Before Everyone Nukes Clark on Flag Burning Issue...

[Bread and Circus]

Consider that the flag burning issue affects very
few people, i.e. rare birds who actually want to burn the flag.

Further consider that restriction of free speech to "free
speech zones" affect many of us (like me the other night
in Detroit).

Now what are the candidates saying on that?

The silence is deafening (and I will admit Clark has
done no better than the rest on this).

I think I should be able to hold a "Wesley Clark" sign on
a Detroit street corner if I am not hurting anyone.

I think that we need to focus on stuff that matters. I will
give away my right to burn the flag if I can at least
speak out where I want to!

[jobycom]

1. Well, if you can't burn the flag, then you can't speak out where you want

The whole problem is that these inalienable rights are being alienated. They aren't the government's to take away or give to us. They are ours, and any government that doesn't accept that is invalid. If that's not true, then the Declaration of Independence is false, and America was founded by a bunch of rich whiners who had no reason to rebel.

BTW, what did Clark say?

[KittyWampus]

25. There Is No Direct Quote!

But please note that Clark has spoken out repeatedly that he was well aware of the Vietnameprotestors when he went over to serve and that he was PROUD to fight in protecting their right to free speech.

Clark said whatever he said in front of Veterans on Veterans Day... I gotta wonder who asked him this...

Can you say WEDGE issue?

I knew you could.

[dfong63]

57. if Clark said that, he's badly misguided

But please note that Clark has spoken out repeatedly that he was well aware of the Vietnameprotestors when he went over to serve and that he was PROUD to fight in protecting their right to free speech.

the Vietnam war had nothing to do with protecting our free speech. protecting our free speech from what? was Ho Chi Minh going to throw our protestors in jail? Vietnam posed no threat to us at all, certainly less than Iraq. the only threats to our free speech really are right here on the home front. the "noble cause" of the Vietnam war was a rightwing crock. if Clark doesn't understand that yet, then he has no business running for president under the dem banner.

[msmcghee]

106. I was there.

Everyone I knew, parents, teachers, politicians, etc. believed in what was called "The Domino Effect". i.e. if we let the communists take one country in Asia, soon Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, Thailand and the Phillipines would be part of Red China - leaving Japan and S. Korea as isolated Asian allies surrounded by a huge enemy who wanted to destroy America.

He was on a career military track and represented the 90% Americans view of the situation - probably 99% of our federal government. It wasn't until Tet in 1968 that large numbers of Americans started questioning the reasons we were there.

[Le Taz Hot]

126. So was I

and not everyone believed the "Domino Effect." That was the gem put out by John Foster Dulles. It's sort of like our modern-day WMD. The anti-war movement started growing long before 1968. It started when the first 'Nam soldiers started coming back from the war as early as 1964 and telling us what was really going on, i.e., we were losing. What finally woke most Americans up was not the soldiers and not the Tet offensive, it was the Pentagon Papers. Proof positive that the government had been lying to us all along -- something the protesters had always known because we actually talked to the soldiers who were ordered to that war. Does any of this sound familiar? It should 'cause it's "de ja vu all over again." I vehemently disagree with your 90% figure.

[Pastiche423]

2. The issue is a little bigger

He is in favor of amending our Constitution!

[Atman]

5. If Clark is in favor, it is a deal breaker for me.

I will have to go with Dean, now...unless...

What is HIS position on the issue?

[Atman]

3. Shame on you.

"I will give away my right to burn the flag if I can at least
speak out where I want to!"


The two are mutually exclusive. Burning a piece of fabric IS speaking out where you want to. What will you be told you cannot burn next? A Bush portrait?

Wake up, man!

[DrFunkenstein]

60. I Feel The Same - What A Terrible Comment

n/t

[La_Serpiente]

4. GRRRRR

GRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRRGRRRRRRR :evilgrin: :nuke: :evilgrin: GRRRRRRR








O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)
O8) No, I am just joking :-) O8)
O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)O8)

I realize this issue is minuscle compared to Bush's Patriot Act and his hellbent ambitions on empire.

If he can survive the primaries, fine with me. But it's going to be a struggle I must say considering a lot of people on the left believe in free speech, especially when it comes to the flag issue.

[vi5]

6. I'm an unbiased undecided who very much likes Clark...

But this issue cuts to the core of what I believe to be free speech. This doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Clark. But it is very dissapointing.

Free speech and it's parameters shouldn't be determined by the popularity of the speech or the people it affects. The majority of american women won't have abortions either that doesn't mean I want them to take away that right.

[xultar]

59. Dean, Dick, Dennis and Clark all have the same soft stance

So now are they out of the running for your vote?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

7. There will never be a flag burning ammendment

It is a pipe dream.

Clark is supporting to appeal to the heartland and southland people. More power to him. He's know what he is doing.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Is this Clark's version of pickup truck with Confederate flags?

I think I rather hear Clark in context.

[Renew Deal]

You are not going to piss off the whole south

by supporting this. Some can view it as a threat to the 1st amendment. That would be fair. But then again, who votes on this issue?

[Pastiche423]

22. clark in context

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031111/ap_on_el_pr/clark_flag_burning_3

[jumptheshadow]

120. Clark in context

Two paragraphs from that article:

~ snip ~

Speaking at an American Legion hall on Veterans Day, Clark said he agrees with the amendment, although he cautioned that true patriotism involves more than respecting symbols.


"I'm in favor of the American flag amendment, but as I travel around the country, what I see is a new spirit of patriotism, and it goes a long way beyond the American flag," he said.

~ snip ~

That "new spirit of patriotism" Clark is talking about includes the right to dissent and a robust two-party system.

As a former Vietnam protester, the flag-burning issue bothers me. We have to change the tenor of the hateful political discourse in this country to stop the right-wing demogogues in their tracks. We have to stop them from using issues like this to divide us. It's quite clear to me from everything I've heard from Clark that this is his ultimate goal. He has been unwavering in his support of the right to dissent and unstinting in his attempts to focus on meaty issues rather than the red herrings that the RW wants to dominate the election.

[MIMStigator]

10. Clark's nabbing the military and southern votes. BRILLIANT

A flag burning amendment won't go anywhere.

[bowens43]

31. It's okay with you if Clark pulls a 'bush'

and misleads the american people?

[xultar]

58. Yo Dean isn't for an amendment but wants the flag protected

Isn't that misleading as well?

So is Dean now Bush-Lite...

come on Fella u gotta be jokin'

No Dean isn't Bush-lite and Neither is Clark, or Dennis, or Dick...

They all have the same stance protect the flag only ammend if it is critical.

[Scott Lee]

128. Most voters want the flag "protected" somehow

Thats why the candidates are stepping so gingerly on this issue. I think Dean has taken the wisest stance on it yet, even though I disagree with any such "protection" that would certainly infringe on free speech at some point.

[ElementaryPenguin]

45. I agree. And I LOATHE the idea of the amendment. But THAT'S politics!

Easy for us to cast stones from here and sound so self-righteous! On the other hand, I do agree that this amendment idea sucks big-time. But as you say - it's going NOWHERE! Win, baby, just win! Clark is no evil Bushivik, folks - and we HAVE to fucking win! No one was a better political pragmatist than the Big Dog himself. Kennedy was the same way. Sometimes you do what you gotta do - and that's the ugly truth!

[bowens43]

70. I never thought that I would do anything but vote for the Dem

candidate, no matter who it is, but the more I hear from Clark , the more I think I may have spoken too soon. "That's politics!" doesn't cut it with me any more then 'I was just folloeing orders" did. We have better candidates then Clark.

[goobergunch]

13. WRONG

It's about one or two votes in the Senate away from passage. It's already passed the House.

[KittyWampus]

71. WRONG (I Think)

Didn't the Supreme Court already come out to protect flag burning or am I all washed up here??? :dunce:

[bowens43]

14. So Clark is LYING ??

Knowingly supporting something that he knows can't happen and you're ok with this?

[xultar]

8. They were gonna nuke him anyway...

The people that would nuke him on this would nuke him anyway on some other minor issue. The way the media purported it as if he was the only one. He's not there is at least one additional candidate who feels the same way.

I bet if they'd been shot or had a family member shot or killed fighting the flag they may feel a little differently.

I have my Grandfathers flag from WWII. My feelings changed quite a bit after receiving it off his casket at his interment.

[Scott Lee]

17. Oh please stow the crass hyperpatriotic sentimentality

I pulled a flag off my dad's casket too (Korean War vet). That didn't turn me into an enemy of the 1st amendment - in FACT, you might want to know that the occupant of my dad's casket, in life, would have SMACKED me if I'd supported outlawing the burning of a flag or any other stifling of expression!

In his words, and those of other vets in my family, they did not fight and get wounded so that some ass kissing group of politicians could take a collective dump on the US constitution. And yes CLARK, that includes YOU.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

11. Clark is in favor of the flag burning amendment!?!?!?

If he is, it's imperative that he NOT get the nomination. If you want to give away your rights, fine, but you keep your hands off of mine!!!

If Clark supports the flag desecration amendment , I will work as hard as I can to keep him from getting the nomination. To even suggest voting for someone who who wants to add an amendment to the constitution that LIMITS our civil rights is reprehensible! This IS what we need to focus on. There is nothing more important then stopping the erosion of our civil liberties.

I knewthat SOB couldn't be trusted!!

[La_Serpiente]

15. I don't even think it can make it past the Senate

they've knocked it down every single time it was brought up

[bowens43]

19. I know that.

But supporting it tells me a lot about Clark's character (or lack of) and his opinion of our Constitution.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

28. That's completely irrelevant.

SUPPORTING this abomination tells me that Clark can't be trusted with our freedoms. Sorry, but I don't take it lightly when a man who wants to be president of the united states tells me he is in favor of amending the Constitution to place limitations on my right to free speech!!!

I really don't need lessons from you on how the Constitution is amended. Do you think it would be easier to pass with president who supported it or one who strongly opposed it?

[Guaranteed]

61. First Amendment?

Don't bother me with such pettiness!

[KittyWampus]

76. This WEDGE ISSUE Is Petty

it is used by the Right for demagoguery.

You know how Junior managed to get close enough to make stealing an election feasible?

He paraded as a Compassionate Conservative... a Moderate!

And then, as we all know, he moved to the FAR RIGHT the second he got into office.

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. If this is what he has to do to get elected and remove * I don't mind!

The Evil War Chimp MUST be removed at all cost - and I believe that Clark/Dean Dean/Clark Clark/Dean Dean/Clark is the ticket that can most assuredly do it!!

[bowens43]

16. I can't believe what I am hearing here at DU!!

People saying that it's OK to support an amendment that LIMITS our civil rights as long as our guy wins?!?!?!?

I'm flabbergasted. Sorry. But I am NOT willing to give up even one of my civil rights to get the idiot out of office. I WILL NOT vote for anyone who supports amending the Constitution to limit our freedoms!!

[Scott Lee]

23. Neither can I. It's leaving me almost speechless.

I can only assume they cannot be serious, or are making a crack at badly constructed satire.

[ElementaryPenguin]

40. Then allow Bush to win - bring back the draft and start WW III!!!!!

I don't agree with this position - but if this is what it takes for us to win over Middle America - than we have to do it - PERIOD!! Nobody is burning the fucking flag anyway!! Do you care more about allowing people to burn the flag - then STOPPING people from fucking burning people?? I wish Clark would not take this position - I agree with you - but this election WE HAVE TO FUCKING WIN!!! We'll get four more wars - and misery for the whole world! Not just global warming - but GLOBAL TOURCHING!! Don't you get it? These guys really are the bloody Fourth Reich! The reality is that sometimes you have to choose a principal that you are willing to/have to compromise! That doesn't necessarily make us just like the Repukes, who seem to have no principles whatsoever. Try swallowing your pride and take a look AT THE BIG PICTURE! There is NO CANDIDATE that you will agree with 100% of the time - but I seem to disagree with the Evil War Chimp about 100% of the time, don't you?

[bowens43]

66. We have several other viable candidates

who are not in favor of castrating the Bill of Rights. There is NO compromise on civil liberties. I will NOT vote for anyone who is in favor of attacking the ST amendment.

[Julien Sorel]

92. Wait a minute here.

Your hysteria is getting out of hand -- waaaaaaaay out of hand. Burning the flag is one tiny piece of the Bill of Rights, but banning flag burning would 'castrate' the Bill of Rights? Come back down to earth and breath some air.

[Scott Lee]

21. Tell me that your post is some form of sick parody

Please.

[Egnever]

20. No thanks!

I doubt I will ever burn a flag in my lifetime. But I will work tirelessly against is becoming unlawfull to do so.

I cant believe clark is doing this.

I am not a clark suporter to be sure but I was not against him. This changes that. He needs to back off this.

If he ends up being the nominee I will vote for him over bush but this will be what I am thinking about as I cast my vote to throw away more of my rights!

[Renew Deal]

26. The president doen't have a vote to ammend the constitution.

It doesn't matter who the president is. Besides that, it will never make it out of congress.

[Egnever]

27. And that makes endorsing it ok?

Sory but FUCK THAT!

[Renew Deal]

34. No but...

It's a non issue. I disagree, but I don't vote on this. Add to that that he can't do anything about it and all the reasons why I like him...It's a non issue.

[bowens43]

39. a non issue????

you're kidding right? Taking away our civil liberties is a non issue?

[Renew Deal]

50. No but...

what I wrote makes it a non issue. It is immpossible for the president to vote on this.

[ElementaryPenguin]

41. You are right. It is a non issue. Let's stop * from starting WWIII!!!

Now THAT'S an issue!

[Egnever]

43. Sory but this is not a non issue

This is utter bullshit!

I withdraw any support I ever had in my heart for clark over this as I do for any senetor that endorses it!

This is as big as an IWR vote for me.

I will not stand for it in anyone that represents me or pretends to.

Things that will qualify you as a non starter for me.

anti abortion
Pro Iraq war
Pro Gun control
Any type of freedom of expresion limits

God I am so pissed about this!

I was just warming up to him again.

[Renew Deal]

49. So basically you support none of the candidates.

There is no one left for you to support.

[Dr Fate]

84. I have never seen anyone ever burn a flag....

...it is not an issue- what- is there some rash of flag burning that is causing problems all over the country???

Clark sdid not even bring it up- the RW media aked him this question on Vets day to try to get a story- they were going to bash him no matter how he answered...

Considering that no one really cares about it as a top issue, the best thing to do is to concentrate on issues that matter- remember- Clark did not even bring this up - its not like he has some agenda to stop the apparently chronic rash flag buring that is tearing our country apart...

[Xyxzy34]

129. But

A Democratic president can convince Democratic senators to vote in ways that support him.

[Bread and Circus]

24. So the "Free Speech Zone" issue doesn't matter to you?

:shrug:

[Egnever]

33. I cant believe he gets away with those actually

I pisses me off every time i see it. As does the ban on protests in front of the white house.

The idea that he is trying to shut down london during his trip there to deny the thousands sure to protest him there also makes me see red.

The flag burning issue is exactly the same.

I cant believe Clark is suporting it.

[xultar]

65. Dean has the same stance!

[Pastiche423]

68. No, he doesn't

Dean is NOT for amending our Constitution

clark is FOR amending our Constitution.

A vast difference in stances.

[RetroLounge]

95. Prove it.

Links?

[Lars39]

47. The amendment could justify the free speech zones,

using the twisted logic of bushco.

[Rose Siding]

29. I'm not so willing to give away any rights

[Eric J in MN]

30. The amendment says "desecration"

The so-called flag-burning amendment doesn't mention flag-burning.

It says Congress can make any laws it wants against the "physical descecration" of the flag.

Drawing an editorial cartoon with the flag can count as "physical desecration."

Flying the Adbusters flag with corporate logos in place of stars can be "physical descecration."

[bleedingheart]

32. I am not willing to give up anything else

I don't burn flags but I don't want to lose my freedom of speech and outlawing the burning of our flag leans in that direction.

[ElementaryPenguin]

51. Are you willing to give up control of the U.S. to the Fourth Reich...

So that you can maintain your right to burn the flag?? Don't worry - they'll be changing that flag at the rate they're going - and I'm sure neither Herr Scumsfeld nor Prick Cheney will be any less sympathetic towards unpatriotic flag burning!! You're gonna trash Clark's candidacy over THIS? Come on!! THINK BIG PICTURE!

[Guaranteed]

64. The First Amendment is as big picture

as it gets.

I want a candidate who is against this bullshit, NOW. I only vote for AMERICANS.

[bread_and_roses]

35. We either have free speach

or we don't. You cannot give up "just a little bit" of free speach. You cannot take away the rights of "just a few people." Only a few people (relatively) read Noam Chomski, it is then OK to shut him up? And to that poster who suggested that those who had relatives die under the flag might not mind, my father's casket was draped in an American flag. I would consider burning one a greater tribute to his fighting in WWII than supporting a candidate who is willing to sell the first amendment for a few votes.

[Bread and Circus]

38. What BS is that?

There are things you can and can't say in public.
There are things you can and can't say on television
and radio airwaves (which are public).

I disagree with Clark on this....

But I think that there are bigger fish to fry....

:shrug:

[bread_and_roses]

44. That "bs"

is the first amendment. As I believe you knew when you wrote that post.

[Terwilliger]

48. bigger fish

like idiotic presidential candidates who advocate an amendment to the constitution to protect the flag

[KittyWampus]

80. Or Idiotic Candidates Who See AA As A Economic Issue

Every candidate seems to problematic stances.

For instance, Dean said Affirmative Action should be based on class and economics and not race.
He also is against lifting the trade embargo against Cuba.
He is not abiding by campaign finance

Edwards helped write the Patriot Act

Kerry singed the Iraq Resolution... No Child Left Behind....

Since no ones perfect, I can live with this ONE issue... especially since the way to WIN is to come across at least partially moderate and then move to the Left.

You know, like Junior appeared to be moderate and then moved to the far right?

[MoonAndSun]

36. Clark is my #2 pick after Dean, so this is disappointing to me,

but it will not prevent me from voting for him if he is our candidate.

This is an amendment to the constitution, and it would take many years to get this thru, if it gets thru at all. I doubt it will happen, so I can let this slide.

Unless he keeps pounding on the subject, then that will cause me to not support him.

[liberalmuse]

42. Amendments should give citizen's more rights...

not take them away. I disagree with adding any amendment that curbs the rights given in another amendment. The flag is no longer a sacred symbol to me. It used to be, but after seeing it slapped all over the place and used like a Nazi Swastika to justify war and mass stupidity, I realize it no longer represents what it used to. How is burning it in protest of our government's policies worse than slapping it on the back of an SUV where it will become sun faded and oily, or hanging tattered off of someone's car antenna? I would even venture to say that those who would burn the flag love this country more than those who use it to showplace their hatriotism. I think Clark is wrong about this, but I'm not going to flame him.

[ElementaryPenguin]

54. Clark does NOT support an Amendment for this!

Read what he said.

[Pastiche423]

67. Yes he does

"Breaking with most of his Democratic rivals, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Tuesday he favors amending the Constitution to ban flag burning."




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031111/ap_on_el_pr/clark_flag_burning_3

[sventvkg]

46. I Would never burn my Flag but you can't ban the freedom todo so

Fuck Clark, Kucinich and GH...Anyone who says I do not have the freedom to do it is a self-rightious bastard....

[xultar]

56. Ya better add Dean also

So you're fuckin
Howard
Dick
Wesley
Dennis...

You're gonna be busy!

[Guaranteed]

62. BTW

Dean is against an amendment, but for a law.

Problem is, without an amendment, the law will get struck down by the SCOTUS.

I think Dean knows that.

On the other hand, Clark is for changing the Constitution.

[sventvkg]

63. yea but maybe they are just saying it for political reasons..If so

More power to them...Beat the Repugs at their own game!!

[bowens43]

74. Lies and distortions are ok with you?

Not with me.

[Guaranteed]

52. MY GOD.

This sounds an awful lot like that pro-Patriot Act argument: "Oh, well, we've never used it, and besides when it is used, it doesn't get abused."

As much as Clarkers want to gloss over this, this issue goes to the HEART of the Constitution. Flag burning is NO DOUBT covered by the First Amendment, and I refuse to acknowledge that anyone who is for banning flag burning has the first clue as to what the words "freedom" and "liberty" mean. This IS a deal breaker, and that is saying a lot for me, because I WAS basically going to change over to Clark, from Dean, because of his foreign policy experience. Now, FUCK HIM.

I will NEVER support someone who doesn't protect the First Amendment with his LIFE.

[Donna Zen]

53. I have no fear on Clark's answer re: free speech zones

I am left thinking that Clark is more political than originally thought.

This is a shit issue, and the repubs use it all the time. Clark's insistance on first amendment rights is what is most important to me. He speaks out all the time about this and the Patriot Act.

Right now, he needs the vets and the South. Calculating yes. Am I worried about Clark's signing a bill. No. And here's why. The repubs only bring the damn issue up to tar us with it. What? 85% of Americans think burning the flag is a crime.

I am not trivializing this. I just don't see Clark buying into the concept. Especially given the words he uses to follow up that statement. Patriotism is not the flag. Nevertheless, repub plants would be at every campaign stop waiting to ask him about it, if he had said: burning flags...kewl. Bob Novak would break the "never mention Clark" rule at CNN, and lead every show with the quote.

His note from yesterday, said that the team thinks they had a GOP plant at a meeting. Clark finally shut him down, and the whole room start clapping.

[Renew Deal]

72. He couldn't sign an amendment if he wanted to.

That goes for all these guys.

[chaska]

73. Hey Donna...

what note? Where can I see that?

[bowens43]

75. He can't support the first amendment AND

support the flag desecration amendment. If he supports the flag desecration amendment, he doesn't even UNDERSTAND the first amendment.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. oferwhateverssake...

Clark was talking to an American Legion post on Veteran's Day. He ain't gonna say anything nice about flagburners to that crowd.

Yeah, he said it, and it pisses off a whole dozen people in the entire country. Including me.

But, there's millions of sunshine patriots out there who whoop it up at that kind of talk.

I'm Shocked! Shocked that someone running for President might talk like a politician once in a while.

[dobak]

69. applause!

well said!

[bowens43]

78. I'm shocked that people on DU

rabidly support anyone who would play politics with the Bill of Rights (if that's what he was doing). Clark is an opportunist who will do anything or say anything to anyone, if he thinks it will help him become president. As Clark himself said, he would be a Republican if Rove had returned his calls. Clark doesn't care about free speech or freedom or the Democratic party. Clark only cares about Clark becoming president.

[Julien Sorel]

96. More hysteria.

The 'I would have been a Republican' nonsense was debunked a long time ago, and you are using this one piece of evidence to say Clark would do anything to get elected? There are some seriously whacked out people in this place -- no wonder this party is in the shape it's in.

[SahaleArm]

116. You know the drill

Reasoned argument is now longer important when I'm pushing *my* candidate:).

[chaska]

77. This is much to do about nothing.

I have heard Clark say many times that he fought to protect the right to protest. He is absolutely emphatic about it.

I almost hate to admit it, but my boy is playing politics.

There is no way a flag burning amendment would get past General Clark. He's just not going to allow our free speech rights to be infringed.

Sorry, slaggers.

[bowens43]

81. So you're saying that

Clark's support of the flag desecration amendment is like bushes support of the continuation of the assault weapons ban. He knows it will never pass the congress so he pretends to support it even though he really doesn't? Sorry, I can't support a Democratic 'bush'. If this is the case then Clark is a liar every bit as vial as the idiot in the oval office.

[chaska]

89. It must be tough being you.

It's your way or no way. It's called all or nothing thinking. Most people grow out of that. Most Dems, anyway.

Oh well, we'll miss you. Bye bye now.

[bowens43]

91. You want to compromise on the Bill of Rights?

And you're wrong. Most Dems are NOT willing to give up Constitutionally protected rights just so their guy can win. We have several viable candidate who haven't endorsed the dismantling of the 1st amendment.

[SahaleArm]

115. Is this the slippery slope argument?

*nm*

[Donna Zen]

87. Exactly

This is one of the culture war issues that the repubs use to steal your elections and your money. Amendments need to be written, and iirc, this is just a resolution for an amendment, then they must be passed by 2/3 of the states. It takes years and by that time we will either have lived through yet another bushista regime or an enlightened democracy. And yet every election, we are painted as flag-burning American hating loonies. Get it off the table!

Everytime it finally makes it way out, somebody realizes that the boy scouts burn flags because it is the only legal way to destroy them.

You can play into their fucking little games, but I for one am sick to death of being defined by a bunch of fascist pigs.

Take your pick. Act like the sky is falling, or play this game they way they do. We need to rearrange the political landscape and we need to do it now! Have you missed what is happening in the House and Senate? Talk about free speech. Democrats are losing their right to represent you, and your flipping out over an Amendment that will only become law if you make this an issue.

Chaska---Clark has been blogging everyday over on his site. They have also put up a webcam thingy. Kinda cool being able to catch some back stage stuff. Gert was fixing his scarf before the debate while he's wiggling around. He said: " I feel like someone's dressing up a GI Joe doll." That man cracks me up!

[Cronus Protagonist]

79. I caught a criminal in the act - they should make it retroactive

(completely unretouched)



Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[HighNoonMeetUp]

82. What *else* will he compromise on?

I no longer trust this man.

[Donna Zen]

100. Nada

n/t

I would point out the Dean came out to ease Cuban embargos, however, Clark stuck to his guns...lift the Cuban sanctions. He has also come out for cuts in defense. Losing on a flag issue is bunkum. Especially, since the repubs actually don't want the amendment anyway. They use it knowing that the whole damn thing is unenforceable.

The only people out to take your free speech away are currently controlling the White House. The sooner they are gone, the safer you will be.

Dean tried to side step the issue, but his position can't be defended.

[Tatiana]

83. It's the same principle as Dean's confederate flag statement.

Reach out to those who feel outside of or on the fringes of the Democratic party. Those people being the patriots that revere the American flag and feel as though Americans should respect it.

Look at what he said:

Speaking at an American Legion hall on Veterans Day, Clark said he agrees with the amendment, although he cautioned that true patriotism involves more than respecting symbols.

"I'm in favor of the American flag amendment, but as I travel around the country, what I see is a new spirit of patriotism, and it goes a long way beyond the American flag," he said.

#1 - He's honest. He believes the American flag should be respected. My dad, retired from the Navy, felt the same way. I disagree with Clark, but I can admire him for being honest about his feelings on the topic.

#2 - He's savvy. He knows he can pick up the votes of those people who feel the American flag should be respected and not burned. He also knows such an amendment has no chance to be applied legally because the Supreme Court has already ruled flag burning as protected free speech. Even if such an amendment was passed, it would be declared unconstitutional.

#3 - He reached out to a potential Democratic voting constituency, while giving a reassuring qualifying statement to his base (basically saying that 'even though I like the flag amendment, we have to realize patriotism in this day and age goes beyond a simple flag')

"New Spirit of Patriotism"...."New American Patriotism".... He's getting his message and idea of patriotism out there ever so subtly.

Just to add, it was nice for Clark to say something "controversial." The media has been ignoring him far too much of late and this is a good way to get him back out there.

[dobak]

85. one error....

Even if such an amendment was passed, it would be declared unconstitutional.


No. The reason they want an amendment is to make it constitutional.

[Tatiana]

90. I thought about that.

But then I also thought about this statement from Justice Brennan:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society find the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

The first amendment holds that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Such an amendment would be abridging freedom of speech and our Constitution states Congress can't make such laws. Therefore, the flag amendment would only be applicable if that part of the First Amendment was repealed.

And I don't think any parts of the First Amendment would be repealed. So, I stand by the contention that the flag amendment would be unconstitutional.

[bowens43]

93. An amendment to the Constitution

IS the Constitution, it can NOT be declared unconstitutional.

[Tatiana]

104. How can you have one amendment that conflicts with another, though?

It's sorta the same problem that they are having with the Campaign Finance bill.

[shindig]

113. this is how it works, tatiana

You ask a really good question when you ask how one amendment can trump another.

But the difference is between judicially created law and a concrete, definitive sentence in the constitution. The first amendment to the constitution doesn't refer to flag-burning. But when people have challenged laws prohibiting flag burning, their grounds for the challenge were in seeking an interpretation of the first amendment.

So based on legal reasoning and precedent, the supreme court decided that flag-burning is symbolic speach. That's their interpretation of what the 1st amendment's limited words mean. And that becomes the law. It's all about working from past precedent. For that matter, in the past the supreme court created the notion of symbolic speech in the same way. They did that by interpreting the first amendment when they decided other cases where people had challenged laws on 1st amendment grounds. Just as the the 1st amendment doesn't specifically refer to flag-burning, it doesn't specifically refer to symbolic speech either.

So that's how it works. But if the constitution is actually amended to say specifically that flag burning will be illegal, then all of the past precedents and reasonings by the supreme court become moot. There is then no longer a need for judicial interpretation. Prohibition of flag-burning becomes the law, no different than other specific parts of the constitution, no different than other provisions in the constitutuion that are law, like the ones we are all familiar with, such as the president will nominate supreme court judges, who must be confirmed by the senate.

You see why amendments to the constitution are so monumental. They happen so infrequently, and for good reason. This is why they aren't to be taken lightly, and why they require a very large majority of congress and the states to become ratified.

[Dr Fate]

86. I agree with that analysis...

...I mean, they asked him this on veterans day- the media was going to go after him no matter how he answered...

[bowens43]

88. well...

1. If he's being honest about this then he is anti-freedom and SHOULD not get the nomination.

2. If there IS a constitutional amendment then flag burning will NOT be protected speech, an amendment to the constitution can NOT be declared unconstitutional.

3. This last statement of his is meaningless drivel. Basically he is saying 'even though I'm in favor of putting constitutional limits on your freedom' we should look the other way.

You are implying that those of us who believe in the sanctity of the 1st amendment are not patriotic. Personally , I think that anyone who supports the castration of the bill of rights is unpatriotic.


I'm glad he said it. Now I'm CERTAIN that he isn't someone I could vote for in the primaries or even the general election.

[chaska]

94. One day a giant meteor could hit the earth, and destroy everything.

Better start building that spaceship.

Read my sig line.

[bowens43]

97. Are you willing to give up some of your freedom to see

Clark in the oval office? Luckily , I don't think we'll have to worry about that. Clark's candidacy has always been a house of cards. It's about to collapse.

[Tatiana]

102. That is most certainly your right.

That's what these primaries are about. If enough people feel the way you do, Clark won't get the nomination.

1. If he's being honest about this then he is anti-freedom and SHOULD not get the nomination.

I think he is being honest. I don't think his statement qualifies him as "anti-freedom" so much as "anti-flag burning." My dad served this country to protect our freedoms. I don't think my father was anti-freedom and I don't think Clark is either. He's from the military and the flag is an important symbol to our servicepeople. Their coffins are draped with it. It flies at half-mast in times of tragedy. It's only natural that someone from the military feels that way about the flag. You can chalk it up as a "con" against other "pros" of a Wesley Clark candidacy.

That being said I don't think this disqualifies him from the nomination. I disagreed with Clinton on many things, including NAFTA and "free" trade. We've lost many jobs in this nation and many people are unable to fulfill the "pursuit of happiness" our founding fathers desired for American citizens as a result. Does that mean Clinton shouldn't have gotten the Democratic nomination?

I disagree with Clark's position, but I don't think it precludes him from being a good candidate. Even the most liberal Democratic contender, Dennis Kucinich, also supports the amendment and I don't think it precludes Kucinich from the nomination either.

2. If there IS a constitutional amendment then flag burning will NOT be protected speech, an amendment to the constitution can NOT be declared unconstitutional.

The first amendment holds that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Such an amendment would be abridging freedom of speech and our Constitution states Congress can't make such laws. Therefore, the flag amendment would only be applicable if that part of the First Amendment was repealed.

(I stated the above in a previous reply. Suffice it to say, I believe without repealing that aspect of the First Amendment, the flag amendment would be declared unconstitutional, as the Texas law(Penal Code 42.09, which states that "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates a state or national flag") was declared to have violated the First Amendment.

3. This last statement of his is meaningless drivel. Basically he is saying 'even though I'm in favor of putting constitutional limits on your freedom' we should look the other way.

I think he's simply stating that he doesn't like to see the American flag burned. He's also saying that he realizes patriotism goes beyond the flag. I think this is more of a personal issue, than anything.

You are implying that those of us who believe in the sanctity of the 1st amendment are not patriotic. Personally , I think that anyone who supports the castration of the bill of rights is unpatriotic.

I never implied any such thing. I apologize if you misunderstood my statement. I also believe in the first amendment and its sanctity.

[MoonRiver]

98. My position is nobody's perfect and we all have our idiosyncrisies.

Maybe because he's ex-military, the idea of people burning the flag while soldiers are being killed is just very disturbing. I can easily live with this. And, I totally admire his up-front honesty about the issue. If anybody thought he wasn't for real, this, very unpopular issue among Democrats, he took should blow that idea away.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

101. That isn't what the amendment says.

The amendment allows congress to create laws. I do understand your point.

[kodi]

105. then you are stupid, because laws result in criminal charges and penalties

dont try to get cute on this topic and plead ignorance because you dont fool me, you know god damned right well what this portends.

it means that laws against flag burning, laws against the freedom to express oneself result and those laws can readily allow for criminal penalties, fines, and potentially incarceration.

if you go along with such an amendment i consider you a mortal enemy to the freedoms i served to protect while with the army.

[FrenchieCat]

103. I am Chilling....

As a former Green, Clark's stance on the flag burning does not make or break my impression of Wes Clark. I knew going in that I wasn't going to agree with his views 100% of the time. I have yet to find that candidate. I'm in this to beat Bush and get him out of the White House. Clark is the man that can do it. That is supreme. I will not allow the issue of an amendment to get in my way. The man has been in the military all of his life, for goodness sakes! He fought for his country and took 4 bullets. He spent 38 years serving this nation. Now we expect liberal perfection and on top of that on Veteran's Day. I guess he could have said "I don't think we need an amendment, because I think we can turn this country around and give everyone a Flag they won't want to burn". Sure, I wish he would have said that. But folks, looks like we've got ourselves an honest candidate that doesn't pander. Looks like he has served his country and meant what he did the whole way through. I'm chilling, because I didn't expect for him to be an "ultra Liberal" on all issues. If he can bring up PNAC on national TV, that's more than enough for me. Plus as a President, he would not have a vote or any say on the amendment. So, for me, it a lot of nothing about something.

[Zero Division]

112. I could've said nearly the exact same thing:

Frenchie4Clark said:
"As a former Green, Clark's stance on the flag burning does not make or break my impression of Wes Clark. I knew going in that I wasn't going to agree with his views 100% of the time. I have yet to find that candidate. I'm in this to beat Bush and get him out of the White House. Clark is the man that can do it. That is supreme."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I wasn't exactly a "Green", I did very regretably support Nader in 2000. I completely underestimated the amount of damage Bush would do.

I never became enthused about Clark because I thought he would mirror my political sentiments.

I heard how eloquently he could speak and how nuanced and wise many of his positions are on Iraq, terrorism, and wars in general ("You can't just win a war militarily; a political victory is absolutely essential. We should be fighting the terrorists themselves, not looking for an excuse to fight terrorists indirectly by fighting states. War should always be the absolute last choice, etc.); heard how he was pro-choice; in favor of better treatment of gays and lesbians in the military; a strong supporter of laws that protect the environment; and an advocate of progressive taxation (not simply against "irresponsible tax cuts"), among other things.

Combining this with the fact that I felt certain that his image as a political outsider and a successful military leader could only help his electability significantly in this upcoming race is what made me enthusiastic about Clark. I use the past tense here, but I still feel that way.

When I think about what 4 more years of Bush could do to this country or the fact that Bush is as bad or much worse on any issues I might have disagreements with Clark on, I must say that even support of a flag burning amendment is not enough to sway me away from my support for Clark (and if the president has no effect on the passage of an amendment, pragmatically speaking, why would I even worry about it?).

[DemExpat]

125. Hear, hear! Keep your eyes on the big prize.

Clark's views also do not mirror mine, but I'm STILL for him all the way because he is the best man for the job and he can WIN.

DemEx

[andym]

107. Dukakis went down in flames partly because of this "issue"

in 1988 GH Bush had little to run on but attacking his opponent.

They made the flag amendment (which the president is not involved
in passing) a cornerstone to destroy Dukakis. His opposition was used to paint him as unpatriotic.

Post- 9/11 it could be used again symbolically by Bush's son.

I don't think many here would care for an abridgement of 1st amendment rights (though the patriot act already does more than a flag amendment would do), certainly I do not favor this amendment, but...

It's a Republican gotcha issue. Howard Dean's answer, that he supported protecting the flag, but not an amendment, is the smartest way of handling it. Trouble is, in a debate with Bush, they can still call him on it and force the issue.

As for Clark:
I suspect that Clark does believe in the importance of the flag as a patriotic symbol-- it's very 1950s, and in many ways he is a product of the 1950s. So his position is likely sincere, and I believe wrong-headed, and not a popular one for the primaries, but I consider his opposition to the very real Patriot act is far more important than support for a largely symbolic amendment that doesn't exist.

[Democat]

108. Clark wants to take away some of your freedom

He wants to put you in jail for free speech.

That is as wrong as you can be.

Democrats should never support limiting free speech.

Why even bother supporting anyone if they all believe in jail for free speech?

[DemCam]

109. Who want more of your freedom? Bush or Clark?

How can you make such a lame argument?

[Democat]

114. I'm not making an argument I'm telling you a fact

Speaking of lame arguments.

Who killed more people, Hitler or Ted Bundy?

Does that excuse Bundy?

[andym]

111. Our 1st amendment rights are already limited

Regardless of the flag amendment, I think we should all
realize that our first amendment rights are already limited:

For example,
No shouting fire in theaters.
No threatening the President's life verbally or in print.
No outing CIA agents.
No joking about bombs at the airport.

etc.

I bet there are many many more....


Now these are all extreme cases, but you could go to jail
for any of these.

I wonder if they are unconstitional?

[SahaleArm]

117. Both the left and the right...

have done a good job of restricting free speech.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0506/p17s01-lepr.html

http://www.languagepolice.com/

[robsul82]

110. Guys, bros, chill...

...he'll reverse himself on this in a couple days. Relax. He'll know never to speak of this again.

Later.

RJS

[SahaleArm]

118. Way to kill the fun...

:evilgrin:

[Julien Sorel]

119. I seriously doubt it.

And it isn't just politics, either. He doesn't like the idea of flag burning, and he said so. So far, it's the second issue I've disagreed with him on, but it's too minor to bother with -- how many people want to burn a flag? It's a silly issue, and only the foolish get caught up in it. I can think of an infinite number of ways to express myself besides burning the flag, and that leftists would allow themselves to be beat up over an issue that is absolutely trivial is symptomatic of what is wrong with the left. The Republicans are playing to win, and there are only a few issues they won't give ground on in pursuit of that; too many Democrats are acting like it's 1970, and the nation is still in an angry and rebellious mood. People have completely lost sight of the big picture, and we're getting our asses kicked as a result of it.

Winners pick their battles. Losers fight every battle, and then whine when they lose. This is a battle that eats up far more political capital than it can ever return, so let it go for now, and return to the issue when the nation's mood has changed, or our position has grown stronger. As a movement, we only have so much capital to spend on controversial issues; I'd much rather it was spent on gun control or abortion rights than flag burning. Wake the fuck up and start reasoning, people. We aren't going to win without making some tradeoffs, and this is as cheap a tradeoff as there is.

[SahaleArm]

124. Too many 'DU Democrats'.

too many Democrats are acting like it's 1970, and the nation is still in an angry and rebellious mood

Most Democrats don't give a rats ass about the flag, they're more interested in getting a job and fixing Iraq. And although I disagree with Wes on this point I won't have a conniption over it. I doubt half the people here are Democrats; I see more self-styled Marxists, Trotskyites, and Greens.

[maha]

121. It's worrisome.

I think of flag burning as a kind of First Amendment bellweather. On it's own it doesn't mean that much, but if they can ban flag burning, what's next?

On the other hand, Presidents don't have the power to Amend the Constitution.

[Walt Starr]

122. Deal breaker

Done with Clark now.

[Nlighten1]

123. Opiate for the masses

This ranks right up there with abortion, "states rights", taxcuts and the rest of the tools they use to control the proletariat.

Rise above it folks and move on.

[wndycty]

127. Clark is wrong on this. . .

. . .plain and simple. After we get him elected, I will be one of his many supporters who will urge him not to push for the amendment!