Skip to main content

View Diary: Clinton sponsors anti-flag burning law (461 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yet more proof that our base is a bonkers... (2.00)
    why anyone would get upset by this is beyond me.  that kos has chosen to main page it is the height of absurdity.  the Flag is glorious, people.  Embrace it!  what, exactly, is the big frickin' deal.  we have people giving their lives for the flag.  whack jobs are burning the flag out of hatred for us and you folks are crying about this?

    GROW A PAIR!!!!!

    Screw you freaks, Hillary Rocks!!!!

    by BRockNYLA on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:08:15 PM PST

    •  Ok, next, let's outlaw the KKK, and anything else (none)
      that anyone finds offensive. Part of a democracy is accepting that even people with really fucked up opinions deserve the right to free speech. And that includes the KKK and flag burners.
      •  yadda, yadda, yadda (1.20)
        cry me a frickin' river.  anyway, as far as i can tell this bill does not outlaw burning the flag in protest.

        Screw you freaks, Hillary Rocks!!!!

        by BRockNYLA on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:14:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't go down that slippery slope (4.00)
          First we'd be outlawing the hate groups, then we'd start encroaching further and further. Soon sites like DailyKos might be deemed "radical" and banned. It's the same reason why everyone should get a fair trial regardless of sure we are of guilt.
    •  The point would be... (4.00)
      It's more important to defend the Constitution at the expense of the flag, than defend the flag at the expense of the Constitution.

      Our elected representatives take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

      The oath says nothing about the flag.

      There's a reason for that. The flag is a symbol.
      The Constitution is what it is a symbol for.

      Dick Cheney is one persian cat short of being a James Bond villain.

      by Malacandra on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:13:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're Kidding, Right? (4.00)
      Surely you don't actually believe that people are giving their lives for a piece of cloth, and certainly you realize that they are instead giving their lives for a country founded upon, among other things, the right to criticize the country itself in the harshest possible terms with complete impunity.  Right?
      •  maybe you don't (none)
        believe in symbolism, but most Americans do.  Congress and the White House and Supreme Court are not just buildings.  They are symbols of America.  Those things mean something to me.  Sure they can be replaced, but I don't want anything to happen to them.  There is genuine affection for the symbol.  Is that so hard understand?  

        Screw you freaks, Hillary Rocks!!!!

        by BRockNYLA on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:19:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Understand (4.00)
          But it's not a question of whether symbols have meanings, or whether individuals have emotional attachments to people, things or images.  Should we ban the deliberate destruction of an image of George Washington?  A map of the U.S.?  A t-shirt depicting the Liberty Bell?  Why stop with images - nobody should be allowed to use profanity or other unduly harsh language in criticizing the U.S., for that is completely disrespectful of this great nation.  For that matter, don't burn images of George Bush - or say anything too mean about him - because he is, after all, a symbol of America.

          Drawing a line at the burning of the flag is completely arbitrary and indefensible, no matter how offensive some people may find it.  And, by the way, the destruction of other people's property - like the public buildings that you mention - is already illegal; what we're talking about here is what I can or cannot do with my own property.  Why anybody feels that the government ought to be able to dictate this - particularly when the conduct at issue is the very type of harsh condemnation of the government that the framers felt was so critical to protect - escapes me.  Indeed, if given a choice between honoring the wishes of the framers to protect even caustic speech directed against this great country, or a mere cloth symbol representing this and other ideals, why choose the latter?      

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site