Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Hill has (4.00)
    just lost any chance for my vote.

    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.--Dr. Seuss

    by sweettp2063 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:56:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  yep! (4.00)
      Mine, too. We just don't need the ease with which she panders to this or that group in search of votes. God, wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate with ethics and an internal belief system that works?

       Somebody down to earth would be nice. Schweitzer in Montana has potential, I think.

      "Oblivious! In Denial! Dangerous!"--Nancy Pelosi on GWB. IMHO, excellent summation.

      by oofer on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 07:02:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sounds so familiar (4.00)
        This is the exact same logic her husband used when they enacted the 1996 Defense of Marriage Bill-- "It will satisfy the conservatives and we know, wink wink, that the Supreme Court will overturn it."

         Unless, of course, they don't.  And don't try to tell me the defense of marriage bill hs been meaningless (then again, without it, we'd probably have had a constitutional amendment against it by now....)

         The most ironic thing about this is that it is a solution without a problem.  Was there an incident that lead to this,  or is it just as hollow as when Shrub I pushed for a constitutional amendment during the 1988 campaign?  I have never seen anyone burn a flag except boyscouts (burning a flag is the only acceptible and patriotic means of disposing of an old flag)

        •  Solution without a problem (none)
          Exactly.  What I want to know is why they are spending precious time on this issue when the whole goddamn country is burning down!!  Last time I looked, burning a flag was not causing loss of lives, homes, jobs, freedom, health... I could go on and on.  This is ridiculous.  I know where I stand on this issue and I'm not saying it isn't important.  But it doesn't even come close to being at the top of our priority list in this country today!

          Hillary, get with the program and do something that will actually make a difference.

          "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

          by joanneleon on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:37:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hilary (none)
            I agree that she is spending too much time on an non-issue.  Does anyone know if she has a committee put together for a run in "08?  I ask because maybe they are working on some sort of strategy.  Instead of waiting for the "wedges" from the repugs, maybe they are trying to beat them to the punch.  Confuse and dilute the issues.   What will be next?  A law banning all rights for gays and establishing gay-interment camps?
        •  Thank you--You got it right! (none)
          I was going through the entire blog to see what you put so well.  If it's illegal to burn a flag, then how in "Jesus name" (I know, bad pun) are we to dispose of a worn out, damaged flag?

          Very few may recall a tragic flag burning:  Someone burned the Flag off the sunken battleship Arizona, shortly after it sunk at Pearl Harbor.  The Sailor who burned it meant no disrespect and WAS FOLLOWING THE LAW!

          So Hillary:  If I hang my flag out until the wind tears it to pieces, how exactly am I supposed to dispose of it WITH RESPECT!

        •  I've Seen It (none)
          Though its mostly just a bunch of gothic underground kids striking out at "commercial America" in their $70 dollar Hot Topic pants.

          Come on Hil, its free speech! Hillary's lost it now; any candidate supporting the unconstitutional criminalization of speech will never have THIS moderate's support.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask, Why Not? ~Robert F. Kennedy

          by Southern Liberal on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 05:38:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  well said (none)
          between this and investigating 'grand theft auto', I think Hillary, as my Senator, is wasting my money and valuable legislative time.  and she is doing so at a time when one of her flagship issues, the War in Iraq, badly needs legislative review and oversight.  can Hillary really claim she wants to investigate video games to reduce violence while wholeheartedly cheerleading this war???  does she really believe in such superficial "defense" of the Constitution while completely undermining one of its most important principles by voting to give the power to declare war solely to the Executive?

          Give me a f-in' break!  Her and Joe Lieberman should be given a clear message.  Their constituencies want substance, not this stupid, smarmy bullshit they're trying to pass off on us.

          just be thankful for what you've got

          by itsbenj on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 07:41:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I would vote (none)
      for John McCain before I vote for Hillary Clinton.

      You guys and gals better make sure she doesn't make it out of the primaries...

      For the sake of the country, please make sure she doesn't make it out.

      •  Dont say that!!! McCain is worse!!! (4.00)
        Eek.

        But continue with the disdain for Hillary's moves.

        What really galls me about this is that she seems not to shed a tear, care a whit about the BURNING of bodies, thousands of bodies in IRAQ. Yet a fucking piece of cloth, that she cares about.

        Ugh.

        She oughta start taking wardrobe tips from Jean Schmidt.

        Should a liberal Dem blog be driven into "safe zones" by a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:50:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  McCain might be worse in terms of a voting record. (none)
          But I think It's fair to say McCain actually believes in a few things.  I don't think Hillary really believes in any political stances, has any coherent ideology.  It's all about whatever it will take to make her popular.  And that's why she's so scary/a horrible candidate.  
      •  We really have learned nothing (none)
        I don't agree with this position she's taking on this. I hope it is tactical, and I am pretty sure it is because nearly everything the Clinton's do is tactical.

        But, under no circumstances do I fall for the silly notion that John McCain is somehow closer to my positions on abortion rights, fiscal sanity, Social Security, homeland security spending, judicial nominations, individual rights than Hillary Clinton is.

        It is really amazing to me how the left can watch Hillary make tactical jabs to the right and get so pissed that they'd endorse McCain as he does the same, from a position even further to the right.

        If the standard we are measuring both candidates against is their willingness to make smelly deals to achieve power, McCain is every bit as bad as what Hillary is accused of on Kos. He knew that SOB in the white house was in over his head and wrong in every way. But there he was, kissing his ass at the convention even after all they had done to him in 2000. he could have withheld his approval and really sent a message in 2004. but that would have required him to sacrifice his personal ambition, and no way was he doing that. he was interviewed this weekend about the Abramoff scandals and their impact on his comittee, and virtual signed off on the idea that he will do nothing about them. he'll also back up the white house on pre-war INTEL manipulation and any other meaningful investigation of their abuse of power.

        but, here on Kos, we'll ignore all that and focus on Hillarys tactical maneuvers, get real pissed about them, and split our vote, ensuring that we'll have another GOP pres in 2008 to picked the rest of the SCOTUS judges left after the next 3 years. Yep, no issue is to big for Kos emotion to get in the way of making a point.  

        •  Of Bleeping COURSE it's political (none)
          It's not a passive sell out of our Constitution like voting for the Patriot Act (although I condemn her for that too).

          It is an ACTIVE sell out by cosponsoring terrible, political wedge generating, meaningless legislation that changes the subject from solving the real problems our countries face.

          She might as well join hands with O'Rascal and come out with a bill making it illegal to say "Happy Holidays."  The only reason she won't is that she has millions of dollars in donations from non-Christians.

          •  I didn't say political, I said tactical (none)
            meaning in this case, she's taking a position on an issue she expects to be confronted by, so as to diffuse it before it matters.

            rather than evaluate it as such, you just lumped her in with O'Reilly and presumable would rather see Condi Rice in 2008 than that sell out Hillary.

            which bring us to the part of my post you apparantly didn't read, which is we lose again in 2008 because you'd rather lose than conceede she might have a tactical point. and then we'll be faced with another 12 year run of GOP presidents picking SCOTUS judges along with the rest of the judicial spots, and be even further away from righting the ship of state than we are now.

            I don't like the position she's taking. It pisses me off that its even necessary as a tactic. I hate what the right has done to this country that makes it so. But vote for them just to punish Hillary? If we are that fucking stupid we deserve everthing we get.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site