in touch with God.
Why do we need a SACRED flag?
Personally, I'm more worried about what's happening to the very REAL
CONSTITUTION than I am something false-patriots wrap themselves around
when it suits them.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tightwad" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
05 Dec 2005 10:10:37 PM |
|
|
It is abhorsnt to me to see creeps burn our Flag the symbol of what
America stood for and what Americans stand for.
However, we do not need nor want another Law on the books limiting our
freedom from government intervention and persecution.
I hope that someone beats the crap out of the flag burner, when we are
going about our own business, in other quarters, but he has the right to
be a fool.
Let him try that in some of the places the Liberals worship as shinning
examples of Socialism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 05:37:59 AM |
|
|
tightwad wrote:
It is abhorsnt to me to see creeps burn our Flag the symbol of what
America stood for and what Americans stand for.
However, we do not need nor want another Law on the books limiting our
freedom from government intervention and persecution.
I hope that someone beats the crap out of the flag burner, when we are
going about our own business, in other quarters, but he has the right to
be a fool.
Let him try that in some of the places the Liberals worship as shinning
examples of Socialism.
I could never figure this one out. Is it better that I don't burn the
flag because I respect it, or I just don't want to break the law. The
flag means a lot more in the first case.
tulle
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 01:08:45 PM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2005 03:37:59 -0800, "tulle" <tulle040657@yahoo.com> wrote:
tightwad wrote:
It is abhorsnt to me to see creeps burn our Flag the symbol of what
America stood for and what Americans stand for.
However, we do not need nor want another Law on the books limiting our
freedom from government intervention and persecution.
I hope that someone beats the crap out of the flag burner, when we are
going about our own business, in other quarters, but he has the right to
be a fool.
Let him try that in some of the places the Liberals worship as shinning
examples of Socialism.
I could never figure this one out. Is it better that I don't burn the
flag because I respect it, or I just don't want to break the law. The
flag means a lot more in the first case.
Just a side comment, but I could never figure out why so many people
automatically assume that a liberal has a fondness for authoritarian,
socialist regimes. The last sentence in tightwad's post reminds me of
the old line "Why don't you go live in Russia". It made absolutely no
sense, but the person saying it always seemed to think it was a
totally crushing comment. The one thing it did do was to make one
aware that further discussion would be a total waste of time.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 08:42:08 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
For just this kind of closet fascism, there are a great many liberals who refuse to deal with Clinton. She, as bad as the
Republicans, cares only for what is politically expedient and personally lucrative.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "hc23hc" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 11:17:53 AM |
|
|
| For just this kind of closet fascism, there are a great many liberals
who refuse to deal with Clinton. She, as bad as the Republicans, cares
only for what is politically expedient and personally lucrative.
Hillary Clinton, having wasted valuable political time and public
patience with not one but two hot-button moron pleasers - video game
ratings and now flag-burning criminalization - has gone down the same
dark alley (from which there is no honorable exit) as W with gay
marriage conflagration when he should've been listening to the voice of
the People saying, "George! Stop embezzling our money and shunting it
by the Trillion to enrich organizations built on mass murder for
profit! Stop sending our soldiers to die as pawns in your methodical
destruction of the planet for obscene riches that don't belong to you!
Stop trying to be Tipper Gore when you need to be Eugene Debs!"
But no. Anybody see Hillary and W in the same room, or back to back
occupying the same, once-lofty office?
That's not a cure for cancer, it's the cause.
..
..
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 01:01:24 PM |
|
|
J Young. I defy you to codify and identify (describe) what
an American flag worth defending is?
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnWE05vAfXwneRVn-ig@giganews.com...
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new
legislation
to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still
opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob
Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last
summer,
when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then
she
didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation
making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
05 Dec 2005 05:09:41 PM |
|
|
Looney Lying Loser "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6v6dnWE05vAfXwneRVn-ig@giganews.com...
<IBen's flamebait "opinion" flushed>
"Left-wingers wrap themselves in the Constitution so they can burn the flag,
while right-wingers wrap themselves in the flag so they can burn the
Constitution."~ Unknown
LC~ Believes "J Young" ought to be wrapped in a straitjacket.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards."~ Claire Wolfe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
06 Dec 2005 06:51:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:40:49 -0500, J Young wrote:
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
I'd feel a lot better about voting for Hillary if she would do a better
job of sticking to her principles. But, she is a politician, and needs to
maximize her appeal to get elected. It's nice that the Repubs are working
so hard to make themselves look as reprehensible as possible; that will
also improve her chances. It will be a LONG time before I vote Republican
again.
Another interesting angle: if it is illegal to burn a flag, will that
make flag-burning an even more poignant act of protest and civil
disobedience? I think it might.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new
legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _
though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen.
Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last
summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton
said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support
federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "erikc" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 12:53:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:40:49 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Mrs. Clinton better be careful or she'll no longer be the poster-child of
the LLL (Looney Liberal Left).
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation
to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still
opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob
Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any
constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the
subject.
Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer,
when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she
didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation
making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
This ***** comes up every few years and gets smacked down.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight (retired) | "The Truth against the World."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGrannus" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 09:25:50 AM |
|
|
This just confirms that (so-called) "liberals" are at least as big
demagogues as Republicans. But that didn't really need confirmation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 09:42:13 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 07:25:50 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com> wrote:
This just confirms that (so-called) "liberals" are at least as big
demagogues as Republicans. But that didn't really need confirmation.
It's called pandering for votes. Even the thinking ones have to get
elected by ignorant rednecks. Bush stood as a compassionate
conservative and got the centre vote for that (apart from hid
contemptible treatment of real war heroes like Kerry, Cleland, McCain
etc on both sides), and what he did when he got into power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 09:57:52 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gg0ep11o9mf688o5571st6uaqetu3c6c59@4ax.com...
On 7 Dec 2005 07:25:50 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com> wrote:
This just confirms that (so-called) "liberals" are at least as big
demagogues as Republicans. But that didn't really need confirmation.
It's called pandering for votes. Even the thinking ones have to get
elected by ignorant rednecks. Bush stood as a compassionate
conservative and got the centre vote for that (apart from hid
contemptible treatment of real war heroes like Kerry, Cleland, McCain
etc on both sides), and what he did when he got into power.
Bush won the first time because of his
agenda. He won the second time because
the Democrats did not put up a candidate
the American public could stomach.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 10:07:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:52 -0600, "Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gg0ep11o9mf688o5571st6uaqetu3c6c59@4ax.com...
On 7 Dec 2005 07:25:50 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com> wrote:
This just confirms that (so-called) "liberals" are at least as big
demagogues as Republicans. But that didn't really need confirmation.
It's called pandering for votes. Even the thinking ones have to get
elected by ignorant rednecks. Bush stood as a compassionate
conservative and got the centre vote for that (apart from hid
contemptible treatment of real war heroes like Kerry, Cleland, McCain
etc on both sides), and what he did when he got into power.
Bush won the first time because of his
agenda. He won the second time because
the Democrats did not put up a candidate
the American public could stomach.
Because of the hatchet job.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 12:24:59 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 07:25:50 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com> wrote:
This just confirms that (so-called) "liberals" are at least as big
demagogues as Republicans. But that didn't really need confirmation.
It's called pandering for votes. Even the thinking ones have to get
elected by ignorant rednecks. Bush stood as a compassionate
conservative and got the centre vote for that (apart from hid
contemptible treatment of real war heroes like Kerry, Cleland, McCain
etc on both sides), and what he did when he got into power.
And that, somehow, makes taking a stand against settled civil rights less
repugnant?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law |
07 Dec 2005 01:42:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:24:59 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 07:25:50 -0800, "RGrannus" <RGrannus@hotmail.com> wrote:
This just confirms that (so-called) "liberals" are at least as big
demagogues as Republicans. But that didn't really need confirmation.
It's called pandering for votes. Even the thinking ones have to get
elected by ignorant rednecks. Bush stood as a compassionate
conservative and got the centre vote for that (apart from hid
contemptible treatment of real war heroes like Kerry, Cleland, McCain
etc on both sides), and what he did when he got into power.
And that, somehow, makes taking a stand against settled civil rights less
repugnant?
Where did I say that? With the present sound-byte climate and the
bigotry of the rednecks, no politician is going to be elected on a
sensible platform, or anything that takes an explanation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
