Dems: Vote for the Flag Amendment or get your ass kicked

[Stinky The Clown]

Before you accuse me of suggesting an action that will somehow limit free speech, please hear me out.

The flag burning bullshit amendment is just that: Bullshit. It is not a vote for a law to ban the practice. It is a vote to start the process to get a Constitutional Amendment. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/22/congress.flagburning.ap/ Sorta like that old thing we used to call the Equal Rights Amendment. Remember that? Nobody else does, either. Why? Because it was never ratified by enough states to become an amendment. And neither will the flag thing.

This whole dust up has but one purpose.

To Kick Democratic Ass.

It is the gay marriage shit in different clothing. But unlike gay marriage, it is a meaningless, nothing, symbolic-only, inconsequential matter.

And any Dem who votes against it will be said to have 'voted to burn the American flag.' Imagine the 06 midterms. Imagine the campaign ads.

Folks, we can't win on this.

We Can Not Win.

As representatives of the base of the party and the stalwarts of the Left, we need to be strategic here.

Take this wedge out of their arsenal. To stand on **this** principle is pure folly. Pure stupidity. Pure lunacy.

And it is exactly what the RW motherfuckers want us to do.

Please give our elected Dems permission to pass on this this. Go even further and urge them to vote for it.

In the **absolute** worst case it might get the needed 38 states to ratify it. But that will take years. By then, we'll have some power and we can speak out against it.

But right now?

Please hold your tongues and think strategically. In so doing, you'll be contributing to the RW passing gas instead of a law.

The flag burning bullshit ...... a fart in a windstorm.

[Goldmund]

1. Though I impulsively loathe this kind of arguments,

this time, just this one time, I'll agree with you.

[MisterLiberal]

97. Not me.

No matter how it's clothed, the call to stand silent makes us look weak.

Do we want to show people that we stand for something? That we REALLY BELIEVE WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING?

Then we stand.

There's something worse than doing what you think the Repukes want us to do: sell our conscience, our soul, whatever you want to call it, for what MIGHT be political expediency.

What about next time gay rights comes up? I guess we should shut up then, too?

No way man! I'm a Democrat, I believe what I say and I stand for what I say!

[Goldmund]

121. I've held that position every time an issue like this was brought up.

But this time I'm not so sure. You know the difference between gay rights and burning the flag? Flags don't really get burnt. Have you ever seen anyone burn a flag? Have you heard of anyone burning a flag? I haven't.

Now, understand that this is a totally strategic position as far as I'm concerned. And it's not set in stone. If I thought that this process would eventually lead to amending the constitution, then I'd agree with you. But I think that the way to have this issue fizzle out is to say "alright, whatever, cool" for now, kick it over to the states and wait until we're in position to fight battles like this. Until then, we have the fact that the fucker lied the country into a war, etc. This issue is a distraction bait, they want the national debate to turn from DSM and the economy into "should people be allowed to burn the flag?". Keep your eyes on the prize.

[trogdor]

2. It's the state legislatures, stupid. /cliche off

We let this thing pass, and it goes to state legislature after state legislature, and our farm club gets hammered again and again and again. 2010 rolls around and the GOoPers control 80% of state governments, and we get ROLLED in the next reapportionment. How is that good? NIP IT IN THE BUD IN WASHINGTON.

[bluestateguy]

3. They've been through this before

and the issue never materializes as a potent campaign issue against Democrats. Indeed, sometimes you do have to punt in politics, but in this case I don't see it as one that would really trump voters concerns over Iraq, the economy, health care or even the gay marriage issue.

[ISUGRADIA]

4. This has been an issue since the late 80s and con amend

have been voted on and defeated before for this same thing. I can't think of a single incumbent that was defeated on this issue.

[Skinner]

5. I think you're wrong about the chances of states ratifying.

My understanding is that enough state legislatures are already on record promising to pass this piece of crap if Congress sends it to them.

I agree that the Republicans want to fuck us with this vote, and from a purely political standpoint we can't win. But to be honest, I can't really think of anything more fundamental than the right to peacibly protest against the government. Voting to amend the Constitution in order to limit freedom isn't something I will ever support.

[Sparkly]

9. Maybe it's a matter of whether to lose a battle or lose the war.

The difficulty is that it's being set up as a potent political tool for the next elections -- who did and who didn't "vote to burn the flag." If they get that tool in their hands to drive home the "Democrats are Unpatriotic" theme, we could lose many more freedoms in the years to come -- really significant, life-altering freedoms -- due to continued Republican single-party rule.

We can't win no matter what. Maybe it's a matter of how much we stand to lose.

[Guaranteed]

35. It's neither. It's a matter of integrity and freedom. nt

[Sparkly]

43. Yes, it is.

BIG freedoms. BIG matters of integrity. Why do you think they are pushing this right now? Do you really think they give a hoot about flag desecration?

It's a set-up. They are masters at this. And it's been working for them -- no matter how devastating the real issues are, they run on broad, bogus "values" and win -- 'sanctity of marriage,' 'faith-based whatever,' 'family values,' and now the flag.

General Clark was absolutely right when he warned us not to let them take that flag away from us. That is EXACTLY what they're now trying to do. They want it as an emblem of their party. And guess what that means?

I'd rather lose my right to burn a flag than my right to control my uterus.

[Guaranteed]

47. You need to take a stand now, rather than later.

Or you'll be singing the same tune the next time around- but softer and weaker.

And, personally, there is nothing more important to me than the First Amendment. If I was a soldier in WWII, that's what I would be fighting for.

[Sparkly]

52. Think of the end results.

In my view, we'll be softer and weaker to the point of powerless silence if we continue to let these people define us and win.

This is political game we can not win. Republicans expect Democrats to vote against it. I'm willing to give it up for the sake of the larger fight.

[Guaranteed]

54. Yes we can. We absolutely can win this.

If we stand together and respond to this in the manner that it deserves, there is no way this can pass the Senate. And we'll keep our seats.

You're being awfully pessimistic. I don't think that's good for us.

[Sparkly]

58. I agree we can stop it in the Senate.

That's not the point. The point is that stopping it in the Senate is their greatest win. Passing it is a smaller win.

For Democrats, passing it is a loss. But stopping it, in the long run, may be a greater loss.

[enough already]

117. Wrong

Passing it is an even bigger win for them. If it passes, then they bash us in the skull in all 50 states with it as they try to ratify it. Stop caving to these pricks, stand on principle, and kill it NOW.

[Carla in Ca]

105. "This is a political game we cannot win".

Really?
Sparkly, your posts seem to conflict. We can't win this one but, if we lose, Roe V. Wade will be next?

You are willing to give it up for the sake of the larger fight?

With all due respect, this IS the larger fight. We need to learn to stand united and be on the same page to make people realize the irony of a law against burning the flag that symbolizes the freedom we have to be able to...burn the flag. We need to say that we want to know who the idiots are that WOULD burn it. And when someone does, we true patriots will take appropriate action.
Not trying is a 100% guarantee of failure.

And the next battle could very well be *ush nominating Gonzales to the SCOTUS.

[MisterLiberal]

98. SO you'd GIVE IT TO THEM?

Just hand them your rights?

They've already got you sand bagged when you can just hand over to them, WITHOUT A FIGHT, one of your rights. And you'll be WEAKER when they come for our uteruses.

How about a "Million Flag Burning" protest outside the Senate when they vote? And how about some Democratic Senators with some spines out there?

They can make the prefunctory "I don't believe in burning the flag, but I believe in this woman's right to do so!" speech if they are afraid.

I mean, do we REALLY BELIEVE what we have been saying for years or what? Someone please answer that for me! Because if we don't, then we've lost.

PEOPLE need to see that even if you disagree with us, we are finally making a stand in what we believe!!!!

AND WE AREN'T HANDING ANYTHING OVER WITHOUT A FIGHT!

[Guaranteed]

34. God DAMN, SING IT, Skinner. nt

[realFedUp]

135. hear, hear.

nicely said skinner.

[atreides1]

6. Good in Theory, but What if you're wrong????

Good theory, but you've failed to look to the "what if" scenario.

What if all the Democrats in office follow your advice, and from the federal down to the state level vote in favor of this amendment, what then?

What if you're wrong and it does not go the same path as the ERA?

What if they get the 38 states to ratify this amendment and it passes
before Bush leaves office?

Then what, answer those questions first, and then I might think about
supporting your position.

There are just too many variables, too many things that can go wrong.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. No, actually, I *have* gone through some 'what ifs' ............

First, I am espousing support - tepid, silent, reluctant 'support' - only in the Senate. It is a done deal in the House right now. Those votes are already cast. And it appears that more than a few Dems saw it my way .... or saw it as a good thing (which I hardly think is the actual case). I am **not** suggesting any state legislator back this. It is far, far easier for a state rep to vote against it than a national name. State politics is much more up close and personal and more nuanced arguments can be made and won. On a national basis, it is all sound bites. And the RW sound bite about us voting to burn the flag is powerful, indeed.

Next, history shows that passing constitutional amendments is hardly an easy task. I think even now in our 'time of war®' it is a hard sell. There are lots of vets like me who see this issue in particular as one that they served to preserve. Yes, there are those on the other side of that same argument ... but my point is ... this ain't no slam dunk. There will be an initial spate of states passing this out of the gate. We know the usual suspects. But in other states, it wouldn't even get on the agenda for years.

Lastly, what if it DOES pass? My answer to that is: essentially nothing. In the overall scheme of things, this is simply not that important an issue .... except symbolically. While, as I said earlier, this is one reason why I served ... to protect this right ...... I am also a person who abhors the practice. I don't even like red white and blue ties. So yes, I'm conflicted about limiting ***any*** form of free speech. But if there's a larger gain in this one issue, I can live with it.

Think about this critically ........ this affects us how .... exactly?

[MisterLiberal]

99. Easy

It shows that we say one thing and do another.

That we are too weak to stand on our own principles.

I don't buy into your argument. I am critical of ANY argument that tells us to not just back down from a political argument (especially one of principle) and SUPPORTING THAT WHICH WE OPPOSE, tepid or not.

It makes me sick.

[Sparkly]

14. If it fails, it's an even bigger victory for Republicans, in one sense.

They don't care about flag burning. And frankly, I have no specific plans to burn a flag -- it's just not a burning issue, so to speak, in this country. (It's overseas where people are burning our flags, but they don't seem to care about that!)

But if they get to put "Democrats are so UnAmerican they endorse flag burning" in their arsenal, they have another tool with which to win elections and overturn far more serious freedoms -- freedoms to control our bodies, our reading material, our religious participation, you name it.

I don't think Republicans care whether it passes or fails. I think they just want to get as many Democrats as possible on record as voting against it.

[MisterLiberal]

100. So let me get this right...

You'd have us call our Senators and urge them to SUPPORT this wacked Amendment?

The way you're saying it, the Repukes can't lose on this issue. And you can only come to that conclusion if you believe that they are really a majority party, which they're NOT.

If we don't stand on principle, then when we DO stand, it won't mean anything.

I'm tired of "becoming moderate" or "appeasing the knuckle draggers".

I AM A DEMOCRAT AND I STAND ON PRINCIPLE.

I may be alone, I may even lose, but there will be no question that at least I made a stand.

Who else here is tired of posts that urge us to:

A) Be quiet on issues
B) Support (tepidly or otherwise) Repuke threats on our freedom
C) Not stand on our principles

[K-W]

7. You want to force our weak grassroots to fight this battle state to state?

You also seem to be ignoring that this measure has failed in the senate repeatedly, so this would not be new or in any special way devestating, this issue has already lost sex appeal, its been pulled out over and over again and you are taking it way too seriously.

[AX10]

11. By what margin did it fail in the senate in the past?

Repubs have more seats now.

[K-W]

26. 4 votes

They picked up 4 seats I think, supposedly at the moment there are, to a man, just enough votes to block it, but thats without anyone turning over.

It really isnt something the public needs the senate to vote for and never has been, and now is not a particularly patriotic time.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Vote against it & get burned in the media like the flag you voted to burn

You heard it here first.

It is entirely a search for campaign sound bites.

Period. End. Finis.

[CTLawGuy]

21. this POS has been voted on every two years since the beginning of time

what Democrats have lost because of this issue? Please name them.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. This ain't your father's America anymore ..........

It didn't pass before because it was seen for the bullshit it is.

It is an issue today only because of our long national nap.

The pople are waking up.

Let it pass now. It won't float with enough states to pass after the country wakes up.

And even if it does pass ....... its a kinda 'so what?' issue.

[K-W]

31. This is already a so what issue.

Dude, look around, nobody who wasnt republican before is turning republican right now, this isnt hiding time.

[Telly Savalas]

96. If people wake up before Nov. '06,

then it won't matter if we voted against the amendment, because as you say they'll see it for the bullshit it is. If people don't wake up, then they're just going to vote for Republicans anyway.

I agree it's a 'so what?' sort of issue, but I think that's all the more reason our Congresspeople should vote their conscience on it. The point isn't to stand up for a seldom exercised form of free speech, but rather to contest it on the grounds that it's trite bullshit.

"I opposed that amendment not because I support burning our flag. I opposed it because the measure was cheap and petty political grandstanding that disrespected our flag and the brave women and men who fight to defend it. Our nation faces real problems, but rather than facing them the cowardly GOP wants to hide behind a flag that so many have made huge sacrifices for. Shame on them. It's time for real leadership." If a talking point like that can't fly, then we're doomed to shitty government anyway.

[Sparkly]

30. The last time was in 1995, when it passed the House.

And the country was in an anti-government mood then, not a patriotic stupor.

The political climate is entirely different now, as is the control of Washington by rightwing radicals.

Statutes were enacted and shot down by the Supreme Court, yet all 50 states have approached Congress with support for this. How perfect for Republicans to set up Democrats as "unpatriotic obstructionists" for not giving the states what they say they want.

This is lose/lose. It's only a matter of what we're willing to lose. And frankly, my right to burn a flag is low on my list of rights these people are threatening.

[K-W]

You are buying into a false picture of America

propagated by the right. America has not changed since 1995, a bunch of the gullible ones just got scared into voting republican.

[Sparkly]

48. I disagree.

America HAS changed since 1995. Clinton was extremely popular then, and the rightwing still had its germs in the incubator. They didn't control the country, they didn't warp reality with lies and propaganda, and people weren't afraid as they are now.

Since 2000, this country has gone downhill faster than I could have imagined, and slid quickly toward fascism.

There is no question. This is a different country than it was in 1995.

[K-W]

70. The facts simply dont support you.

Bush's approval ratings are plummeting. He couldnt get his SS plan through on the first try and the second looks dim. Support for the war is dropping. 9/11 didnt change the nation forever, perhaps you would ahve been right in 2002, but its 2005 now, people get over things and get back to focusing on thier bottom lines. People care about the threat of terrorism and they care about jobs and taxes. That is what always kills this ammendment it offers nothing.

[Sparkly]

80. Bush isn't running in 2006 or 2008.

That's why they're positioning on these sorts of issues, separating the Patriotic, Moral Republicans from the UnAmerican, Immoral Democrats.

The same issues were clear in 2004, yet the Chimp got close enough to take it again. Policy issues are not enough. Basic intelligence, ability to speak, and commitment to serving the country are not enough. It's the big, broad "value" messages that are playing now, and "patriotism" trumps them all.

These people aren't stupid. They're evil, but not stupid.

[Zynx]

126. The bill has been brought up a half dozen times and has failed in the

Senate each time.

[K-W]

28. You are ignoring history, this is NOT a new issue.

THe burn has been felt, it turns out people arent actually that scared of people burning flags because it turns out NOBODY DOES IT.

This has already failed in the senate with democrats voting against it and what you have said has NOT happened. In fact a large portion of the right is uncomfortable ammending the bill of rights.

[MisterLiberal]

101. Fine.

Let the weak Democrats vote for this Repuke Nazi Amendment.

Somewhere, a strong Democrat will come out of this. So if the "moderates" want to play weak, fine, it will weed them out and I hope they lose their primary to someone with a backbone.

If the end result of this is a stronger Democratic Party, then I say we should lose on this.

Because you can only sell so much of your soul before you no longer exist.

Then what?

[Big Kahuna]

8. I think it's a great idea!

..as long as it's retroactive!

[jmcon007]

10. Vote AGAINST it: We're unpatriotic. Vote FOR it: We're unprincipled

Pick your poison.

[Sparkly]

16. Exactly right.

Which helps Republicans more? Which allows us to lose less in the long run?

[Guaranteed]

49. I say be patriotic, and vote against it.

I mean *truly* patriotic.

[Donna Zen]

13. The flag as a symbol is just that a symbol

Changing the constitution to ban the burning of the flag--a rightful means of protest--is ridiculous. They drag this puppy out from time to time, and since they are hell-bent on morphing liberal with non-patriotic, it wouldn't surprise me to see it on the campaign trail again.

Remember Dukakis?

Nevertheless, Mr. Z scoffed when I mentioned this the other day. Coming from an S.D.Ser, he said: flag burning is the dumbest form of protest that there is. No one's going to listen to anyone that burns the flag. Your message is lost, gone.

I have to say; he has a point.

I'm still on the fence about the entire matter, but considering the bastards use and abuse this wedge issue, I'm leaning Mr. Z.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Of course its ridiculous

The act of flag burning is ridiculous. The passing of an amendment to ban it is ridiculous. Worshiping a piece of cloth is ridiculous, for that matter.

But it plays on Main Street. I don't want to lose there.

And we ***KNOW*** that's where the film clips and sound bites of Dems voting against it will be played ad nauseum.

[Donna Zen]

36. After the rovian slurs

I think that this flag burning spew is broader than one candidate in one election. They are out to brand all of us as unAmerican. Really. We think we slow them down while we poll watch, but I think that the machine is going full bore.

This remains me of Chris Hedges' description of the actions of Milosovic in Bosnia: they are dehumanizing us.

Very dangerous stuff.

I have flag stocking that I wear in the 4th of July parade...what will the neighbors think if I get a runner?

[CTLawGuy]

17. "Dems, vote against the Voting Rights Act or you'll lose the South"

"Dems, don't put civil rights in the party platform or Strom Thurmond will storm out of the Convention hall."

"Dems, vote FOR the IWR, or you'll get creamed in 2002."

"Dems, nominate a war hero, then you're guaranteed victory."


Sorry, friend, NOT BUYING IT.

"I mean its only fascism, how bad can it be."

Better work on my goose step.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Sorry friend ... those things you listed are called

***REAL*** issues.

Flag burning .... not an issue. Not even in the same league. Not even close.

Those things you listed .... they ***mattered***. Flag burning matters ..... how?

[CTLawGuy]

25. What if Fidel Castro decided to ban burning the Cuban Flag

what would everyone say?

What if Saddam Hussein had jailed people for burning the Iraqi flag?

would it be a non-issue then?

I'm sorry, but this type of DLC wimpage is why we are in the minority.

Why should we let them do what's wrong because we're SCARED of losing?

How can we lead this country if we are consumed by fear?

[Stinky The Clown]

45. I admire your principle

and largely I share it. I'm hardly a 'DLC' type ....... but ...... on **this one issue** I'm trying to be more strategic than principled because the whole thing is so easy to ignore.

It simply isn't important.

But the blowback can be huge. And if you think this on the agenda because of public support, you'd be wrong. It is there for a **strategic** reason ....... and that reason is to collect film and soundbites of Dems speaking against it and voting aginst it.

Now .... while no one on Main Street would have thought to put this on a list of their top 100 - or even top 1000 - issues, the RW attachck mchgine has it right at the top. Not because of the issue. But for the campaign fodder it holds for them.

Think about it ......

[CTLawGuy]

57. I guess it isn't important

if you live comfortably, with a nice job, in a nice neighborhood, your taxes not too high. It's not important to you then.

but if the system has screwed you over....



But the problem is, civil rights weren't "important" either to white people living in all white communities. Does that mean that civil rights are not important in general?


both the flag burning amendment and civil rights are analogous in that they deal with the freedom of only a small minority of people, blacks and those who want to burn the flag in protest.

the problem is Americans are inherently selfish. "if it doesn't affect me personally, it's not a big deal. I don't have time to worry about anyone else (unless those americans are fundies who hate gay people)."

Our party is about protecting the rights of the minority.

If we don't do that, we are nothing but republican wanna-bes.

[Sparkly]

68. Huh? Civil rights being important is exactly the point.

People need to work, eat, live, make their own choices -- those are the things in peril if we let these people maintain power and move us further toward fascism. People aren't suffering from their need to burn flags.

[CTLawGuy]

73. there's always something more important

we can't let that be an excuse not to fight.

You must understand the implications of the loss of freedom to burn the flag:

we elevate the flag to a relgious symbol.
we essentially say that the state, and the nation are above reproach.
it would be the first time EVER the first amendment was weakened by constitutional amendment.
we look even more like hypocrites when we try to spread "freedom and democracy" to other countries.
it is one step toward fascism.


You might say "why is taking one step toward fascism a big deal?", but I say, "why waste your time taking those steps if you really don't want to go where they lead?"

[Sparkly]

84. Watch how it plays out, darboy.

Again, it's not about flag desecration at all. It's about setting a trap for Democrats. Watch and you'll see.

[CTLawGuy]

115. they can shove their "trap" straight up their

asses for all I care.

Nobody cares about this come election time. Plenty of Democrats have voted against this amendment and have still lived to tell about it.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. Civil rights were important, but I can't relate to them as a white in a

comfortable neighborhood because I wasn't a white in a comfortable neighborhood. I was a white in a racially mixed neighborhood who didn't know what wealth or segregation was until I grew up. Then learned what it was by seeing my friends discriminated against.

I never met a flag desecrater, though. So maybe I don't understand their perspective on this. But I suspect they're at least a slightly less numerous part of our population than the blacks and Hispanics I grew up with.

I'm not being snarky here, but I think you're being needlessly hyperbolic at the cost of diluting your argument.

But I get your point and agree with it. This is not a huge infringement on anyone's rights if you really think about it. And further, read the actual wording of the legislation thus far. It is even more meaningless.

It is posted lower in this thread.

[CTLawGuy]

74. please see post 73

NT

[MisterLiberal]

102. YOU GO DARBOY

"Our party is about protecting the rights of the minority.

If we don't do that, we are nothing but republican wanna-bes."

That's the most sense I've read in this post.

[CTLawGuy]

116. well thank you!

NT

[Guaranteed]

40. This issue is as real as it gets.

There IS no First Amendment without the protected, political speech of being able to burn the flag. It is the ultimate freedom. It makes our country what it is.

You're talking about putting a huge hole in the First Amendment, and saying that it's nothing.

[Sparkly]

53. In effect, it's nothing.

Give them a few more years of complete control, and you'll see holes in the Constitution that impact rights people actually use and need every day.

[CTLawGuy]

59. is that an argument?

should we not fight for marriage equality because they might one day make homosexuality punishable by death?

that doesn't make sense

[Sparkly]

63. It's nothing in the sense that it's not a right we all need every day.

If their victory on this (getting Democrats on record voting against it, not the victory of actually having it pass) means losing substantial rights (gay equality, and all civil rights), is it worth it?

[CTLawGuy]

66. I disagree

we need our freedom of expression every day. It's what makes this country great.

[Sparkly]

76. Please. That's obvious.

I don't want to lose my right to read what I want, view what I want, say what I want -- and I believe all of those could be in jeopardy if these extremists maintain the power they have. And if they gain in the Senate, it's all over.

This is what they want. This is what this issue is about. Do you REALLY think Republicans care about flag desecration as an issue??

The knee-jerk response is, "No, we can't give in one iota on restricting freedom of speech." That was my first response, as well. But think about it. How much are you willing to lose if this phony issue gives them a new springboard for the next elections? And I have no doubt, THAT is the only reason they're raising this.

[CTLawGuy]

81. Don't be afraid, sparkly

they want us to be afraid of them.

They are like the man behind the curtain. they hope we will be distracted by the big scary head on the wall, with smoke and flame spewing from his nostrils.

they want us to be afraid that they'll call us unpatriotic.

We can't be afraid of them.

They dont' need to win if they can control the democrats in this way.

if they can turn their cranks and make the smoke extra black or that flame extra big, they're hoping they can make us do what they want.

The key is to realize they are just a man behind a curtain.

[Sparkly]

87. Damn right I'm afraid.

I don't recognize my country anymore. You're right, they want to control Democrats, and that's what this trap is about. We can shout "freedom of speech" and "First Amendment" from the rooftops, just as we shouted issues during the past two presidential campaigns -- they know the electorate doesn't hear it. They hear broad issues like "Patriotism" and "Family" and "Faith" and "Flag."

They are much more than a man behind a curtain. They hold the power of our government, our media, and our corporate purse-strings right now, and they are bent on screwing us out of everything we've worked for.

[CTLawGuy]

118. they wouldnt have been able to do HALF the stuff they've done

if the Democrats weren't led by Traitor Tom in the Senate and Traitor Dick in the House.

the IWR could have died in a Senate Committee, we controlled all of them in 2002. But it didn't because Traitor Tom was scared of losing the next election. Never mind that 1700 soldiers and several thousands of innocent people would die.

Most of the Repugs' power comes from our fear. We are afraid to challenge their ideas and frames, and thus they gain credibility among the electorate (bc there is no alternative message).

We are afraid to attack them when they are hypocritical or wrong, thus they get away with it and gain power.

If we stopped acting afraid of them, their power would be fractionalized.

Don't go down the path of fear, it strengthens them.



think of this: if you are an independent voter, and you have a choice between a republican who supports the Flag Burning Amendment and a Democrat who also supports it, and it is important to you, who are you going to vote for? The Republican of course, because it is a Republican idea and not a Democratic idea. and if you oppose the FBA, who are you going to vote for? Neither of them, or a green.

What do you gain by voting for it.

[Guaranteed]

60. Totally, emphatically, disagreed. If you can't burn the flag,

can you speak against it? Can you speak against our government? After all, the flag represents the government, right?

When you criticize the government, that's just the same thing as burning the flag! You disloyal unpatriotic son of a bitch!

Right?

You're allowing them to put a massive hole straight into the heart of our democracy. I can't believe you'd say this.

[CTLawGuy]

61. I agree

if we must become republicans in order to win, whats the point of winning?

[Stinky The Clown]

78. That's kind of stretch .......

dontcha think?

We disagree, each while making cogenmt but differing points ..... and all of a sudden we're 'republican'?

How democratic ......

[CTLawGuy]

83. the hyperbole was to make a point

if we have to vote how they want us to in order to win, whats the point of winning?

[Sparkly]

91. I repeat: They want Democrats to vote this DOWN. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

134. well then

they and I have something in common :)

[Stinky The Clown]

93. **How** they want us to vote on this is **against* it

I sincerely beleive I know they do. I sincerely believe a vote for against this is **exactly** what they want.

Think of it as a swift boat smear in the new and improved 'one size fits all dems' model.

[Sparkly]

65. It's giving them a candy bar so they won't steal the store. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

67. and what message does that send?

that if you threaten to do things that are wrong, you will be rewarded.

[Sparkly]

72. It recognizes the reality that radicals are in power, and want to keep it.

They are more than threatening to do things wrong -- they are actively DOing things wrong.

We can help them along and let them destroy the whole Constitution in the long run, by playing their game and falling right into their trap.

Or, we can give them this one and turn it back on them saying, "That's right, so many Democrats fought under that flag -- John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Max Cleland, Charlie Rangel, George McGovern, etc. -- and it made us sick to see the president signing his name on the symbol that covered the caskets of the men we served with. We vote to give Congress the authority to decide, and hope this administration will do what's necessary to halt the burning of our flag overseas, as well!" Or something.

[CTLawGuy]

75. how is supporting one piece of their destruction of the constitution

somehow "NOT helping them destroy the entire constitution"????

[Sparkly]

Because they want this to be defeated.

It's not about flag desecration -- in fact, it only gives Congress authority to make a decision on it (which can be changed). Give them what they want -- Democrats voting "for flag burning" -- and they've got a heavy tool to use against us in future elections. And if they maintain power, let alone gain a few more Senate seats, they can do anything they like with the Constitution.

[jmcon007]

42. What about a law against burning the Christian Flag?

What would the neonuts have to say to that?

"We would, but it's not a problem."
But, burning Old Glory is a problem? Where? How?

"Burning the Christian Flag doesn't affect my "faith" one bit, nor does it affect Christianity as a whole."
But, burning the American Flag affects your patriotism specifically and/or our democracy as a whole?

Why can't we steer this non-issue right back into their faces? Surely they can't afford to be left saying that the American Flag represents more to them than the Christian flag.

OR, would this be an "improper" point to raise on the sacred Senate floor?

At some point we need to chuck the powdered wigs and get out the brass knuckles.

[sendero]

18. Compared ..

.... to the Patriot Act, this is small potatoes IMHO. If Dems weren't willing to take the heat for Patriot, why should they waste political capital on this nonsense?

I want freedom, real civil liberties, the freedom to burn the flag is simply unimportant to me. The freedom to burn the flag is as much a hollow symbol as actually burning one IMHO.

[Donna Zen]

23. Ding..ding...ding!

The Patriot Act is the real deal.

After the burning of the Constitution, what does this mean anyway.

[K-W]

39. Yah, history tells us that symbols arent important at all.

And certainly a flag burning ammendement that passes with massive support wouldnt then empower them to sweep through another edition of the patriot act, or another ammendment. No, that couldnt happen, right?

We cant make policy based on the worst case scenario, because nothing suggests this will inspire voters anymore than it ever has before. People didnt just start being patriotic.

[Sparkly]

55. Here's what lets them sweep through amendments and patriot acts:

Elections. Control. That's what this is really about, imho.

[satya]

20. Or maybe we counter with an amendment to ban pissing on the constitution?

:sarcasm:

You do make good points; and with so many other battles to fight, this one is near the bottom of my list.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. No, how about we frame it as the Republicans WASTING TIME

How about we deal with jobs and healthcare and issues that actually effect peoples lives, then congress can argue about stupid bullshit like flag burning.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Frame a vote for it, accompanied by a huge sigh

in **exactly** that way. Make it as if you're giving asilly child a momentary indulgence.

Great frame!

[K-W]

33. I debated this issue in high school social studies classes.

Its saturated the market, there will be no splash, they pull this old card out all the time and it always gets a lukewarm response that fades away.

[Guaranteed]

32. I can't believe you even said that. nt

[mmonk]

37. WWFFD?

What would the founding fathers do?

[KnaveRupe]

38. FILIBUSTER!!!!

At least until after the midterms.

If we frame it properly ("We refuse to allow the Republicans to exploit patriotism and divide America for political gain while our soldiers are dying!") we could stall a vote *AND* avoid the "obstructionist" label. Keep hammering on the suspicious timing, the blatant opportunism, and the GOP's bad polls. Announce that we will filibuster any flag amendment that is being used as a political tool, and tell them to talk to us after the '06 elections.

If done properly (unlikely, since it would require 100% lockstep solidarity from the Senate Dems) it could actually play as a win. We'd need a Dem who's on record as supporting such an amendment to take the point on explaining why we're blocking it - Ted Kennedy ain't gonna cut it for this. We'd need a DINO.

At least, that's the only way I can see out of the trap.

[meow2u3]

41. Dems: VOTE PRESENT ON THE FLAG AMENDMENT

The only way to beat the trap. Then explain on the floor that this amendment is nothing but a Republican booby trap designed to make us look like the traitors the right wing of the Republican party is. They're the ones who'd rather pass a law to protect a mere symbol while desecrating what the symbol stands for.

[AX10]

44. kick. Also, I like your username too!

:hi:

[Donna Zen]

89. One problem

and I do like your idea, but (big but) the Democrats will never do that. I mean, Christ, Durbin apologized again tonight. And he is one of the stronger Democrats.

I'm sorry I had to type that.

[delete_bush]

46. I don't support it, but for the sake of

discussion if you're going to do this, then might as well be more sanctimonious than the repukes.

Burning the flag is only the beginning.

What about other forms of "desecration"?

No flag apparel, that’s for sure. In poor taste, and too great a chance for food/beverage droppings to sully the clothing.

Advertising you say? Why, number one it's tacky and besides, do we want our national symbol to be reduced to the level of Ronald McDonald? No company should be allowed to use a flag symbol on web sites, vehicles or media ads. Not one.

And those huge flags that car lots fly to attract customers? Sorry, no can do.

Only problem is, according to the Flag Code, "when a flag has served its useful purpose, it should be destroyed, preferably by burning".

[Stinky The Clown]

51. Excellent suggestions

Every one of them. Pile on the amendments. They might even back off if they see they've been had and made to look like the petulant children they are.

But if it comes time, vote in favor.

[WePurrsevere]

50. Even if passed and ratified, it is NOT as hopeless as it sounds...

Although I oppose the amendment since it's opening the door to restriction of our 1st Amendment rights (not that I'd ever desecrate our flag... the thought makes me shudder) the amendment does not say specifically that the flag can't be desecrated or burned. The amendment as it's currently worded (there are 3 versions, one of which is the one that was just passed) would empower Congress to pass laws to ban flag desecration. Last time I checked what Congress passes... Congress can repeal.

Here's the exact wording (H.J.Res. 10 is the one just passed in Congress):

(H.J.Res. 5) “The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act”

(H.J.Res. 10 and S.J.Res. 12) “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

Other then then obvious limitation this could put on the First Amendment, what bugs me the most about this amendment is how it's being portrayed as a Flag Burning/Desecration amendment but it's doesn't flat out state that no one may desecrate the flag. It sort of beats around the bush and opens a back door by giving the power to Congress to legislate it. If they want Flag Desecration truly banned... why not just make the amendment's wording reflect that flat out especially since an Amendment would be more difficult to repeal then a law?

[Sparkly]

62. Thank you!

I didn't even realize that point. Thanks for the information! :hi:

[WePurrsevere]

69. You're very welcome :-) n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Indeed, the wording shows just how meaningless this whole thing is

(H.J.Res. 10 and S.J.Res. 12) “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

If you think about it in logical terms, that wording is true right now, even in the absence of the legislation. Sure, it needs a bill and a vote .... but sheesh ..... there's no there there. Empty words designed to ...... what ........... ?

Bait Democrats.

End of story.

[WePurrsevere]

82. Yes, you're right there are laws about the Flag but...

Didn't Congress pass a law before about burning or desecration only to have it struck down by SC as a violation of 1st Amendment rights? If so this seems to try and get around that but the way it's worded really bugs me... why not an amendment that flat out and specifically prohibits flag desecration? Why give the right to Congress to pass laws about it? I'm trying to find the reasoning here and missing it apparently.

Maybe you're right and it is just a way to bait Democrats. Since it's a law there would be ongoing fights to repeal and/or pass it every so many years and the Republicans are hoping this will be ammo for a long time. I'm hoping Americans wake up and see that the value in maintaining our freedom is more important then a patchwork of fabric that is a symbol for those fought for and died for freedoms.

[Stinky The Clown]

86. You're right .... there's no logic there because ..... well ...... there's

no logic! It is **entirely** about baiting dems and fishing for sound bites.

Another tactic suggested above that has a lot of merit in my mind is to modify the wording to give it real teeth .... and also to give it so much silliness it will never pass ...... the rpubs would drop that in a heartbeat because it would show them for the fools they are.

[KnaveRupe]

114. Because

if they pass the Amendment actually BANNING the desecration of the flag, then they can't use the issue again.

This way, they can bring it up again before every election, and try and beat Democrats over the head with it again and again and again.

[WePurrsevere]

129. Yes, that's basically the conclusion I came to last night...

(see my post #82)... from what I can see it's the only way it would actually make some sense.

[Roland99]

56. It's certainly another "Wedge" issue that could be used against Dems

[Zynx]

127. Nobody gives a shit about it though. The only people who care are

the rightwing fascists anyway.

[Roland99]

128. And the sheeple that mindlessly watch their TV

[zulchzulu]

77. Give up your principles and bend over...no need to fight anymore...

Who cares if the idea is AT THE CORE of our democracy.

Let's be spineless pussies and give in to the Repugs. They were gonna win anyway.

:wtf:

[Dave Sund]

79. Absolutely NOT

I'm pretty pragmatic, but this is one of those issues where we cannot compromise. Period. Fuck expediency. The only thing giving in does is make us look more spineless. Fuck 'em. Let's hit the bastards back.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. With what? Spitballs?

When one has no.fucking.power.at.all one needs to be a bit more strategic. On a list of ten big issues we face today, where is this? Is it bigger than the War in Iraq®? Is it bigger than a supreme court nomination? Is it bigger that PatActII? Is it bigger than the impending draft? Is it bigger than creeping theocracy? Is it bigger than civil (gay) rights? Is it bigger than funding schools? Is it bigger than reproductive rights? Is it bigger than universal health care? Is it bigger than separation of powers? ... that's ten .... which would you throw over for this bullshit thing?

We need to fight real fights .... not smokescreens.

[Dave Sund]

133. We need to fight them all

But we're not fighting any of 'em. If you think it's bullshit, CALL IT bullshit, don't just hitch yourself to it because it's bullshit. That's hypocrisy.

[depakid]

88. Hey let's punt again!

That "strategy" has proved such a winner for us over the past 12 years, let's just keep doing it! Rah rah- yay for us!

Forget about the fact the Republicans ROUTINELY AND AS A MATTER OF COURSE oppose and obstruct far more "popular" and significant policies- and they never get 'their asses kicked."

Far from it- they look "courageous" and people perceive that they're "standing up for principles" even though large majorities don't agree with them.

Therein lies the problem- and therein lies the reason why the Dems have become irrelevant.

You can call it whatever you want- I call it cowardice-

[Sparkly]

90. Yes, they focus on "Standing up for Principles"

and the principle they want here is "Patriotism," and usurping the American flag as an emblem of their party.

We've been courageous all along. That's not what cost us.

[depakid]

92. You are kidding me, right?

"We've been courageous all along."

umm... on what issues might that be on? Perhaps I've been sleeping through the entire Bush administration?

[Sparkly]

94. Look at Democrats in Congress and in the last election.

They held firm for women's right to choose.
They held firm for funding education.
They held firm for rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy.
They held firm against private accounts in Social Security.
They held firm for real prescription drug benefits through Medicare.
They held firm for accessible healthcare.
They held firm for a balanced budget.
They held firm for foreign policy that works with our allies.
They held firm for veterans' benefits.
They held firm for mental health coverage.
They held firm for environmental regulation.
They held firm for supporting development of renewable energy sources.
They held firm for sensible gun control (to the dismay of some here).
They held firm on revising the Patriot Act.
They held firm on separation of church and state.

Despite all the attacks, Democrats have held firm on key important issues.

[depakid]

95. I see absolutely nothing in that list

That the dems have won when push came to shove.

Take medicare- my own democratic congressman sold out- forcing the repubs o keep a floor vote open 3/12 hours and bribe one of their own!

Had that Rat bastard not stabbed us in the back (along with some of his colleagues) the poison pill medicare drug "benefit" would have been defeated.

I could could go down that list and show you either a punt, defeat (or perhaps a pyrrhic victory) on ever point. I'm afraid actions speak louder than words... and in the end- we've LOST EVERY SINGLE BATTLE. Every One! Every nomination- every policy decision-

What the Dems need to do is get a clue and have George Lakeoff (and others locj their god damn staff and "strategists" into a hotel room and not let them out until they learned how to frame issues....

[Lecky]

103. I disagree

I think it makes republicans look stupid that they even brought this up. IMO, a democrat who would vote for this would look even more stupid. Most reasonable people (including a vast majority of republicans I bet) think this ammendment is unnecessary. We should stick to our guns here, BACKBONE people! That's what people want to see out of the democrats, not this pseudo-patriotic game.

I think anyone who agrees to this ammendment is either a moron who thinks a piece of cloth is more important than its meaning or someone who is scared to say no because we are all supposed to be ultra-patriotic after 911.

I think Americans are getting sick of the phoney patriotic republican BS, let's not strive to be like them.

[Lecky]

104. Also...

You guys shouldn't let the GOP patriot frauds scare you into submission so easy. We need LEADERS, not cowards. This is NOT a controversial issue with most Americans. I don't think you understand how desperate the republicans are getting right now, if this is all they can pull out of their bag of tricks then that is great! Don't give them so much credit, they have been stumbling lately.

All I hear is the democrats are wimpy, they don't stand for anything, etc., agreeing to this would just be proving people right.

Burning flags is not a real issue, let's not allow the republicans to make it into one. Stop giving them the upperhand, don't even consider it...the democrats need to put their foot down.

Sorry for the rant but to cave in on this non-issue shows weakness. People do not respect weak! No one votes for weak. Character and personal integrity means EVERYTHING come voting time and we shouldn't sell out.

[brentspeak]

106. I agree, b/c we do not have strong enough Dems

right now who could argue persuasively to the public that the flag-burning thing is simply Republican demagoguery. We have no one at the present time who is able to capture the public's imagination and carry the ball for the Democrats in front of the TV cameras.

In the past, a Ted Kennedy would have been able to play such a role. But thanks to years of aggressive Republican PR, Kennedy has been reduced to a cartoon in the eyes of many Americans who aren't from the Northeast or California.

[Steely_Dan]

107. My Favorite Saying...

concerning the flag burning issue is:

Republicans Care About The Flag
Democrats Care About What It Stands For

-P

[Broken_Hero]

108. No you have to stand up against it...but i do...

agree with you, that other things are more important, does the flag burning thing deserve some air time, some discuission yes, it does, but it doesnt' make it one of our major priorities. Is the flag burning thing serious, yes, to an extent, they are trying to tell us what we can do/not do with our flag, but is at serious as Iraq, high price of gas, poverty etc? NO, but it does deserve discussion it does deserve attention....

[NightOwwl]

109. Another issue we are allowing the Republicans to frame...

It's not raising taxes, it's giving back to our country, our troops, our children, our elderly.

It's not burning the flag, it's love and respect for our troops. It's proving they aren't dying for nothing while they are out there fighting every day to protect our freedom.

And if the right-wingers want to play tough, just ask them how they can support the flag burning amendment, when it's ok to piss on the holy Quran.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats playing the game according to the rules of the Republicans. Enough is enough.

[IndianaGreen]

110. I smell defeatism in the air!

Another call for Democrats to stand for nothing, or at worse, to play along with the GOP. Thankfully we have Senators like New York's Hillary Clinton that will vote against this stupid proposal.

Let's stop playing the Republican distraction games! Let's support leaders such as Harry Reid and start saying 'NO' to the rightwing.

[Kenneth ken]

111. Dems should vote against this proposed amendment

and if/when Repugs try to bring it up as a campaign issue, point out that the national debt is nearly $8 trillion (will be by 2006) and that flag desecration is a very minor problem, so why are Repugs focusing on trivialities, instead of problems which affect the actual solvency of the US?

I went looking for flag desecration numbers and came across this site:

http://www.cfa-inc.org/

from there click on "issues" and then flag desecration acts - they show a whopping 3 acts for all of 2004. 2 so far for 2005 - both at night, which raises the question, isn't the flag supposed to be lowered and put away at night? Isn't that why it gets raised each morning?

Frankly, flag desecration is a non-issue and Repugs should be hammered relentlessly for focusing on symbolic issues rather than substantive issues.

[maxrandb]

112. Here's My Idea

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3926636

In an attempt to show the Republicans that the Democrats cannot be out "patrioted", Democratic Congressmen introduced an Amendment to the Constitution that would make it a federal crime to desecrate the Purple Heart Medal and the men and women who have earned it.

Speaking for the legislation, top Democrats said; "this is a symbol of our country, meant to honor those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice to the cause of freedom". "Some of these brave heroes left all on the battlefield, and some still carry the scars of injuries sustained in battle while defending this great country of ours".

Specifically banned by the Amendment would be the creation of Purple Heart band-aids that could be worn on the fat, sweaty, pasty faces of "chickenhawks" that were deaf when their nation called.

Said top Democrats; "I think it is past time that this symbol of sacrifice was protected". "Next thing you know, we'll be making ace bandages out of Purple Hearts, or putting Purple Heart Medals on rolls of 2-ply toilet paper". "I don't think the American people will stand for that". "We must protect this symbol".

In other developing news, Democrats in the Senate don't seem ready to let the Republican Party hide behind the flag so quickly. Leading Senate Democrats will offer Amendments to the Flag Desecration Amendment to ensure the penalty for desecration is DEATH! Republicans had hoped only for a 10 year jail sentence, or 1,000 hours in front of a TV showing only Fox News, but once again, they were check-mated by the Democrats who refuse to be "out-patrioted". The amendment calling for death for desecration of the flag was expected to pass by a wide margin. Said the Republican Senate Leader; "Look, we know our base. No Republican is going to vote against this death amendment so that it can be used against us in the next election cycle". "We don't want to go home and have to hear how much we hate America".

[bowens43]

113. You couldn't be more wrong.

This amendment is perhaps the single most important issue we face today. This amendment would set the precedent of amending the Constitution to limit the freedom of the citizens of the United States. What next? An amendment to prohibit criticizing the government during time of war? It is a direct attack on the first amendment.

There is a very distinct possibility that it will be passed in the Senate this time and you can bet that if it is , it will be ratified by the states in record time. There are more then the needed states already on board .

Do not underestimate the importance of resisting this attack on our freedom.

I absolutely will NOT vote for anyone who endorses this attack on basic freedoms.

[superconnected]

119. maybe I'm seriously jaded by what I've followed...

but bending to the loony aslyum has never worked out for us.

[RetroLounge]

120. Bullshit. Spineless wimpy unprincipled bullshit

and I will NEVER support this or any other removal of freedoms.

RL

[kentuck]

122. A vote against flag-burning is anti-American....

Because it is a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech, a cornerstone of America. But, the people are told exactly the opposite by the other Party. They say it is "unpatriotic" to burn the flag and they say it to score political points. They use the flag for dishonorable means, which is worse than the very rare "flag-burning"...

[MadHound]

123. I agree with your analysis, but I can't agree with your solution

Yes, this is the gay marriage amendment in new clothes, I get that, I understand the dynamics. But with the requesite number of states already stating that they will ratify any flag burning amendment that gets passed, then the Senate vote becomes crucial, one that we must fight hard for. Why? Because this flag burning amendment is nothing more than an attack on our Freedom of Speech, something that I don't think we should roll over for. This is an odious, obnoxious wedge issue, yes, one that could paint Dems and liberals in a bad light, yes, but it is still absolutely vital that the Dems grow a spine on this one, otherwise we will see free speech limitations codified into the founding document of our nation. Not a good thing.

So despite the perils and potfall, we must fight this. Rather than allowing the 'Pugs to take the offense on this again, Dems must start framing the debate now, speaking to how this is a limitation on the First Amendment, why do the 'Pugs want to waste our time trying to limit our freedom, etc. etc. Go on the attack for once.

But we must fight this, no matter how much we despise doing so. Otherwise, we will be putting the First Amendment on a slippery slope to oblivion.

[renaissanceguy]

124. OK, let's say both houses pass it

just to seem American... now it goes to the state LEGISLATURES. What makes you think THOSE people won't want to cover their political asses?

Yep that's right...it would get passed.

[Zynx]

125. We have voted against it many times and have not lost seats over it.

This is an absolute that we cannot yield on. Yes, our position on this is unpopular, but people really don't give a shit about it. This is not like partial birth abortion or something that people actually care about.

[Malingerer]

130. i consider myself to be conservative on many issues....

And I think our government has better things to do than amend to constitution (which should be done only in rare and obviously NECESSARY instances), while our country is facing serious problems. Including the war in Iraq. I would hope that conservatives out there, if a Democrat were attacked about his vote on a flag burning amendment, would recognize that the Republicans were in the wrong for trying to jack with the constitution. I'm not a fan of flag burning.... but a constitutional amendment banning it is bull. The constitution is supposed to exist to tell our government what it can do, not what we can't.

[Stinky The Clown]

131. A HUGE, HUGE, HUGE **Thank you** to everyone who replied to my thread

I knew when I posted this that my view would be the minority one. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who responded and took part in this debate. This is **exactly** the kind of debate for which I am so grateful to DU. Spirited and passionate, but always respectful. This would have been an easy one to have degenerate into a flame war. It didn't.

While some of the points in my general view of this particular issue have been sharpened or modified thanks to this debate, I still maintain my original position.

I agree without reservation with everyone who says dems need to stand strong and stand tall ... and most importantly to stand for **something**. I held that view before this issue came up and I will continue to hold it long after this issue fades.

I also agree that the flag amendment is more than a ploy. It is, indeed, an assault on free speech. Where we differ is in our own views of how important **this specific aspect** of the larger free speech issue might be affected by this shitstorm.

I agree that Dems voting against this in the past didn't hurt them. I disagree that luxury remains the case.

I agree that we should not be cowed by the repubs. My stance on this notwithstanding (and if you've ever read any of my other postings, you'll know) I do not fear the repubs so much as view them with disdain. I am much more than simply willing to fight them as long and as hard as I am able. I am constantly calling for our elected Dems to do the same. So know that my view is neither about caving in to them or giving up. It **is** about beating them at their own game. It is about strategy. It is about seeing their bullshit and fighting them on that same basis. And this case, it is my view that the basis of the fight is NOT free speech. The basis of the fight is political casting. Making the enemy look bad in the eyes of voters.

So if anyone sees me as 'wimping' on this issue, or somehow becoming 'DLC' or 'Repuke Lite', that would be a wrong assumption. While you and I may differ on the point expressed in my OP, it not because of any weakness on your part or mine .... just a differing view of the strategy to employ to beat the shit out of them using their own cudgel.

Like you, I am DAMNED tired of having my ass kicked all over the schoolyard by scum who twist and turn well intentioned action, even demonstrably right and successful action, into a 'weak moral value' or a 'wimpy liberal view' of things.

So again ... to all who participated in this ... thanks for keeping the debate focused and honest.

I really appreciate it ....... even if no minds were changed.

[LissaM]

132. To Sparkly:

My question is: What will define a flag? What will stop me from burning an Old Navy T-Shirt with the flag on it? A picture of a flag? A piece of wood I decorated like a flag? If I burn that, will I get arrested?!

Just a question, I spose, probably already answered, but just wanted to know. I understand your stance on it, I guess I'm just trying to see what the Repukes will say. THANKS! :)

[knight_of_the_star]

136. This is small-fry stuff

The GOP is hauling out this tired old horse because all their other issues are stinkers. If they make this the big issue in '06, we can trounce them by saying they don't care about our sons and daughters overseas.

[lesab]

137. I have an idea....

If this comes up for a vote, I think that all of the Dems should obstain. Make a public statement about how Dems want to get on with the peoples' important business and are tired of Reps dividing the nation and concentrating on stupid stuff when there are truly pressing issues to discuss and take care of. Then have them name a few.......plans for Iraq........economic growth.....health care and social security stability....education.....etc.


If Dems started doing this a lot...it would make people realize that we are for real and not just business as usual politicians.


Can this be done on a regular basis? What do you all think?