It’s baaaaaack. The proposed brand new amendment that makes a mockery out of the First One:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101. The flag stands for a nation with freedoms, including the freedom to burn the flag in protest.
I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action. So I don’t think it’s terribly effective in terms of convincing others. But the Congress…you know, the ones who shall make no law interfering with freedom of expression?…apparently didn’t get the memo.
And hey…all those articles of clothing with the flag adorning it? Notebooks? Forget it. What about decals or bumper stickers, with the image of the American flag getting spattered by mud and dirt. Pull that SUV over, fella…you with that foul bumpersticker and your girlfriend with the stars and stripes bikini top! You’re under arrest courtesy of Congress!
You can’t burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.
You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one’s reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child’s delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from “fire” falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that’s crowded.) There’s no cover here. It’s naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that’s sworn to protect it.
Plus the GOP’s gotta love it because liberals must either embrace the notion–which is antithetical to anyone who has a grasp of free speech, to say nothing of making them indistinguishable from conservatives–or else they must spend countless man hours explaining why they value free expression above cheap political opportunism…and lose the vote of every schmuck who can’t wrap his tiny mind around defending to the death one’s right to express an opinion that that same person may find personally repellant. Puts them in a nice position for the next election.
And, of course, anyone opposed to a flag burning amendment is deemed “out of touch” with the citizenry. You know what? I’d rather be out of touch with the citizenry than out of touch with the concept of free expression.
PAD
UPDATE:
‘Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,’ said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. ‘Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.’
‘If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.’ said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center. –GH
• 
Interesting to consider that so many of our political leaders from the top down are dismissive of world opinion, but scream bloody murder when a citizen of our own country expresses outrage (albeit in a very uncreative, largely ineffective and distracitng-to-their point manner) towards national policy.
Are we so thin skinned as Americans we can’t take that kind of critisism?
Listen to talk radio recently, Eric!? You can’t disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.
Den
“How about a law stating that if any good or service is manufactured or performed in the US, the Federal Government of the US can has to buy said service or good from a US company made in the US…”
That goes against the idea of capitalism. One of the basic principles on which America runs. It also just begs for impropriety. Please see the whole Boeing airtanker contract scandal. The US should award a $23.5 billion to Boeing after everything that has happened (http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/nm/arms_boeing_tanker_dc) because they are the only American company to bid? No. I don’t think so.
Also, I’ve been coming to this site for awhile and have always enjoyed the (mostly) well-thought out arguments that fellow members make (even when I disagree with them.) But this thing with X-Ray really bugs me. Please stop belittling him/her for his/her opinions. He/She has just as much right to post her/his opinion that anyone else on this site does. If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her.
I’ll have to noise this around some. I go to church with some of the Republican leadership and I’d love to hear some sort of intelligent justification for such an amendment (though I doubt any exists).
Burning a flag is immature and stupid, but I can’t imagine legislating immaturity and stupidity…
The only justification for passing this amendment that I’ve seen discussed is that allowing the US flag to be burned somehow hurts the National Image. Which I take to mean that congress essentially feels that the American image worldwide is so fragile that the destruction of a symbol is enough to cause the nation real harm.
Or, put another way, congress is being led by a bunch of wussies. Hëll, you can kill our people, and sure, we’ll hurt, but our spirit will come backe even stronger. Burn our *symbols*? We should laugh at such a feeble, impotent attempt to strike at us. Has the republican party become so fearful of anything negative that they are now willing to further curtail the shrinking list of freedoms held by the people? I thought the GOP stood for smaller government and more power held by the citazenry. Just about everything we’ve seen over the past 5 years is a larger government, with fewer programs, but more centralized power, and the only group that is less restricted is the corporate citazen. Those of us that have the unfortunate circumstance of being actual people have had to watch our freedoms shrink.
People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die.
Well, I’d spit on Bush if I could, but I wouldn’t get close enough (not being a registered Republican and all that).
And even if I did, I’d be arrested, I’m sure.
But that doesn’t stop the NeoCons from thinking that Everybody Else (ie, non-NeoCons) is in fact spitting on the soldiers coming back from Iraq.
Well, I’d spit on Bush if I could, but I wouldn’t get close enough (not being a registered Republican and all that).
[B}And even if I did, I’d be arrested, I’m sure.{/B]
Charged with assault, too, I bet.
People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die.
Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the reports of US soldiers being spat at upon returning from Vietnam may be more urban legend than fact.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276799/posts
Y’know, someone should get a million blogger march going down to DC, everyone go into Congress and in our best parental voices say “Don’t you people have anything BETTER to do?”
You know, like making sure that everyone in America is taken care of. Health wise, protection wise, ideal wise. Hëll, shelter wise would be a good place to start. Wanna judge a society? Look at how it treats the least members. The majority can live in comfort but if even one is left out, then the whole country is being supported on a house of cards being built with half a deck. Kinda like how most of the government is now.
Even though I am a Conservative Republican (albeit I lean towards Libertarian) I am oppoesed to this amendment, and will vote no if it ever come to my ballot box. Am I in favor of it being burned? No. But it is political speech, with is (IMO) the exact type speech that the 1st amendment was talking about.
On the other hand, dramatic acts of speech like this have almost always ben illegal anyway. (Boston Tea Party, most other acts of the Revolution). The fact they were illegal under the laws of the country at the time (Britain) didn’t stop them from doing it.
“I am reminded of an line from the movie 1776, when the Congress is voting on whether or not to debate the question of Independence, and Bartlett says “Well, in all my years, I never seen, heard nor smelt an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be TALKED about. Hëll, yes! I’m for debating anything!””
Yeah, that is a great line. Point of information, though: It was Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island who said it. Remember? He was called for the first vote, and the hard-drinking Hopkins was nowhere to be found. When Hancock demands to know where he is…
MCNAIR: “Rhode Island is out visiting the necessary.”
HANCOCK: “With what Rhode island’s consumed, I can’t say I’m surprised. We’ll come back to him, Mr. Secetary.”
THOMPSON: Rhode Island passes. (Annoyed look at the ensuing laughter).
Then later:
THOMPSON: Second call, Rhode Island!
HOPKINS: I’m coming, I’m coming! Ya think Congress would have its own privvy. So…where do we stand?
THOMPSON: Five for debate, five for postponement, one absent and one abstention.
HOPKINS: So it’s up to me, izzit? Weelll, I’ll tell ya: In all my years, I ain’t never heard, seen or smelled an issue that was so dangerous, it couldn’t be TALKED about. Hëll yes, I’m for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea.
The foregoing was typed without looking at a script. Can you tell I’ve been in WAY too many productions of that show?
PAD
“If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her.”
That’s pretty much my philosophy, and it’s what I’ve encouraged others to do. I *did* answer his two most insistent and bleating questions. The answers were, naturally, distorted or lampooned or simply not understood, which I expected. Other than that, nothing else has been worth addressing.
PAD
With the current state of things, the scary part is that it’s going to take a true leader to come out against this amendment and open some kind of intelligent debate that doesn’t involve name-callilng or labels involving patriotism. Someone earlier said that there’s no way this amendment will pass. However, if this makes it out of Congress, do we really have 13 individual states with strong enough leaders that can intelligently argue against this and keep it from getting ratified?
“I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it.”
Out of a sense of literary correctness, I feel it is necessary for me to point out this was Voltaire, not Rousseau.
What this quote says, is that words shouldn’t be banned because of disagreement. They can be restricted based on intent to cause a riot. They can be restricted based on libel or slander (depending upon whether its written or spoken). But not just because they aren’t nice.
Because what you consider not nice, might not be what I consider not nice.
There are European countries that prohibit offensive speech. (And I believe Canada does too.) The US doesn’t.
Apparently all 50 states have a resolution that prohibits flag desecrations. Some of these may have passed their respective houses several years ago, so the fight will be refought. But if it passes the Senate (and apparently people believe it will be extremely close this time), it will be ratified fairly quickly I fear.
But nothing really to worry about. All we will need to do is create US Flag Substitutes. Flags with 49 stars, or only 12 stripes. US Flags are defined in great detail in the US Legal Code. So, even if the flag you burn looks like a US Flag, if it isn’t exactly right, you will still be able to burn it.
PAD:
Yeah, I wasn’t referring to you when I said to stop belittling her/him. Sorry if you took offense. IMHO: I think you’ve been much more patient than I would be if he was talking smack to me. 😉
>But nothing really to worry about. All we will need to do is create US Flag Substitutes. Flags with 49 stars, or only 12 stripes. US Flags are defined in great detail in the US Legal Code. So, even if the flag you burn looks like a US Flag, if it isn’t exactly right, you will still be able to burn it.
Cool. Thanks for that, John!
Wait. I just thought of something….
If you burn a 49-starred (SP?) flag, how are you gonna prove that it was a 49-starred flag and not the American flag?
The term ‘neo-conservative’ was created to define those people who call themselves conservative, but completely eschew the traditional conservative policies such as small government, balanced budgets, complete and total separation of church and state, as well as a relatively isolationist foreign policy. You know, people like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and the like. Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, embrace a very aggressive foreign policy, very little concern with balanced budgets and have gone whole hog the other direction in terms of “small government”.
Here is the Wikipedia page that may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
To pin the term ‘neo-conservative’ on the “liberals” is a complete and utter fallacy. This is a term that has been adopted by that movement on the political right and borne with pride by said movement, and used with disgust by those on the left (“liberal”, of course, is used the same way). Who coined this term? Fûçk if I know, and it really doesn’t matter. It is a conservativism that completely turns the original philosophy on it’s head, hence the prefix “neo” moving its base out of the realm of economy and politics, and into social areas. A similar example would be the term ‘neo-liberalism’. This isn’t what we leftists would consider anything close to liberalism. It’s an economy-based political philosophy, not social.
“That’s pretty much my philosophy, and it’s what I’ve encouraged others to do. I *did* answer his two most insistent and bleating questions. The answers were, naturally, distorted or lampooned or simply not understood, which I expected. Other than that, nothing else has been worth addressing.”
I don’t know about anyone else, Peter, but sometimes, just sometimes, it’s really fun to say “Bush Sucks.”
Speaking of tax dollards (and dullards) at work, a couple of news articles today already:
Federal authorities raided a series of locations in San Francisco and arrested a couple from Sacramento over pot.
Supposedly this is a +2 year investigation, yet the whole operation seems to have stemmed as a direct result of the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of big business (5-4 decision) – local govnerments can basically use eminent domain (5th Amendment) as they see fit, even for non-traditional city improvements such as the latest strip mall.
Just wondering how you feel about book burning?
BUSH SUCKS!
HEY! K-Nuck! I do feel better!!
I’d like to add my personal (NASCAR) favorite:
BUSCH (Both Kurt and Kyle) SUCKS!
Den said: “You can’t disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.”
I’ll readily admit that’s true. Neal Boortz always has a few insane calls from conservatives every time his Libertarian views contradict what the Republicans are doing.
It’s true on the other side of the spectrum as well, though. As much as I love talk radio (and I really, really do), it’s not the best place to find reasoned discussion most of the time.
And PAD, in response to your not understanding why people respond to trolls, I’m compelled to believe that hope springs eternal. I KNOW you’re right, that trolls aren’t looking for a real discussion, but there’s that part of me that always remembers that I could be wrong. (Incidentally, that’s similar to my reason for opposing abortion. I’m 99.9% certain that there’s no real individual human life there until at least six months into the pregnancy, but I COULD be wrong, and I prefer to err on the side of caution.)
“Yeah, I wasn’t referring to you when I said to stop belittling her/him. Sorry if you took offense.”
Offense? Good lord, no, and I certainly hope my post didn’t come across that way. No, I was just agreeing with you. I was basically saying, “You’re right, and that’s what I’ve been doing and it’s what I think others should do.”
PAD
Just wondering how you feel about book burning?
To cause a stir…
The Nazis burned books, you know. 😉
Actually, I have seen a book (and more – cd, etcs) burning in person, at a Southern Baptist Church some friends of mine attended for awhile.
I think the theme of the night was to piss on the Eagles over “Hotel California” or something.
But, in general, I think the concept of book burning is a terrible one, whether it’s a church, a group in power (like the Nazis), etc.
Like burning the flag, I don’t feel that it really accomplishes anything. But, unlike burning a flag, I feel that burning books is akin to censorship – an attempt to get rid of something by destroying it, rather than let people think for themselves.
“Book Burning for Dummies”?… so crazy that it just might work.
“Just wondering how you feel about book burning?”
Depends who wrote it…
Seriously, I think book burning is a sickening pratice. There’s few things that evoke Nazi Germany like the sight of that. I’m very much opposed to the concept because it sends a clear message: “We’re afraid of ideas.” How the hëll can anyone be supportive of this country’s foundations and fear IDEAS?
But would I seek to curtail someone’s rights to burn books? Absolutely not.
Yes, I find the concept appalling. But protecting free speech cannot simply mean that you are in favor of protecting all manner of expression that you yourself approve of. If you don’t fight to protect the free speech you disapprove of, then you’re dead in the water.
PAD
I don’t know of any other country that makes such a big deal about its flag. I think it must be something to do with that whole business of saluting the thing every day at school. It’s so ritualistic it’s turned the thing into a religious icon.
Could that be why certain americans are so evangelical about imposing their own brand of “freedom” on others?
Of course book burning is a whole other kettle of worms. Where flag burning is an entirely symbolic gesture, book burning is usually done to prevent others from reading the books, and so while it has a symbolic aspect, it is based on an entirely non-symbolic act.
“I don’t know of any other country that makes such a big deal about its flag.”
That’s because most other nations aren’t so insecure about their place in the world. Were we a nation that had a national self-esteem that was actually built around the tenets espoused by our Founding Fathers (you know, silly šhìŧ like freedom, liberty, representative democracy), as opposed to needing to have our national self-esteem reinforced by feeling like the toughest kid on the block, then the flag burning wouldn’t be an issue. Those who are confident in America and the ideals that it stands for really don’t give a dámņ. Those who are not, do give a dámņ. Generally speaking, those are also the same people who burn books and attempt to šhìŧ on equal rights for all, etc. It’s a generalization, but a true one.
BB: I told you it feels good. The ‘Bus(c)h Sucks’ also works with beer, conveniently enough.
PAD wrote: “But protecting free speech cannot simply mean that you are in favor of protecting all manner of expression that you yourself approve of. If you don’t fight to protect the free speech you disapprove of, then you’re dead in the water.”
Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I’m the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray’s right to write his opinion.
As much as I love talk radio (and I really, really do), it’s not the best place to find reasoned discussion most of the time.
That must be why the neocons love it so.
You got to give Republicans credit though, as soon as one of their terms stops testing well, they change it around. Thus the “nuclear option” (coined by Trent Lott) became the “Constitutional option” and Bush’s “privatization” plan became “personal accounts”. Now we have myths floating around that “neocon” is a term liberals created to vilify conservatives who are also Jewish.
“Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I’m the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray’s right to write his opinion.”
Sure, BB, but also please consider that this is (for all intents and purposes) a private forum. If Peter (or Glenn, whomever plays ‘bad cop’) wants to shut his troll ášš down, he can.
Not to mention we still have the right to call him an idiot every time he says something idiotic.
“Sure, BB, but also please consider that this is (for all intents and purposes) a private forum. If Peter (or Glenn, whomever plays ‘bad cop’) wants to shut his troll ášš down, he can.”
And yet we haven’t.
I don’t think anyone disputes X-Ray’s right to write his opinion. They dispute his right to write it HERE. It’s a valid point. He doesn’t have the right to write it here. He has the privilege of writing it here, via amenities extended to him that he has met with insults, slams and stupidities. He responds to courtesies with discourtesy and pats himself on the back for a job well done. It’s sad and pathetic. But hey, it’s America.
PAD
You know, Peter, I meant to make that clear. My bad.
I have to think on that whole right vs. privilege thingee. I can’t wrap my head around it just yet.
Den wrote: “You got to give Republicans credit though, as soon as one of their terms stops testing well, they change it around.”
Well, sure. If the Democrats were successfully attacking the _concepts_ instead of just trying as hard as they can to repeat (for example) “Privatization is bad”, they’d have to rework the plan, but since they’re NOT, why not just change the term you use to describe it? It’s a cowardly way of handling things (the better option would be to actually reply just as often, “Why is it bad?”), but it’s effective.
Perhaps the line is blurred for you because we encounter so many infringements on free speech on a daily basis. My favorite example would be “protest zones” that get set up outside of political conventions, political rallies, that sort of thing. To me, those are blatantly unconstitutional, but they occur all the time.
You are absolutely correct, Robin. The Democrats desperately need to start coming up with ideas of their own instead of reacting to the Republicans. I’m giving the GOP credit: They’re really good at shining up a turd and telling people it’s a candy bar.
If you burn a 49-starred (SP?) flag, how are you gonna prove that it was a 49-starred flag and not the American flag?
You don’t. The prosecution (persuction if you prefer) has to prove you burnt the legal flag. Besides, you can always film yourself holding the near-flag (for lack of a better term) before burning it.
Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of big business (5-4 decision) – local govnerments can basically use eminent domain (5th Amendment) as they see fit, even for non-traditional city improvements such as the latest strip mall.
Gee, what a surprise
/scarcasm
Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I’m the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray’s right to write his opinion.”
Yes, and we can likewise ignore him, as many of us are doing.
————–
BTW, notice how many of the people saying we have to protect the flag are the same ones who dismiss Quran destrustion with ‘it’s just a book’. Well guess what, the flag is equally ‘just some cloth’. Both items have worth to the people who follow/worship them, and both feel the same way about the treatment of their respective object.
I’m trying to remember who wrote it, but I once read a pretty good article about how once you start making a symbol more important than the ideals it’s supposed to represent, you need to reevaluate your priorities.
Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by the Denver Post
Flag is a Symbol, Remember?
by Reggie Rivers
The U.S. flag means a great deal to nearly all Americans. Military veterans have strong emotional ties to the flag as a symbol of their service; politicians believe that children will be better citizens if they pledge allegiance to the flag; most Americans would be outraged if a flag were desecrated in a public setting; and, after Sept. 11, the flag was a ubiquitous symbol of our national unity.
However, the flag is not without its problems. It seems that too many Americans have forgotten that the U.S. flag is merely a symbol of our ideals – it is not the actual embodiment of them.
Totalitarian leaders have been notorious for treating symbols as if they were real, arresting people who disrespected them. But in the United States, we enjoy broad political freedom partly because we separate symbolic activities from actual threats. If you want to cut out a picture of George W. Bush in The Denver Post and throw darts at it, the Secret Service will not arrest you.
However, in the case of the flag, the distinction between the symbol and reality is murky. Many people would rush forward and punch anyone who was harming a flag. Many Americans would react as if the flag were a small child that needed to be rescued, and that’s not normal.
I believe many traditions are feeding our confusion about what the flag means and how much protection it needs.
This week, we observed Flag Day, June 14. It’s a little odd to recognize a symbol in this way, but Flag Day by itself would be fairly benign. What’s more troublesome is that we have a national anthem that is entirely about the flag; we pledge our allegiance to the flag itself; and the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment could turn symbolic acts into crimes.
Destroying your own flag would be like printing a big letter “S” and burning it. You wouldn’t do harm to the alphabet by destroying this “S” nor would you harm any words that used the letter. You would do no harm to the English language, yet if you did the same thing with a flag, people would erupt in violence.
If a man in North Korea were arrested for stomping on a newspaper photo of Kim Jong Il, we would condemn his arrest as a form of political repression. However, if a man in Denver were arrested for stomping on a U.S. flag that he purchased at Wal-Mart, many of us would not recognize it as political repression. Many would say it’s OK to arrest a man for harming a flag, because we’ve forgotten that the flag is a symbol.
The Christian Lord knew that humans were prone to this type of confusion, so his Second Commandment called for a moratorium on idol worship. We should heed this commandment.
Instead of amending our Constitution – as House Joint Resolution 10 and Senate Joint Resolution 12 seek to do – we should change our pledge. It should read: “I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America … .” That way, our kids will pledge their allegiance to our ideals, not a cloth symbol.
We should also change our national anthem. The song’s first verse – the only one we normally sing – is entirely about the flag. If you look at the lyrics and replace references to the flag with descriptions of Britney Spears, it is instantly clear that the song is about an object, not ideals.
The American flag is a wonderful symbol, and it is important for us to maintain it in our society. However, it’s clear that the flag has become more important than the ideals that it symbolizes, so in the name of democracy, we have to shift our focus. We can’t allow our loyalty to the flag to trump our allegiance to the Constitution.
Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers writes Fridays on the Denver Post op-ed page.
Flag-burning should be legal. However, it’s a stupid, moronic thing to do, and I have little respect for those that do it.
If someone is stupid enough to, say, burn a flag in front of a group of veterans and then gets their face smashed in by that same group, then I’d charge them with inciting to riot.
Yes, I know, he should be protected, but sometimes you just want to ask “How stupid can you get?”
If someone is stupid enough to, say, burn a flag in front of a group of veterans and then gets their face smashed in by that same group,
What a wonderful message. ‘We went to war to fight for freedom & we’ll beat up anyone who tries to exercise it’.
Anybody else notice that all the bad liberals in the world usually (and I STRESS usually) back their arguments up with reasons why their views can be valid and all the good conservatives usually (ditto) shout at the liberals and call them names a la the other reindeer in Rudolph? Biggest offender obnoxious-wise (no, not X-Ray) seems to be Sean Hannity. Something to think about.
“Please stop belittling him/her for his/her opinions. He/She has just as much right to post her/his opinion that anyone else on this site does. If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her.”
See, the thing that really irks me about X-ray, is not that he disagrees with me. I like debates, and I love people that disagree with me. My problem with him/her is twofold. First, he came on to a website where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged, and where dissenting opinions are welcomed. He then proceeded to trample all over that privilage by attacking our host personally. I have not always agreed with what Mr. David said, and if I feel like it, I will say so. And I will say so politely, and adressing the issue at hand. You would too, as would 99.9% of the people on here. X-ray, on the other hand, engages in personal slander, and is an embarrassment to the many fine, free thinking conservatives I know. Second, he refuses not only to accept any other opinion, but to accept their validity, and in some cases, their very existance. However, your point is excellent. Personal attacks on him/her only lower us to his/her level. We should, if we adress x-ray at all, obey the Golden Rule.
also, Mr. David and John, thank you for the corrections. And, asking as an actor, how long has it been since you were in 1776? because remembering it that well….that is something else. I can’t remember any lines from the show I starred in this YEAR! So I’m impressed.
“Personal attacks on him/her only lower us to his/her level.”
YES! That is my point exactly. Thanks you for pulling it out of my head. It was stuck.
My reaction to the notion of an act of Congress or, God forbid, a constitutional amendment against burning the flag has, for years, boiled down to this:
“Oh, yes, by all means, let’s protect the flag by wiping our áššëš with the Constitution.”
Crude, yes, and carrying some pretty unpleasant imagery, but I think it expresses the idea effectively.
Paul
So, when is Karl Rove going to be dragged over a fire pit for his comments toward Democrats, like Durbin has for his comments about Gitmo?
To quote Rove:
Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that “liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
Offer therapy? Understanding?
I’d say that Bush understands bin Laden far more, since, you know, capturing bin Laden just isn’t that important any more.
But, hey, atleast Rove admits that the Bush Administrations comments about diplomacy were laughable at best – Rove can easily be interpreted as saying that war was the only option.