This really surprised me when I saw this..

Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law



Questions for Debate:

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?

Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?

No I do not support this. I think flag burning is an extreme form of political speech and I think that we do not need to get to a point in our country where we sacrilize (sp?) our national symbols.


Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?

I certainly do. It is good politics too, but I think that we are starting to see the loss of impact of these types of things. The center seems to be the battle ground for winning votes but political programs seem designed to play to bases more than consolidate the hold on the middle.

This is too funny. This was my exact argument of why burning a flag should be made illegal and I got my butt kicked by almost the entire AD community. What I was not aware of however, was that burning a cross was already illegal.

So, my question would be - should the law banning burning crosses be repealed so we can burn flags?

In any case, this is classic Hillary playing politics. She could probably care less one way or the other, but it's more to her benefit to support this.

I'm telling you - if Hillary runs, I'm voting for her. At least I know she's a lying and conniving you-know-what. And my bet is, this is further proof.

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?

I support part of this--the part about intimidating people with flag burning. I see no difference in burning a flag on someone else's property than burning a cross on someone's front lawn. I also dislike the idea of burning someone else's flag.

Burning one's own flag should be protected as part of free speech.

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?

Nope, I think this is a silly law. I've never heard of burning a flag as an act of intimidation, only protest. I can see the federal property point, as this would make DC, which is all federal property ('cept the private parts), off limits. That'll get rid of the hordes of flag-burners that now dominate DC politics.

Except none do.

Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?

Yep, and Senator Clinton is as transparent as a crystal globe. If she does run for president, I'll not be supporting or voting for her. She doesn't display the ability to convince people with facts or to dazzle them with, well, dazzling stuff. I do sympathize with the intent, and that is to beat Republicans at their own game, but I'm sorry to report that it'll never work.

Democrats have to change the game. Just how this can be done is way beyond me, and if I had the answers, I'd be rolling in fat royalties right now. Actually, the Republicans have to self-destruct. I'm pretty convinced of this. It's like how the Martians get dinked in War of the Worlds, or how other juggernauts stumble, fall and explode in bad sci-fi.

It's just embarrassing for Senator Clinton to join in on the flag-burning noise. I'm glad that she isn't one of my reps.

Questions for Debate:



I do not, her comparison is also nonsensical. The burning of the flag is done so to show displeasure with policy or those in power, it is not done as an act of "hate" towards a specific group of people.



Yes, it is nothing more than another attempt to move to the right in order to get back into 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. While I disagree with her view on this, I wish it was motivated out of commitment to a real position rather than out of mere politics. She has really stepped up the pace in her march to the right. First, she gave a speech at the centrist DLC which helped put her husband in office. Second, she also is talking about values as solutions to problems like teenage pregnancy and that kind of thing, the Village Voice has an excellent article on that attempt. Lastly, she is catching flak from lefties in this obviously pandering move. She has done just about everything but file as a "republican"

Couldn't burning the flag show displeasure with Americans? Isn't that a specific group of people? To be classified as one all you need is to do is become a citizen or be born from parents who are citizens; so it's pretty obvious who is and who isn't part of the group.

If some Islamic extremists (or any other extremist group for that matter) burned the flag would I'm pretty sure most people would consider that as hateful towards Americans and feel some sort of fear or apprehension from them.

.........

It seems to me like she's playing politics here. I guess she trying to show conservatives that she supports the type of patriotism found in banning flag burning, yet at the same time is trying to appease liberals by opposing a constitutional amendment. It's a fine line, and it seems hypocritical. She supports banning desecration only sometimes? Other times it's ok? The way I read it, she's only in favor of banning it when desecration: scares someone, you light someone elses, or you do it on federal property. It seems like the intimidation part could be both difficult to prove or disprove is someone is accused of it. I don't know, it's just playing politics to me; pandering to the right and yet trying to appease the left.

Not really. I wouldn't really sweat it.
As for hilary--You would think she would know that after all this time that people either like her or hate her. She can try and spin herself towards the right all she wants--no one is going to buy it. She can play this all the way to 2008 and in the end it won't matter. Another Clinton will never be elected to the Presidency.

As for the flag burning--well ya know it IS getting kinda out of hand--why just the other day i saw 4 of them at the wal mart and another on the way to get some gas for the van.
Its an epidemic--why soon christmas will be under attack and we'll be sacrificing christians to lions at halftime shows.

Questions for Debate:

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?
I was surprised when I heard this as well. The flag is a piece of cloth with the colors of red, white and blue. This flag is a symbol of our nation, to burn the flag is a symbolic expression either against the country or the policies of the country. To create a bill against symbolic expression is embarassing for our country, but America is a jingoist mob so this is an effective political stratagem.
Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?
This move is too conspicuous to be taken serious. This bill will not pass, but the move will still be imbedded into America's psyche: Hillary Clinton tried to ban flag burning, she does love America.

Ironically, it is a symbolic move, just like the one she is trying to ban.

Yes, Iranian protesters do so all the time and in that instance-you would be correct. However, in the documented five cases per year since 1990 instances, here in the U.S., I would wager that the reason was to show displeasure with the president or with military action,(i.e.-State of Texas vs. Gregory Johnson) not necessarily by a radical Muslim group. I've tried looking for such groups that have done this in public, but for some reason, I can find none in the wonderful expanse that is known as the internet.

I agree, most acts are done to show some sort of displeasure with some political idea or action, but the point is that I don't understand the distinction between how burning a cross is illegal because it's "hateful" towards a certain branch/sect/group whereas burning the flag isn't hateful towards a certain group. Maybe I just don't see the distinction, or maybe there isn't one, but under that reason of outlawing burning a cross I would think they could extend it to burning the flag.

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?

No. Who is hurt by a flag burning? It is a form of protected speech I would think. Only an extreme nationalistic state would prevent it's citizens from destroying something you can buy on a street corner for 5 bucks. People wear the American flag on shirts. Would it be illegal to dispose of those shirts?

What are the limitations? Any size or fabric requirements to qualify it as a cannot be burned flag?

People have a right to non-violently protest their country. I am also against a ban on cross burning. What if I see the cross as sacriligious because it is an engraven image and burn it to honor god? Not being able to burn a cross could be a violation of christians who reject the unison one-being trinity like Jehovah Witnesses and Unitarian Universalists.

Plus I am positive I have seen members of the KKK in programs recently legally burning crosses. Not the wear around the neck variety crosses but the big dogs.

Is it illegal to raise a flag upside down as well? Is it illegal to protest the American flag in any capacity?

"Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?"

I think it is confirmation that she is running in 08. She is wisely trying to get away from the "wedge issues" that have been major Republican platform buttons for years. Like Papa Bush and Reagan on the Pledge of Allegience stuff.

Most American's are against burning the flag I am willing to bet so it would be wise for any politician to oppose that (flag burning) even if I do think the act is legally protected by the constitution and is in the vein of freedom of speech/expression rights.

I can only hope that judges (who do not answer to the people but to law.. as Delay obviously wants to erase) continue to support freedom of expression and freedom of protest.

Let me make my position clear here. Burn your own flag, or your own cross, on your own property -- fine. Burn somebody else's flag or cross, or on somebody else's property -- not fine.

One gray area is the rule against such behavior on public property. We all know that public property is enormously regulated -- no skateboarding, no dogs, don't walk on the grass -- so I suppose there is precedent for the government to make whatever restrictions they like. Personally, I'd like there to be as few restrictions as possible. I'd like public places to be full of peaceful protestors of all kinds. Yes, that would include peaceful flag-burning and cross-burning.

I'm also leery of the restriction of "intimidating" someone with a burning flag or cross. What does this mean, exactly? I can see a problem if somebody waves the burning thing right into your face, and screams "I'm gonna kill you, you dirty so-and-so!" However, in such a case, it is the intimidation that should be illegal, and not the burning.

So, I do not support Senator Clinton on this issue.

Is it a political move? Heck, yeah. This doesn't mean that it isn't also a sincerely held opinion. The two are rarely separated in Washington.

Yeah, I do not think people have the right to just walk into a public park and torch a flag or cross. (fire regulations) I think they should have to get a permit to do it publicly. I think they have a right to burn a flag or cross on their own property though.

However, that theory also runs into trouble because it is suggesting you need a permit to protest something which I mean is some sort of an oxymoron. I can already see the T-shirt "Permit to Protest?".

I think people have a right to gather in a public arena with signs and whatever and be able to yell and speak in protest but burning something to me would be like allowing someone to fire shots in the air. Mob's and fire just DO not mix .

Burning something in effigy or protest is a complicated protest. It needs regulation for safety purposes.

You cannot have some 300 pound drunk guy with a can of Raid, Grateful Dead lighter and an American Flag just do whatever he wants.

An area needs to be set aside (if approved upon request) for these public burnings and they should be carried out under the watchful eye of a fire department.

I think the great thing about the US is that vile (but law abiding) groups like the KKK are able to hold rallies and can be defeated in the war of words by counter groups (also peacefully resisting).

I do not think that White Supremacists should be stripped of the right of assembly. I do not think that forms of non violent protest should be deemed illegal.

I think opposing groups should launch counter demonstrations against them.

I believe it was the former Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev who said, "Politicians are the same everywhere. They build bridges where there are no rivers."

I don't know about you, but the only place I've seen a flag burned was somewhere overseas where American laws don't mean that much. This is a solution for something that isn't that serious of a problem.

Hillary is in campaign mode. The 2008 campaign that is and she's just trying to continue her extreme makeover as a "sensible moderate" instead of the left-wing looney tune some have cast her as. Coupled with her go-slow Joe Lieberman in drag act on Iraq, she's doing a pretty good job on the issues to establish a record as a centrist.

2. Too bad it won't work. Conservatives aren't going to buy her act. Given a choice between a pandering liberal acting like a moderate and the real thing most folks are going to choose the genuine article. Hillary is attempting to emulate her husband's calculated political triangulation strategy and co-opt traditional Republican issues (strong on military issues, flag-burning amendment) and exploit it for her own advantage.

The problem is that Hillary can't escape the "liberal" label. The first thing Republicans are going to remind Americans about her was her failed national health care plan. She's running away from her base of support looking to move to the center, but she's going to find that space already crowded and occupied by Mark Warner, Evan Bayh and others.

I'm not bothered by a politician trying to be something they're not. I'm bothered that a politician is so afraid of standing up for their core beliefs and principles that they would sell them out to pander to a group of voters they are probably never going to get.

If "liberal" has become a bad word it's in part the fault of the liberals themselves who run away from the label like a scalded dog. Hillary Clinton is just the most obvious example of this kind of cowardly behavior.

Good point. I can't say that I've ever seen anyone actually (with my own eyes) burning flags here in the good ol' USA. Frankly, considering the latent patriotism flowing throughout many parts of the nation, it might not be a bright idea for those considering it... it's possible that it's happening, but it's surely not on the nightly news or here in the Big D.

I think that there might be a 1/2 dozen moderates out there that might fall for this dog n' pony show by Mrs. Clinton, but frankly, few people forget that her last name is CLINTON!! If I were her, and attempting to get elected in 2008, I'd make sincere moves on legitimate issues and attempt to establish a voting base. Republicans see her as an extension of her husband (and the skeletons that they still keep in their closets), and many Democrats see her as a "used car salesman" attempting to swindle votes.

Good Luck Hillary... don't see this one workin'!!!

Right now I'm lol tyring to determine just how intimidated a flag has to be before it will combust, and will it work on other inanimate objects?

I don't think we need a law to protect the flag. Perhaps we should just give immunity for those who would try to defend it. I'm sure my son the Marine would have no problem rescuing one.

Yet another attempt to play both sides of the equation, but what else should be expect? It was called "triangulation", wasn't it?

Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?
No, I do not support it. The law means absolutely nothing. Burning anything on Federal property without a permit should be a crime (including cigarettes). What happens if I burn a state flag? Or a representation of the President's Seal? If the intent of the law is to ban "intimidation", would it be a crime to show a video of a flag being burned?

Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?
I don't think any of the conservatives who would be impressed with a flag-burning law would vote for Mrs. Clinton even if she put a sheet over the all the naked statues of Justice in DC. I think she's trying to distance herself from the Howard Deaniacs on the far left, showing that she can work with Republicans from the center; you know, not a screaming liberal.

How is it ADers from every band of the spectrum can reach unanimity on Hillary Clinton, while society remains stuck in Red-Blue gridlock on even non-controversial subjects? I tell you, ADers should rule!

And far be it from me to disagree:
Do you support Mrs. Clinton supporting such a measure to make it a criminal activity to burn a flag by means of intimidation or on federal property?
No. Good point raised about the stage at which burning things on public property goes beyond peaceable assembly, but banning such activity would definitely be excessive.

Do you believe this is an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to garner more votes from the conservative side of America?
I'd be willing to stipulate that Hillary genuinely opposes flag burning, so she may actually view this as nothing more than a convenient, no-downside expression of her beliefs.

The problem is, it really isn't Constitutional and everyone should be able to see that.


Maybe we should try banning symbolic moves.

1.) I believe in freedom of speech, while I do not believe in the flag as a piece of cloth, I will never argue with someone who choses to view it as such. It should be each persons right and responsibility to regulate how and why they shall or shall not do something... including issues concerning the flag. It is your right as an American to extend your freedom of speech on a symbol.

2.) I would not deny the possibility of an ulterior motive at this time. It is too close to a midterm election and too far from a presidential. I would not attempt to tag a specific motivation to her actions until I see more evidence to suggest a more right-wing move on the part of the senator.

I do see your point here and I agree, it is a rather close shave between free speech and hate. At the same time, I believe that when a person burns the flag in the states, they are not advocating the killing of federal employees or elected officials. To me, the difference is intent. Burning the flag indicates you don't support your government's policies or elected leaders on a given issue, but it doesn't mean that as upset you are, you aren't aren't advocating the death of others you disagree with. The cross burning is synonymous with violence as it is usually done on the private property of people it's designed to intimidate. I would imagine that it would be okay if you did it in public in a peaceful assembly, fire regulations and other pertinent laws not withstanding.

On another note, found an interesting opinion article by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen regarding Hillary's pandering for support by supporting a flag burning bill. Cohen's take is that she was pandering since the bill bans flag burning for *intimidation purposes* So the police are to sort through the subtle nuances of a flag bein burned to determine whether or not it's legal. I believe as Cohen does, that this opens up a pandora's box of problems as what is now a minor problem, will probably increase as there will be those who will want to test it and create a court case otu of it.