Flag Burning Amendment
 

Seriously, I'd ask whats going on, but I think we all know this is a vote grab for the Republicans. They need to get back to painting Democrats as America haters, so what better way than to bring something up they know won't pass, or one that they knoe the Dems will almost be forced to pass... no use wasting time on important things like stem cells where we might actually have to back up our stated position.

But anyway, the best I could find on the House site, here is what was passed:


Seriously, what does that mean, and how is that directly related only to flag burning. What denotes desecration? Does that include some guy having the flag on his shirt and the shirt getting holes through the flag or paint on it from paintball? What if I have a flag bumper sticker and I just leave it in the sun all day and it fades?

Personally, if I ever see a guy burning the flag, good for him... but he better understand I'll punch him in the face and spit on him. There's no reason for this amendment except a pure power grab.

I mean seriously guys, find something better to do with your time, like hiding dead hookers or something.

It's a well meaning but misguided piece of legislation, IMO. Of course, I feel that way about 95% of the legislation I disagree with.

Cam, just to make sure, you don't have nutbags call in like the Rush Limbaugh show. I was listening today at work, and some nut called in saying something about Democrats parading the flag around in public when they need it, but burning it at other times.

I know there are nutjobs on each side of the aisle, but how do these people function in normal society, and do they actually believe this stuff?

There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom.
I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em.
'Cause there's limits to our liberties.
'Least I hope and pray that there are.
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

ehh who cares, its just a fucking flag.

Besides the delicious irony of that, it means that the Congress will not be making laws just against the act, but rather will have to distinguish between different intents, which always gets tricky.

Besides, as Jon Stewart said, aren't most of the flags that are burnt being burnt outside the United States anyway?

Does this apply to flags MADE IN CHINA or just made In USA?

Just to understand better : Are Americans really offended by a burning flag or something like that? Americans rally feel the need to write amendement about their flag? Maybe this thing is not part of european culture so is hard for me to ralize that.
I don't know if we have something like your amendement but It seem that nobody here cares so much about their own country flag...I mean, there is not shuch idealization of the object.

I think the word you are looking for is 'idolization', and really it is just a cheap political trick by a certain segment of the ideological spectrum. It is an issue that is hard to defend, because they just keep screaming about how you must be on the side of the viet cong/communists/terrorists if you want people to burn the flag. Having a rational discussion about free speech is impossible in that type of environment.

You see, the poll numbers for that segment of the political spectrum are low and getting lower because their policy is terrible, so instead of making good policy, they create scapegoats. That's why you see this amendment passing in the House and Rove saying things like:
It's all part of the greater goal of blaming everything that is going wrong on the 'liberals', all while saying how nothing is wrong. It's like living in an Orwell novel.

I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the country would say no. This is not an American thing. It's more of an overly nationalistic thing. If you looked hard enough you could probably find someone in Italy that would be in favor of something like this.

Ok, that's what i liked to know. If we talk about overly nationalistic thing here in Europe we can find not only 'flag-related' problems but things far away worst than that.

Good analysis. I like it.

I'll give this legislation what it deserves. :rolleyes:

You're talking about a House and Senate that wants to write an amendment banning gay people from getting married. Not a threadjack, but amendments seem to be a tad misguided lately.

Also, I think an amendment like this has been attempted like 10 times or something in the last decade or something, so this is hardly some brand new thing.

Who cares what comes out of the House? That part of congress has more nutbags than a Planters Peanuts factory...

Maybe the House and Senate can make a combo Amendment?

Any gays who get married get burned at the Flag?



The whole thing is a crock of shit. Political grandstanding and fake patriotism. It's funny how the jokers are taking bribes, getting their houses bought for double the worth, getting to live free on boats, etc. and then they have the audacity to pretend they are patriots. I'm beginning to think Ben Franklin was right...a little revolution is a good thing.

...and yet, we vote the same people in over and over again. Our congressman is good, everyone else's is bad.

This legislation is idiotic. Not only is it a bad idea, but it will not achieve it's own purpose.

Right now there is no epidemic of flag burning. However, if you make it illegal to burn the flag, there will be more flag burnings than ever before. People will use it as a means of protest since it will get them publicity. I'm sure Martin Sheen is already looking into it.

This is a very silly amendment. I have no problem with allowing people to burn the flag and act like idiots - isn't that why we fought "for the flag" to begin with? Plus, it's easy to see the loonbags by looking for people that do burn the flag. ;)

In the end, this is a prime case of political grandstanding. I'm just a little surprised they didn't wait until early 2006 (to get the most for re-election).

Gee Miked, you've managed to pair up two of the examples of potential amendments that I support the most intensely, nice work.

I'm not so much against this ammendment. It would be nice if this could be accomplished without a constitutional ammendment, but I guess it couldn't. I'm all for free speech, but I think people should have respect for the flag and find another way to protest.

The thing that I am most uneasy about is the fact that this flag desecration stuff came up (for this round) so soon after all of the Koran desecration news. I'm not sure that is the association I would be going for.

I'm afraid the point of this is lost on me. Is there some epidemic of flag desecration that I'm not aware of?

I don't even believe that this is an effective vote grab - I think with most people this just plays as cynical and silly.

It's just a case of political grandstanding by the Republicans. They introduce it every couple of years when the polls are down and they need to find a way to rally their supporters to their side. Odds are, it won't make it out of the Senate.

An amendment is not needed. If the State wanted to get people who burn the flag, there are several neutral laws that can be, and have been, used, such as arson or other public safety laws. And flag burning in the U.S. is so infrequent.

I think you're underestimating it. Not so much the impact of the "pro" position but rather the impact of a "no" position. That's going to be very useful in a number of races coming up, watch & see.

I think that Koran desecration has nothing to do with this, other than the fact that both should remain legal. In the GTMO thread, nobody really disagreed with the statement that private citizens of the United States can do what they please with the Koran, as is their right.

Again, I don't care if people use the flag or the Koran as toilet paper--it's legal, baby...

Yes, you can imagine anyone that votes "no" will have all kinds of political ads created about them to point out this fact.

Yep. That's what's wrong with this country today - the gays and the flag-burners.

True. The Republicans are going to need more stuff like this to make up for the punishment they are going to get for overstepping on Schiavo--I see the Democratic knives sharpening on that one.

It's gonna get ugly, per usual...

Absolutely. When I lived in ATL, everyone talked about how Sonny Purdue won the election based on the state flag issue. If you vote no against an amendment banning flag burning, then you hate america and are with the terrorists. That's a common theme these days.

I'm not really in favor of gay marriage or burning the flag, but I don't really see why we have to write these things into one of the most important documents in our country.

Isn't this like the 7th Congress in a row the amendment has passed in the House? It typically gets bogged down in the Senate because it can't get the 2/3 required.

Now, if they pass an amendment banning married gays from burning flags, I'll probably get behind it.

Or I'll get behind the married gays, depending on how much they love hot gay three-ways.

And who speaks for the gay flag?

Because failing to do so is no longer an acceptable option.

Why? We don't need to add a constitutional amendment for every political issue of the moment. This is exactly what this amendment is-- an attempt to polarize people and label those opposed to the amendment, regardless of the reason, as "Anti-American."

Anti-big government people should be opposed to this amendment.

This irrational drivel comes as a shock, given your incessant pathetic mewling demanding that the government persecute, prosecute and execute any citizen on your behalf who fails to conform to your aberrant ideological whimsy.

You can pretend that the contempt in which you and your worthless, widely discredited turds of philosophy are held is mutual, but that does nothing to change the reality that you and your ill-conceived rantings are, in actuality, taken as seriously as the OJ Simpson juror who insisted on wearing her star trek uniform to court.

Jon, this isn't polarizing anybody, we're already polarized.

I'm content to accept whatever anybody thinks of my supporting this measure (or any other that I support), I just don't get this whole idea that there's any benefit in hiding your beliefs in order to maintain some false sense of "getting along". Honestly, I just don't see it. The disagreement exists, whether it's acknowledged or not, I'm of the belief that being honest about it is preferrable to expending valuable energy trying to hide it or deny it.

And how weird it is to address a post to someone who uses the same spelling of my own name.

Ooh, another "why was x banned?" thread coming soon!

Welcome to FOFC, first-time poster. I'm so happy you could join us.

And I just so happy that there's no reason at all to suspect that you were somehow so familiar with me that you would post under an alias because you were too chickenshit to speak under your own name. Yeppers, I'm tickled to death that this isn't the sort of place where such a thing could even be suspected.

Alas, it's my side that's winning, hopefully that realization will soon drive you either off a short pier or to the business end of a rope. Either way, just so long as you don't procreate, it's all good.

The only thing pathetic here is your posting under an alias...

Posting under your main account on a message board for text-based sports sims is bad enough. Doing it with an alter-ego...welcome to Dorksville's Annual Unicorns and Rainbows Festival....

Is this always the weekend for that, or does the date change each year?

weak, very weak

They better repeal the first amendment at the same time or they will have two conflicting amendments.

Weekend. You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of content at one of these things. The trade show alone...yeesh.

I rarely agree with Jon on any political issue, but seriously if you don't have the guts to post an attack on him under your own username on a text sim message board, you might as well just slice your dick off right now. You are just pathetic and spineless. What a fucking weasel.

Pretty funny that the loudest person in the thread that is for a very unpopular position is defended immediately by the very people arguing against him when an unknown party comes in to attack him. Interesting picture of group psychology (Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!). :)

The problem isn't that 'Scissors' is unkown but rather that it is obviously an anonymous attack from somebody who at the very least reads this board semi-frequently. Had scissors stuck to the topic at hand and abused Jon I think he/she would have been applauded by some.

Bill!

SI

Wonderful. Welcome to the land of stupid FOFC hazing. Just so the none of the others make this mistake in the future, could someone tell me how many posts they need before they can start going after the ideology of an "established member".

The shout of "n00b" has to be the single stupidest rallying cry on the net. FFS, it's like HJS said: "Jon maybe be a bit of an ogre, but he is our ogre, you!"

SI

If the collective trio who have called out this weasel (sorry LMcG, I'm gonna borrow that) don't shame them into a revelation, I doubt anything will.

Subby, St. Cronin, LarryMcG -- we'll fight like hell against each other, and I don't believe we have any illusions about how well we'd get along IRL most likely, but I'm genuinely gratified that at least you know that what I have to say, I'll say straight & stand by it.