This coming from the same guy who called the Mexican flag a "dish rag." How rich.

I respect the American flag & I would never burn it. But to call it a "sacred object" is quite absurd. It is a piece of cloth; a powerful symbol, yes, but a piece of cloth nonetheless. It is not worthy of worship. And while it is disrespectful to all Americans to burn the flag, it shouldn't be a crime. If people can mock Jesus and mock Mohammed, then why can't the mock the flag?

And just for the record - you guys want to restrict free press AND free speech. Should I even bother to ask what is next?

Should we make rude speech illegal too? How far to go in this slippery slope of restricting First Amendment rights?

Well the good news for Teenage, Axis, Ash, Steve and Bloviator (maybe even Canadian Observer) is that they can still urinate in a jar and cram Old Glory in there along with a crucifix while dancing around it and praising Nancy Pelosi and friends.

Yes, this is what we've come too.

By the way libs, you better get on those traitorous Senators that voted for this amendment, they are clearly drifting off the reservation.

Here are the despicable "first amendment traitors" that apparently need to be flogged and have a lot of money put into their even harder left candidates to get these Dems out of office and put "REAL LIBERALS" in there.

Lincoln
Feinstein
Salazar
Nelson (FL)
Bayh
Landrieu
Stabenow
Dayton
Baucus
Nelson (NE)
Reid (the minority speaker)
Menedez
Johnson
Rockefeller

Did Jack Murtha urge the NY TIMES to publish the SWIFT story.

Hmmm....very interesting

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657424/posts

Umm... okay how about this!

If we allow you to keep burning the flag, peeing on it, what have you because it "infringes on your right to free speach." Does that mean you'll repeal more of the stupid gun laws we've got in this country? Please? :)

Specifically here in California but I'm sure we could think of a few to get rid of at the Federal level. :) (Yes I fully realize there are plenty of liberals out there who are not anti-gun.)

"The symbols of a thing worthy of respect deserve the same respect as the thing itself."

So why not outlaw acts of disrespect against the thing that the flag represents? Why should we not pass an amendment to outlaw disprespect of the actual CONCEPTS that this nation was founded on? Why stop at just the flag?

"I think the American people have got this far more right than First Amendment cobweb spinners who seem to think that the United States Constitution is an instrument for the protection of scoundrels..."

The Bill of Rights DOES protects scoundrels because that is precisely how the English government viewed the men that wrote the constitution, as scoundrels. And those men said things that went far beyond offensive: they were advocating WAR against the state. What are we talking about here? Insulting people. You want to make ofensive speech illegal.

"I fail to see how letting a numbskull burn the flag provides, promotes or secures...seems to me, the only thing it does is cause a messy fire and grave offense to most people."

And honestly, I don't see how allowing someone to disrespect the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights can possibly promote security, so let's outlaw that too shall we? Because really, a spirit attack against our constitutional foundation is far more offensive to me than most other speech. Again, why just stop at that flag?

"Somehow, I don't see jack-booted thugs kicking in my door at midnight if some latter-day hippie is prevented from burning Old Glory."

So that makes this whole charade safe? It's OK because you find the amendment unlikely to be abused by the government? Are you serious?

"Perhaps it is just the Christian in me - the reverence for sacred objects"

Now you are offending me, because I am a Christian. As a Christian, do you have more respect for a flag than you do for a cross or crucifix? As a Christian, are you not more offended when someone burns a cross than when they burn a flag? How about when someone mocks the teachings of Jesus? I personally cannot imagine something more offensive; would you even consider making that illegal? If your answer is no, then why would you dare to use your faith as an excuse to demand that other people be punished for insulting you by burning a flag?

"I don't know - it just seems to me that while free speech is the vital ingredient of a free republic, rude speech is just, well, rude...and only engaged in by stupid people who shouldn't have a seat at the table until they learn some manners."

A meaningless sentence. Do you mean that any speech that can be considered "rude" is not a vital ingredient of a free rebublic? Is it rude to question or disrespect the government's policies on abortion or immigration? Are those people stupid?

In the future, groups of Americans will decide on many more things to be deemed "rude" and "offensive". Will we need a consitutional amendment to outlaw those things as well? Please post again, because I am very interested to hear your answers.

I support flag burning because my religion supports glorifying his light by burning craven images and idols including the American flag or any other flag. A nation that is too proud will not escape his wrath. THOUGH SHALL PUT NO KINGS BEFORE GOD. Pride is a sin.

It is sad to me when I hear professed conservatives belittling "liberals" for their support of the first amendment, as though love of our consitutional liberties as ever been a liberal strength.

"The symbols of a thing worthy of respect deserve the same respect as the thing itself."

So why not outlaw acts of disrespect against the thing that the flag represents? Why should we not pass an amendment to outlaw disprespect of the actual CONCEPTS that this nation was founded on? Why stop at just the flag?

"I think the American people have got this far more right than First Amendment cobweb spinners who seem to think that the United States Constitution is an instrument for the protection of scoundrels..."

The Bill of Rights DOES protects scoundrels because that is precisely how the English government viewed the men that wrote the constitution, as scoundrels. And those men said things that went far beyond offensive: they were advocating WAR against the state. What are we talking about here? Insulting people. You want to make ofensive speech illegal.

"I fail to see how letting a numbskull burn the flag provides, promotes or secures...seems to me, the only thing it does is cause a messy fire and grave offense to most people."

And honestly, I don't see how allowing someone to disrespect the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights can possibly promote security, so let's outlaw that too shall we? Because really, a spirit attack against our constitutional foundation is far more offensive to me than most other speech. Again, why just stop at that flag?

"Somehow, I don't see jack-booted thugs kicking in my door at midnight if some latter-day hippie is prevented from burning Old Glory."

So that makes this whole charade safe? It's OK because you find the amendment unlikely to be abused by the government? Are you serious?

"Perhaps it is just the Christian in me - the reverence for sacred objects"

Now you are offending me, because I am a Christian. As a Christian, do you have more respect for a flag than you do for a cross or crucifix? As a Christian, are you not more offended when someone burns a cross than when they burn a flag? How about when someone mocks the teachings of Jesus? I personally cannot imagine something more offensive; would you even consider making that illegal? If your answer is no, then why would you dare to use your faith as an excuse to demand that other people be punished for insulting you by burning a flag?

"I don't know - it just seems to me that while free speech is the vital ingredient of a free republic, rude speech is just, well, rude...and only engaged in by stupid people who shouldn't have a seat at the table until they learn some manners."

Another meaningless sentence. Do you mean that any speech that can be considered "rude" is not a vital ingredient of a free rebublic? Is it rude to question or disrespect the government's policies on abortion or immigration? Are those people stupid?

In the future, groups of Americans will decide on many more things to be deemed "rude" and "offensive". Will we need a consitutional amendment to outlaw those things as well? Please post again, because I am very interested to hear your answers.

maf,

The Mexican flag is not my flag...but, even so, though I think it a flag sybolising an utterly failed nation State, I would still not do other than treat it with respect...no burning, no dragging it through the muck...I wouldn't insult the Mexican people that way.

Stephen,

Oh, we can't make rudeness illegal - but we don't have to enshrine it in our laws as if it were something admirable. Also, the flag is the symbol of the United States of America...this is something far different from, say, someone just shouting a rude word at a politician, or some such...

I would never think about burning a flag. (Except, of course, if I wanted to properly dispose of it. Then, I would follow the directions of the US flag code, and burn it.) The symbol of the flag is too meaningful for me to think about burning it in protest. However, the symbol of someone freely burning the flag in protest is also meaningful to me. Take away someone's right to free speech, and you've taken away a piece of the meaning of the flag. So, Mark, I must ask: why do you hate the flag?

I am not pleased with my California Senator. I wish Cindy Sheehan had run against her. The Senator needs to be shaken up. She does not represent the liberal democrat. She too, may be wearing repub underware. By the way, I usually think WarNa is a neanderthal but, for this one time I agree that we should remove these "first amendment traitors". Bravo!

Your all still Maroons.

OT: Militants claim to have murdered the Israeli settler.

It's just burning right? So I can still wear my american flag drawers, T-shirt (mine's got a hole in it), jean jscket with cut off sleeves and flag on back? Can I still stick my merican flag to my beatup ole truck bumper that says "love it or leave it"? Yeah, it needs washing. Can my girlfriend wear her merican flag bikini? I like that one. Can we just stop at burning? I like all that other stuff.

Although I personally don't like flag burning, I see several problems arising from the proposed amendment.

1) Burning is a traditional (and considered respectful) way of destroying an old worn-out flag. Would the (il)legality of flag burning depend on the motive for doing it? (Punishing motives is also the problem I have with hate-crime penalty enhancement, but that's another debate.) Would the (il)legality of flag burning depend on the condition of the flag before it is burnt? Would there be a whole new bunch of forensic scientists popping up, specializing in examining the charred remains of a flag to determine its pre-burn condition? (Yes, this last question is meant seriously.)

2) What exactly would constitute a flag? Would a flag decal, stuck onto another object, come under the proposed protection? What about a T-shirt with the flag as part of its design? Would the protection cover historical flags as well as the present one? What if I have an electric guitar with a flag design, and I want to set it on fire as a tribute to Hendrix? (In case any musicians out there are wondering, I can't play The Star-Spangled Banner on guitar.)

3) Yes, the flag is an important symbol, but should a symbol be more important than the things (such as freedoms) that it symbolizes?

On the other hand, I will say that at least the proponents have the sense to realize that it will take a consitutional amendment to get what they want, which is more than I can say for some left-inspired things such as racial preferences, the above-mentioned penalty enhancement for hate crimes, etc.

Again, do all of you folks support all of the Bill or Rights as much as you do the First? I'm sure some of you do, but I've seen many of the same "ignoring" of the Bill or Rights when it comes to #2 as I'm seeing here with #1.

As much as I dislike Flag Burning I don't see a need for an Amendment. If you want to prosecute someone for burning a flag how about illegal open flames? *Shrugs*

Hey Libs -- What do you think of THIS:

"France, Germany, Italy, and India, all of which are reasonably free countries, also have laws against insulting their national [flags]....The flag-desecration amendment would hardly mean the death of free expression in America."

So libs, without cheating, who do you think made this obviously fascistic statement?

Nate...if you understood the amendment, it doesn't quash 1st amendment rights at all. Get educated

Warriornation, I never said that the amendment itself would "quash" our first amendment rights, and you have conveniently ignored the other points I made in my comment. The intent of the amendment is to ALLOW the government to quash a form of expression by making an exception to a previously enumerated right.

The text of the amendment reads,

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

So... are you saying that this amendment poses no threat to the ability of Americans to disrespect flags? Did it's supporters not want or expect to pass any subsequent laws prohibiting flag-burning? Or are you saying that you do not consider flag-disrespect to be a form of expression?

If you feel we need to be educated, then tell us what you think.

So, are you trying to tell me that this is the most important issue facing America today? Lets see there were about 4 instances of flag burning in the U.S. last year, 3 in 2005. Sounds like an epidemic!
Actually what it really sounds like is Karl Rove's latest attempt at a wedge issue to galvanize the conservative base. Why else does this and the gay marriage amendment always surface right before an election? You conservatives are soooo predictable.

Deleted - Obscenity.

Point taken, Khan...

As much as I may hate it I think letting people with no class burn flags should be protected. Its their right. On a positive angle it lets the rest of America see what they are...its like letting people like axis, steve, teo, etc run their mouths...they are the best adverts for voting anything but Dim.

Nate...the amendment gives Congress the power but it is congress that must decide to act on it.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The entire point of the amendment was to put the power BACK into the legislature from which it was taken away by the SCOTUS on this issue with their ruling.

By the way, 48 states support this with laws on the books. The House passed it, the Senate is one vote shy.

Why are you so against protecting some symbols of this country? The military and the vets want to protect it...why are you against their viewpoints on this especially since if it wasn't for them, you wouldn't have the 1st amendment cry you're leaning on as a crutch to begin with.

Mark- Do you only notice when the liberal posters are getting offensive? Or do you think Kahn here is expressing his first amendment? Double standard at work here!

Also, I thought conservatives distrusted amassed centralized power, and preferred to legislate through the states??

Kahn, if I recall correctly, there might be laws against calling for violence against someone, but everyting else you said is obviously protected by the first amendment. You wouldn't be crossing any "limits" if you said those things. Oh wait, you did say them :)

I don't hear many people arguing that it should be illegal to insult minorities or gays. I DO remember how disgusted I was with the political-correctness crap that infested college campuses in the 90's, and I had really hoped that those days had gone forever.

But we will always have to deal with people who are just SO insulted by something you say or do, that they want to make that something illegal. Congress' attempt to do this with flag-burning is just an updated version of political-correctness.

There isn't a more important issue in America. Flag burning is so rampant. I mean it's something you see and hear about all the time.

While we're at it, why not spend quality time making it illegal to let a flag touch the ground.

Or lets ignore our rising poverty problem and make it illegal for all the gay people we don't know and will never meet, to marry!

Republicans - Making more and more sense everyday!

Right on Kahn. Bravo! Let it fly man. Free yourself. I think you ought to be the writer for the HBO series "Deadwood". You know what's great? I can change the channel. Part of accepting freedom comes with the challenge of accepting others somewhat distasteful actions. Kahn, your holding back now, free yourself.

Maroon.

*Chuckles*

That reminds me of my favorite bit about the first Amendment. It gives you the right to say what you want, it doesn't give you the right to be heard. So feel free to ignore anything and everything you like, I know my posts seem to get ignored all the time. :p

Warriornation,
There are indeed some in the military that supported this amendment, and I respectfully disagree with them. There are many in the military and in our police forces that want to totally abolish the SECOND amendment as well (I know many of these guys, mostly cops), and I STRONGLY disagree with them. Why am I against their viewpoints? Did you even read my first comment? I notice that you still haven't addressed any of my points or questions from that comment. For instance, why would we not also allow other offensive forms of expression to be outlawed? Like the verbal trashing of our elected officials, or the disrespect of God or the teachings of Christ? What if the majority of American supported an amendment that allows congress to outlaw insults against ANY religious figure, like Jesus or mohammad, which is arguably more offensive to many people. Would that be enough to win your support?

My grand-parents are very politically correct people, and they would like it to be illegal to insult Jesus, George W, AND the flag. And I love Jesus, I like George W, and I fly the flag proudly outside my house. One of the reasons that I fly the flag is that it reminds me of the greatness of a nation that promises to protect its citizens' right to express ourselves freely, even if that expression is insulting, shocking, or troubling.

I love my grand-parents too, don't get me wrong.

Let us thank God for what he has given us!!

Let us protect what God has given us!!

Above all, Let us be THANKFUL, and QUIT complaining!! AND ALWAYS, ALWAYS BE MINDFUL THAT GOD IS WATCHING US FROM A DISTANCE!!

THIS JULY 4 LET US FLY OLD GLORY WITH PRIDE!!

The American flag is a symbol of a country that values freedom and democracy. Making it illegal to "desecrate" the flag would transform the flag from a symbol of freedom into an instrument of government oppression. If the police could arrest and jail anyone they claim has "desecrated" a flag, we would no longer be a free country, but a fascist regime. Flag burning was illegal in Nazi Germany. The flag is only a symbol, a colored piece of cloth. To elevate it into a sacred and untouchable icon reminds me of the newsreels of Nazis marching in the streets, proudly holding their swastica-bearing flags up high.

Well the good news for Teenage, Axis, Ash, Steve and Bloviator (maybe even Canadian Observer) is that they can still urinate in a jar and cram Old Glory in there along with a crucifix while dancing around it and praising Nancy Pelosi and friends.

Warboy: Where in the heck did you pull this from? I suspect the sun doesn't shine there. I can't speak for the other esteemed gentlemen, but I have never once thought of burning the flag or doing other obscene things with it. I respect it as I respect others flags.

What is obscene is that our paid legislators spent an entire day debating this issue. There are so many other, more important things to attend to.

God blesses the world.

"The American flag is a symbol of a country that values freedom and democracy. Making it illegal to "desecrate" the flag would transform the flag from a symbol of freedom into an instrument of government oppression. If the police could arrest and jail anyone they claim has "desecrated" a flag, we would no longer be a free country, but a fascist regime. Flag burning was illegal in Nazi Germany. The flag is only a symbol, a colored piece of cloth. To elevate it into a sacred and untouchable icon reminds me of the newsreels of Nazis marching in the streets, proudly holding their swastica-bearing flags up high."

jack,

I feel sorry for you that you feel America is a Nazi country!!

You've got to realize that, that is YOU saying that NOT ME!!

Of course most democrats ARE bent on Third Reich Ideals, which might explain your distress!!

You speak so much of germany, perhaps you might feel better if you could move there, or somewhere else besides America?

I love America and what it stands for and to take old glory and burn it for political gain is just outright ridiculous, STUPID, AND IGNORANT!

Old glory has flown to long to be forgotten!!

I will say this anyone who thinks the flag should be allowed to be burned has "desecrated" their fellow Americans!!

Maybe this will sound a little bit easier:

ANYONE WHO BURNS THE FLAG, DESECRATES AND SHAMES AMERICA!! THEY ARE AN AMERICAN HUMILIATION!!

While old glory still whispers in the wind~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
*****~~
*****~~
*****~~

I say wholeheartedly, KEEP HER FLYING!!! AT ALL COST!!!!

Jeremiah

When I read Kahn's flowery post and then have the "pleasure" of Jeremiah's inane ramblings I just beam with pride that America is a great county. Where else could Kahn post such hateful prose. He seems rather good at it too! Kahn you must practice very much. Such a talent. My, my, potty mouth. And yet I believe you have the absolute right to post such demeaning remarks, in this forum.

Yet further down I have the "pleasure" of reading good ole' Jeremiahs gibberish. Sir it does not matter I think your truly insane. I would not want my chlidren around you. Given the choice, (poor as it may be) I would rather expose them to Kahn then the hypocritical religious views you express with maniacal zeal. You Sir, are truly scary.

And yet, I believe you have the right to express the way you feel. It does not matter I think your psycho. I have the ability to just skip on down to the next post. See, I can do that. I do not want to put you two nuts in jail. As long as you don't physically hurt someone, ruin their personal property, or inhibit someones rights as laid out by our constitution, you can do what ever the hell you want. See, this is America. Land of the Free.

Maroons.

As has been pointed out, the proposed amendment does not ban desecration of the American flag, it only returns the right to do so back to Congress if they so choose... a right which was taken away from Congress by a SINGLE JUDGE.. another 5 to 4 ruling. (Yet another ruling by liberal "law giver" judges!)

Do you have the right to yell fire in a theater? Do you have the right to yell or say bomb in an airport or on a plane? Do you have the right to make a threat against the President of the United States? Do you have the right to use unlimited vulgar language on public television stations broadcast over the airways? Do you have the right to publish child pornography?

You can't burn a spotted owl. You can't burn a bald eagle. You can't burn a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. You can't burn a Salt Creek tiger beetle. You can't throw blood on the Washington monument. There are many, many things you can't do in the name of and to express your "free speech"!

You liberals will still have more than enough ways to express your hatred for America. You can still burn a virtual flag on your computer. You can still run video clips of previous flag burnings. You can still stand on a street corner and yell to the world that you are burning the American flag in your mind! You can even go to Canada, France, or Mexico and burn a real American flag and even post a video of your heroic dead on the Internet... just don't come back to America!

It's time you liberals at least learn to respect the flag of this nation. You show little respect for anything else! You don't even respect our nation's national defense secrets! It's obvious your parents and liberal professors didn't teach you liberals respect for anything!

Who knows. Another good judge on the Supreme Court to replace those other four liberal activists, and we may not need so many Constitutional amendments! Maybe they will just ignore "stare decisis" on those issues where liberal activist judges ruled improperly in the first place.

We'll keep working on that flag burning amendment... along with a few other things.

You liberals (progressives) have gotta learn a little respect!!!

AAR

It is said that when St. Francis was to visit a pagan ruler, said ruler had a carpet made that was covered in crosses, to see if the saint would walk on it.
The saint did so, stating "There were two criminals crucified with our Lord. It is their crosses that I tread upon."
St. Francis knew that there is a difference between the symbol and the idea. Burn a million flags - the idea of America will go on.
So long as America clings to her ideals.

Ash...because it is you guys on the left that allow for this crap to go on...burning flags, crucifixes in urine, etc.

It's the same argument for abortions. You guys are "against them" but you have no problem making sure a-holes in the world have all the access to have them.

Same thing.

There were several things in my post (OK, rant)that are actually prohibited in many areas. I hoped that some of you dim witted liberals recognize sarcasm. I can see from some posts that you do not.

1. Calling for violence. I wonder if we can charge Patrick Henry with it retroactively? Revolutionary speech, I believe was paramount in the minds of the framers. Taking that away is a very real lessening of the power of the First Amendment.
2. Burning the cross. Considered a "hate" speech act. Again, obviously hateful. But, is it a crime to express your hate? Not if you're a liberal attacking a Republican.
3. Getting too close to or even talking to women entering abortion clinics. I mean, you might talk some sense into them or something. Can't have THAT.

Speech IS controlled. The rights are not absolute now. In fact, speech could be viewed as rather controlled. Especially when you consider campaign finance laws.

The Second Amendment is also heavily regulated. Many cities have all but outlawed guns. Funny, nobody seems to notice that the vast majority of people affected by these gun bans are black and brown. Talk about not recognizing discrimination when you see it!

I'd like to see the Bill of Right re-written to better define the speech right as more absolute, to remove the "militia" part of the Second Amendment, and to better define the religion clause. I'd also like to see a line item veto added. A law won't cut it, it will need to be an amendment to stand up to challenge. In short - I'd like to have a Constitutional Convention.

It's called freedom of choice.

Ash...because it is you guys on the left that allow for this crap to go on...burning flags, crucifixes in urine, etc.

If it is going on, you are as guilty as I am about letting it go on, since you have done nothing more than I to stop it.

"Do you have the right to yell fire in a theater? Do you have the right to yell or say bomb in an airport or on a plane?"

Come on, AAR - I know you can see the difference, you're just purposely ignoring it. Yelling "fire" or "bomb" in *those situations* can put people in danger - that is why they are illegal. If you are burning a flag to incite a riot, then you should be charged, too. But if you're burning it as a means of protest, well, then that is your choice.

And War, no, I don't agree with you burning the flag. I just believe you have every right to do so.

Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech. Freedom of choice. Freedom of the press. Freedom of (all) religion.

What is it about the right that they have so many problems with these? Talk about un-American.

From flag burning to abortion? Quite a leap. I think you are losing it, warboy.

I'm just a live and let live kinda guy. I'm not going to tell some artist he can't put a crucifix in urine. Where would I draw the line? Is a crucifix in alka seltzer okay, or not? How about a yo-yo in lime kool-aid?

You get so riled up about things you can't control. Not good for your health.

By the way ... who else is getting a kick out of that Happy Birthday President Bush banner on the top of the page?

Hilarious.

"I feel sorry for you that you feel America is a Nazi country!!"

Jeremiah, can you understand the English language?? I said that if the police can arrest and jail you for "desecrating" a colored piece of cloth, then we would no longer be a free country, but a fascist regime.

It's hard to believe that you truly "love America and what it stands for" when you cannot distinguish between a symbol such as a flag, which is a colored piece of cloth, and the rights and freedoms we enjoy as Americans under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We always hear that when American soldiers die in war, they died to protect our freedoms. Do you really believe that they die to protect a flag, a mere symbol of America, and not America itself?

Are you capable of distinguishing between a symbol, and what the symbol represents? Maybe part of the problem here is our national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner. We sing an anthem to a flag, and not to the nation itself. Why do we sing an anthem to a mere symbol of America, and not to America itself? Have you ever noticed that, when patriotic songs are called for, often the choice is "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America"?

Too many Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the flag is some sort of sacred object. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. But why do we only add "and to the nation for which it stands" as an afterthought? We should be pledging allegiance to the United States of America. Period. Not to the flag. The flag is only a symbol.

I agree that symbols can be powerful, but if you cannot distinguish between a symbol of America, and all that America actually is, then you do not really understand what America is all about.

Yes, George and Laura look so sweet. I think they are getting ready to play pin the tail on the donkey?

maf, how about AAR's argument that you can't burn a spotted owl? Hilaraious.

Note to self "Never go to AAR's house for a barbecue."

I'm happy for the President and his birthday. I know no 19 year old intern blow jobs will be given and that makes me feel good for some reason.

Maf...it's funny how you claim the fire in a theatre comment is absurd yet you have no problem defending the NY Times story this past weekend which absolutely puts people in danger.

Don't worry, we already know you guys are hypocrit central so no need to try and spin your way out of it.

He gets so worked up with all his exclamation points I can't tell if he is being serious or not. Like this one, high comedy:

"It's obvious your parents and liberal professors didn't teach you liberals respect for anything!"

Half the time I feel as if he is about to combust.

And I love it when they play the "liberal professor" card. It's right up there with the "liberal scientist" and "liberal historian" arguments - you know, all those knowledgeable professionsals who are just so biased.

Yelling fire in a theatre when there is NO FIRE serves the public how?

Printing a story about a government program that is FACTUALLY ACCURATE *does* serve the public.

We have a right to know. Apparently Bush felt the same way, when he told us about it himself a few years ago.

And I *still* haven't heard one clear argument as to HOW we are in more danger now than we were last week, due to the NYT ... and, by the way ... that Communist rag the Wall Stree Journal (funny no seething hatred directed at them).

PS - Good for Clinton. Anything that gets our right-wing friends all in a hissy fit is always amusing to watch.

the NY Times story this past weekend which absolutely puts people in danger.

How about some proof here, puddin'?

Whatever you think, maf53...

Yelling fire in a theatre serves the public just as much as your liberal burning the flag! It's FREE SPEECH, just like joking about a bomb, publishing child pornography, vulgarity over the public airwaves, burning a bald eagle or spotted owl, or throwing blood on the Washington monument. It's FREE SPEECH. That's what matters... that's all that matters, right? Free speech doesn't need a reason... it just IS! Right?

And who decides what should or should not remain secret? A bunch of leaking liberal traitors? I think not!

Why don't we just leak your SSN, financial information, medical data and everything else about you -- and all liberals (progressives)?

As I said, you have more than enough ways to express your hatred for America, but it is time liberals (progressives) start learning a little respect!

If you hate America so much that you must burn the flag, then move to Canada, Europe, or Iran!

AAR

Proof will come in time, Ash. Proof will come in time! Just be patient.

AAR

So let me get this straight:

We're in a war for all the wrong reasons, our federal deficit is somewhere at 9 to 10 trillion dollars that me and my children will have to pay off at some point, more and more Americans distrust Bush's handeling in Iraq and his job in office, our government is now spying on Americans, and instead of figuring out how we're going to bring our troops home, the Republican controlled congress is debating over......................a flag burning amendment.

Our Congress could be solving problems to how we're going to stop global warming or how to help reduce our addiction to oil or to help fix the Gulf Coast after Katrina, but instead they're bitching over whether or not flag burning should be illegal?

Unbelievable.

This issue is a joke. In a given year, there are 4-5 incidents of flag burning, with only a quarter of those the result of a political statement. The rest are vandalism and arson.

So, you propose to ammend the constitution over 2 incidents a year, out of nearly 300 million people?

Not to mention, this is a test issue, its not really about the flag burning, its more about getting a prescedent set where the FIRST ammendment to the constitution that takes away rights. Once this is hit, the rest is downhill and polititions can start to take away right after right from you. Starting with guns, I would imagine. Many people would favor some form of gun control and this would allow that to be considered as an ammendment as well, say to clarify the 2nd ammendment to only allow guns to militias and such.

Why don't you work on a REAL issue instead of these silly wedge issues, gay marriage, abortion, flag burning.

Sad when these are the only things that conservatives can run on. Good though, because they are unimportant to most people compared to the importance to you, as you are all out of touch with what the public really wants.

Come November, its going to sting, because people aren't going to vote for Republicans because they support flag burning ammendments, gay marriage ammendments or abortion ammendments.

To AAR,
Your analogies are very, very poor, and most have nothing in common with burning a flag. Here is a breakdown of some of your comparisons:

Yelling fire in a theater or saying that you have a bomb on a plane:
These are not allowed because of the harm they can cause; panic, security delays, etc. You'll notice that it's not just because people might be insulted.

Threatening the prez (or anyone else):
Notice how it says THREATENING, not insulting. It's not very often that flag-burning is used to specifically threaten anyone, and the flag-protection crowd don't care anyway. It's insulting, and that's enough for them.

Publishing child pornography:
What? Are you seriously comparing child porn with flag burning? Are you that foolish?

Burn a spotted owl, bald eagle, a fly, etc.:
*sigh*
Again, I have to ask, are you foolish enough to compare burning a bald eagle with burning a flag? Surely, I don't have to explain the difference to you, do I?

Throwing blood on the Washington monument:
The crucial difference here being that I DON'T OWN THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT, and as such throwing blood on it is considered an act of vandalism. If I owned the monument, then I could legally throw whatever I like on it. So, are you saying that you don't mind it when people burn their own flags, only other people's flags? Please.

I also liked these other nuggets from your comment:

"You liberals will still have more than enough ways to express your hatred for America. You can still burn a virtual flag on your computer. You can still run video clips of previous flag burnings."

First of all, I am not a liberal. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. It makes it easier for you to argue if you can pretend that everyone that disagrees with you is an America-hating liberal doesn't it? Secondly, yes there are other forms of expression that are perhaps just as politically incorrect as burning an actual flag. And I have to assume that, ultimately, people like you will want to outlaw those as well. Why stop at flags?

"It's time you liberals at least learn to respect the flag of this nation."

Again, there's that "you liberals" thing. You seem to be immune to the suggestion that one of the things that the flag stands for is your right to dissent.

AAR, you can pour your respect into a symbol made of cloth, and I will give my respect to the principles for which it stands.

Boy, everything within me wants to scream when liberals burn our flag(notice only liberals burn old glory)! Now that that's out of the way I must AGREE.......agggghhhhhhh.......I can't believe I'm agreeing with libs! Let the mother f....r's burn it. It helps me to know who to whatch during a time of war, it tells me who the a..holes of this country are & it truly is a part of what we bleed for on the battlefield. It's like regulating T.V. or radio, change the friggin channel people if you don't like what your hearing! if you don't like seeing them burn the flag, then demonstrate back at them with more gusto, or just kick there a..es! Don't regulate it & and don't waste our money on it!

TL,

Really, go look up the difference between "deficit" and "debt"....its getting rather annoying that you keep getting that wrong.

Kritter,

As we've stated many times, we have lives - we do work for a living and do this blog in the spare time we have...so, we're not always able to monitor comments quickly.

Axis, do people still respond to you? I can't believe I agree with you on something. It should be a non-issue! You losers should have the right to be as big or as little a loser as you could possibly want to be!

On the november election issue tho, let's see I can vote for people I don't always agree with and their agenda is a little vague(strong in the war on terror tho)......or I can vote for people I dislike extremely that have NO agenda whatsoever, other than hate Bush at all costs. Hmmmmmmmm............who should I pick? The comfort to me Axis is knowing that you will be cussing the night away from the cold comforts of your canadian utopia! Such a warm fuzzy feeling that picture gives me. *smiles*

Bearman,

I beg you, please don't look at it that way. Protecting the bill of rights is NOT on the liberal agenda, never has been. Remember the 90's, the dark ages of political correctness, a distinctly liberal plague? Remember the justice department under Reno and Clinton, who both seemed to know no respect for our civil rights?

No, protection of our rights, particularly the first and second amendments, has traditionally been the work of conservatives. You are in good company.

I am ashamed that the new wave of political-correctness is coming from conservative corners.

Everyone here who supports the flag-burning amendment, repeat after me:

I am the newly-improved politically-correct conservative. You will no longer be allowed to insult the flag (and perhaps we'll add to the list later).

And BTW, Mark, as long as you're looking through the comments now, how about answering some of my questions?

Nate,

Oh yes, but my analogies are appropriate! Similar ones ere even being said on radio talk shows.

They are forms of expressing one's right to free speech. If I don't want those spotted owls protected, I should be allowed to barbeque one as a protest! If I don't like protecting a bunch of flies in California, it is my "free speech" right to swat a few in protest! You want the spotted owls protected... I want you to treat the symbol of this nation with some respect. You and your liberal friends don't respect anything else except what you liberals (progressives) decide is "right", or is that "left"?

It doesn't seem to concern liberals when they want to destroy other people's property during their "free speech" demonstrations. What about the times they threw "blood" or similar substances on the Pentagon? Free speech right, right? What about that free speech right to publish child pornography? That isn't public property. If a person or group (e.g. NAMBLA) wants to make a "free speech" statement about their beliefs using child pornography in their "speech", it is their right to do so, right? Wrong!

Flag burning is used to incite people and express hate -- not for a person, but for ALL PERSONS, for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS -- nothing more! That hate is transmitted around the world to all nations by the media, generating and fueling more hatred for the United States. Flag burning is used specifically to anger those patriotic Americans who do believe in America. Flag burning is used specifically to create an anti-American statement. It has nothing to do with the specific issue liberal-progressives are opposed -- which is anything that's not on their agenda. It is not a discussion of the topic. It is a protest AGAINST THE NATION that permits them to disagree and which gives them those "free speech" rights. Those who burn the flag are expressing anti-American hate which is a threat -- a threat to America and our traditional beliefs.

Abuse your free speech rights, and risk losing them. What the Constitution gives, the constitution can take away. Not today, true, but keep pushing and abusing your "free speech" and "free press". Who knows where it will finally end.

RE: "First of all, I am not a liberal. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative."

That remains to be seen. I have talked to libertarians before. Some have even worked for me. Maybe we just talked about the "wrong" topics, but their views sounded a lot like liberals (progressives) to me!

If liberal-progressives want to express their opinions, then find another way!

Surely liberal-progressives can think of one of the other many thousands and thousands or more or other ways to express their hate for America.

Liberal-progressives have no respect for anything American -- unless it's their own liberal-progressive agenda!!!

AAR

teen,

NEVER... EVER... trust a liberal (progressive) for ANYTHING!

You can't believe a word they say!!!

Don't they have summer school in your area?

AAR

Without free speech how would we know who the a$$holes are? Seriously, when was the last time any of you saw a flag being burned, here in America? We shold not go changing the constitution for nothing more than a politcal ploy....how about our elected officals spend 4 days discussing out of control gas prices

axis,

If as you say, there are "only" 4-5 incidents of flag burning, with only a quarter of those (1 to 2) the result of a political statement. Then those 2 people can find another way to express their hate for America. The majority of Americans do not believe that those 2 people need to burn our flag. The amendment won't harm those other 299,999,998 Americans who don't want to burn the flag. It will put laws in place though to stop the rest of you liberal-progressives when you choose to joint those other 2 -- as you eventually will when you don't get your way!

Every one was part of the militia when the 2nd Amendment was written. The right to keep and bear arms is protected. I know you and your liberal-progressive's want to believe otherwise and are working to have your activist liberal "law giver" judges to rule otherwise. That's why we need good judges who understand and know what the Constitution means. We need every last activist law-giver judge removed from the judicial system. Courts and judges ARE NOT AMERICA'S LAW GIVERS -- in spite of the fact you want it that way. You have said it before, axis the Canadian!

No, axis. Those who support the ban on burning the American flag are patriotic, pro-America Americans. They -- unlike liberal-progressives -- understand and support the right to bear arms!

Abuse your "free speech" and "free press" rights and lose some or all. You liberal-progressives are abusing both. So... Just keep up your irresponsible abuse of your "rights" and hope you don't anger 51% or the voters in 38 states! When that happens... we will be ready!!!!!

It is you liberal-progressives who are the wedge. The thorn -- not sword -- in America's side. It is your social engineering, liberal-progressive agenda, and activist "law giver" judges who are the wedge that is diving America. What you want people to believe are "wedge issues" like -- traditional marriage, stopping late term abortions that suck the brains out of a living child, patriotic respect for the American flag, prison for traitors -- are issues to unite Americans... to unite, motivate, and energize pro-America Americans to stop your social engineering, liberal-progressive agenda, and activist "law giver" judges. (Yes, axis, I know I am being repetitive, but that is intentional!)

If liberal-progressives win in November, then we will just fight that much harder!!!

AAR

Everyone here who opposes the flag-desecration amendment, repeat after Nate:

I am the newly-improved politically-correct PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL. I will burn the flag and give away America's defense secrets any time I feel like it -- and I feel like it all of the time.

I am a "citizen of the world". I owe my allegiance to the world -- not to America [under God!]. I will spread as much anti-American hate and propaganda as I feel like. It makes me "feel good" to trash America and its old, outdated traditional values and patriotism.

I believe only in the liberal-progressive agenda, social engineering, and activist law-giver judges who will rule above all... even above Congress and the American people as provided in the Constitution.

I will decide what the Constitution means. It will mean whatever suits me and my liberal-progressive agenda and will change to suit and cover changes in that agenda as required and as needed!!!

I AM A LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE (formerly known as a liberal, but undergoing a name change to fool American voters)!!!

AAR

Bearman,

I beg you, please don't look at it that way. Protecting the bill of rights is NOT on the liberal agenda, never has been. Remember the 90's, the dark ages of political correctness, a distinctly liberal plague? Remember the justice department under Reno and Clinton, who both seemed to know no respect for our civil rights?

No, protection of our rights, particularly the first and second amendments, has traditionally been the work of conservatives. You are in good company.

I am ashamed that the new wave of political-correctness is coming from conservative corners.

Posted by: Nate at June 29, 2006 03:00 AM

I despise PCness, however from a national security point of view, I say let them say & do what they want, then watch them like hawks! I know most of them are idiots following the pack, but you follow the pack long enough you eventually find the leader! All I'm saying is it's better to allow them to expose themselves, than to force them to do virgin sacrifices in private,lol! They are more dangerous to themselves & their movement when we let their voices be heard!

PROTECTING HATEFUL SPEECH, WE CAN TAKE IT.
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I took these phrases from AAR's and Jeremiah's posts on this topic and strung theme together to form thier "poetry" of hate. Yes liberals are everyday subjected to these rants from those who don't wish to understand our love for the spirit of America and what it stands for. Some Conservatives say that hateful speech should'nt be protected. Well after reading things like this "flag" I'm tempted to agree, but even after we hear all these ridiculous diatribes, we still whole-heartedly believe in the First Amendment and the right of idiots to say what they want. So keep it up you two. We may not support what you say but we support your right to say it.
I love America, but this is one "flag" I wouldn't mind putting a torch to.

O
=
=
* * * * * * * * * * Anti-American activist law-giver judges trash
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * America. Lying leaking liberal traitors you hate
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * America. NEVER... EVER... trust a liberal
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * (progressive) for ANYTHING! You can't

believe a word they say!!! don't come back to America liberal

professors or you liberal activists judges!!! You hate America.

Democrats ARE bent on Third Reich Ideals and will will burn the

flag and give away America's defense secrets any time they feel

like it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Sounds like lefty's whining again! Waaaaaaaaa! Give me an effin break whiner. It's not like they were saying we should cut your heads off or silence you with muzzles or torch you instead of the flag! What a bunch of .ussie you guys are! Go back to france!

Leftorium,

As usual, take words out of context, rearrange them, add other words, change them to suit your views, change their meaning, and then attribute them to your opponents.

Typical liberal-progressive mentality.

Typical liberal-progressive tactics.

But... in this case, you are beginning to get the SOME of your facts straight.

Keep working on it.

AAR

Leftorium,

Go ahead, burn YOUR "flag" but that does not take away the TRUTH!!

The truth is in my heart and it's there to stay!!

No matter how much you want to persecute me!!

Did I miss something? Are we suddenly suffering a rash of flag burning in his country? Truthfully, has anyone seen anybody recently burning the flag, except for people in all those countries around the world who hate us?

Seriously, when was the last time you saw an American burning a flag here in the US? Then, once you have thought good and hard about that, tell me again why we are paying Senators to waste time debating this so called "issue".

Clearly, these kind of stunts indicate the level of desperation in the GOP. They can't run on real issues, so they've got to thump their chests in faux patriotism, and manufacture faux crises that suddenly need immediate attention - such as burning flags, gayness gone wild, etc. It's all meant to stoke up the dim-witted wingnut base in hopes of blunting the voter backlash coming this fall.

What's next? An amendment to the Constitution to ban invasions from Mars? Or how banning excessive lip gloss on Fox "News" anchors? Now there's a threat!

All I know is that a LIBERAL complained and got my first pulled for being obscene. Of course, it was and that was the point. Liberals do not want absolute free speech rights any more than conservatives do.

I do want free speech - speech with responsibility. Can you advocate violence? Yes. But expect legal consequences from your targets. Or at the least, expect them to advocate violence against YOU. Can you print secrets? Yes. But expect hard prison time for printing national secrets and endangering Americans.

I don’t understand the ban on cross burning. It’s awful (obviously). But it looks to me like it should be protected. I don’t understand the bans on people talking to pregnant women outside abortion clinics. I don’t understand the crazy campaign finance laws. These laws can even prevent private citizens from publishing endorsements and positive and negative views. How is that NOT a violation of free speech? I don’t understand how Universities can suspend people for using speech that “offends” people (almost always thin skinned liberals). But allow equally hateful speech directed against Republicans. I don’t understand the ban on “swear” words. You think your 7th grader hasn’t heard the F word before?

No – lets not pretend that we have free speech now. Because the current laws are twisted beyond belief.

Why was Kahns first post pulled? Seriously, Mark, other moderators, can you tell us what happened?

This is the internet, not the disney channel. Why the censorship?

AAR,

Gosh, where do I start. First of all there's this:

- "If a person or group (e.g. NAMBLA) wants to make a "free speech" statement about their beliefs using child pornography in their "speech", it is their right to do so, right?"

So here you continue to equate child-porn with burning flags. Are you serious about this? Or are you just trying to piss people off? I don't know how to say this gently, so I won't: If you are honestly equating child-pornography with burning a flag, then you are a genuinely stupid person, and not worth my time. I am going to assume that you're just trying to piss people off, and continue with some semblance of debate, but it makes me real uncomfortable to hear you talking about child-porn in such a casual manner.

You are cleary VERY emotional about this. That's the thing I hate most about trying to debate liberals; it's that so many of their beliefs have only an emotional basis, and they are thusly immune to logic. But I am increasingly running into "conservatives" like AAR who are every bit as emotional and irrational as their liberal counterparts.

I understand that you don't believe I am a conservative. I understand that you may never have met a conservative that is a first-amendment purist, and you may not even believe that they exist. But it might help you form a logical train of thought if you could just make yourself imagine, for the sake of argument, that you are talking to a conservative. You seem to NEED me to be an America-hating liberal who wants to give away our national secrets, pee on a crucifix, distibute child porn, etc. You then attack me on these other phantom characteristics, and are satisfied that you've told off another liberal. Except... at that point, you're not even arguing with me; you're arguing with a liberal enemy that you've made up. Would you ever actually be able to discuss this with someone whom you believed was conservative? Or would you still hide behind demagoguery like you are now?

Let me try to help you with this. A logical argument from you might look like this:
"In terms of its free-speech aspects, burning a flag is qualitatively different than insulting a soldier in this way..."

Let's contrast this with some of your recent comments:

- "Oh yes, but my analogies are appropriate! Similar ones are even being said on radio talk shows."

They're used on talk radio! Then they must be valid! Thanks, I had missed that.

- "They are forms of expressing one's right to free speech. If I don't want those spotted owls protected, I should be allowed to barbeque one as a protest!"

Yes, I already know that's what you think. You're just repeating your earlier comparisons. But WHY is it just a form of free speech to you? On what logical basis is it functionally or ethically equivalent to burning a flag? Let me try to help you again with the logic part: I propose to you that killing an owl or an eagle is different than burning a flag in terms of it's consequences; there are a limited number of these animals, and killing them has possible environmental consequences that exist entirely apart from the expressive value of the act. Now YOU could say, "No, nate, the consequences are not a valid qualitative difference because...". See how this debate thing works? There are many possibilities!

- "It doesn't seem to concern liberals when they want to destroy other people's property during their "free speech" demonstrations. What about the times they threw "blood" or similar substances on the Pentagon?"

Here again, you are not arguing with me; you are arguing with your make-believe liberal arch-enemy. Let me make as clear as possible: I AGREE THAT VANDALISM IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL. You STILL have not addressed my point that it ceases to be vandalism if you are destroying your own property. Do you understand what I'm saying? Let me try to say it more simply: if you burn a flag that you own, then you are not performing an act of vandalism in any legal sense. This is fundamentally different than vandalizing public or private property which you don't own. And here, once again, if you had a logical rebuttal to my assertion, it might look like, "No, nate, burning a flag that you own could technically be considered vandalism in a legal sense, because...".

And then there's your child-porn thing, which I honestly don't understand. And I don't really understand why you stopped there. Why not go ahead and equate burning a flag with murder?

- "Flag burning is used to incite people and express hate -- not for a person, but for ALL PERSONS, for ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS -- nothing more! "

Granted, but there more direct and more repugnant ways in which this is done, and I don't hear you advocating that they be outlawed as well. For instance, publicly insulting America's elected officials, or calling her soldiers cowards. These are both FAR more direct and repulsive to most people. Do you think we should outlaw these as well? This quesion follows a line of questioning from my first comment above, which you (and Mark too) have so far refused to address. Why stop at the flag, when there are so many far more hateful ways of insulting America and Americans?

- "Flag burning is used specifically to anger those patriotic Americans who do believe in America."

Sure, but is that a reason to illegalize it? Because it angers people? If you use the inflammitory quality of speech to judge its legality, then there are far more "angering" things that should be outlawed. Agree, disagree?

- "Flag burning is used specifically to create an anti-American statement."

Kind of obvious, right? But your not saying that we should illegalize anti-American statement in general. Only this one. Why? I am far more offended when someone insults our soldiers. Seems like that ought to be illegal too. Here again, I'm really hoping for some kind of logical response from you, such as "No nate, insulting soldiers is qualitively different, and worse, then burning a flag, because...".

"Those who burn the flag are expressing anti-American hate which is a threat -- a threat to America and our traditional beliefs."

Right, I know you believe this, but why? HOW is it a threat to our beliefs. What does that mean? Does you mean that you're afraid that flag-burning will somehow erode your liberties as an American? Are you afraid that flag burning will de-stabilize the government, or that it will cause foreign countries to invade? What?

And you have stubbornly refused to address my point that illegalizing any form of expression merely because it is insulting, angering, or stupid, is a VERY real threat to our traditional American beliefs. Again, I understand that your feelings are very hurt when someone burns a flag; so are mine. But we cannot let people like you write exceptions into the bill of rights so that our feelings won't be hurt.

Lastly, I think your misunderstanding the whole concept of political correctness. Political correctness has always been about PREVENTING you from saying and doing offensive things. It makes no sense to accuse me of being a politically-correct liberal-progressive because, for one thing I am neither liberal nor progressive, but more importantly, I desire to ALLOW you to do and say offensive things. Do you see the difference? This is not difficult, AAR.

The liberals are offended enough by a whole slew of things, from "hate speech" (whatever that means this year), to "ethnic intimidation", to sexist innuendo, whatever. You can't win unless you're Polyanna. It is shameful that there are conservatives that participate in the same campaign to make criminals out of people that offend them. It is not what being a conservative is truly about.

Aarontime-

"Or how banning excessive lip gloss on Fox "News" anchors?
Now there's a threat!"

LOL
Absoulutely in favor of that one.

A rash of flag burning ? No.
What are we suffering a rash of is:

-Right wing unpopularity
-an uninspired republican base
-a coming midterm election
-and a fast approaching 4th of July holiday.

Mark my words, by mid July this, some say anger I say posturing, over flag burning will go the way of that other Republican anger inciting offensive, THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS.

BearmanUSMC-

"Soun