Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  On the other hand ... (4.00)
    -- only if the law were to include a provision that it would be revisited after a set period of time to evaluate its effects -- since it would remove this easily exploited issue from debate ... I think it just might be worth it.  Also, I cannot forget that many Union soldiers gave their lives just to carry our flag into battle (I have read accounts of one soldier after another picking up the flag as carrier after carrier is shot down), and honoring that sacrifice seems worth something to me.
    •  Let's honor the sacrifice of Union soldiers by (4.00)
      banning the displaying of the Confederate flag!
    •  this is such a non issue (none)
      I really don't care....where does she stand on universal health care, raising taxes on the wealthy, social programs, Iraq - where she has been non-forthcoming so far - etc.That's what I'm interested in. She raises mucho dinero for the party. Getting so bent out of shape over this is ridiculous IMHO.So she'll get a few southerners to take a second look at her,that's good politics.
      •  The basic freedom (none)
        of political expression is not a "non-issue".  It is fundamental.
        •  Well ,protest in (none)
          every way, shape and form, just don't burn the flag. You'd only be alienating a whole bunch of people by doing it anyway, and not just rednecks. I'm sure some progressives have mixed feelings about it. What is the point of burning the flag anyway except to say,"Hey, I'm free to burn the flag, what a great country!" If this gets passed, watch flag burning incidents skyrocket, that's what's funny about this too.
          •  I am not advocating burning the flag (none)
            I am advocating liberty.  There is a difference.  
            •  So you're pro choice in the (none)
              flag burning issue,I'm pro liberty too, but this is an issue solely for posturing purposes....
              •  No Glickman, you are wrong (none)
                It is naked pandering to the right.  That it does not impact our every day lives much is hardly the point.  She is openly, smilingly joining hands with the ideologues who invent fake wedge issues to take the electorate's eyes off those issues that DO affect their daily lives.  It is taking her base for granted so severely that she is willing to sell out the First Amendment and trample on her base's values and run toward the center WAY before she has locked up a nomination.

                I can only smile that it will really turn off the hardcore base when she needs it most: in the early primary season.

              •  three times (none)
                i gave you the benefit of the doubt in this thread, thinking you would even ONCE listen to what was being communicated to you.

                ok, neocon, no more: blow me.

                •  that's a good one (none)
                  1. if you'd were beyond god you'd know what you claim is absurd

                  2. if you were beyond god you could articulate your positions with great clarity and language, not resort to absurd mud slinging

                  3. if you were beyond god you could blow yourself

                  4. who cares if you give me any benefits of any doubts - who are you? If you were beyond god you'd be rich and powerful and one would hope beneficent towards us mere mortals - somehow I get the feeling you're neither.....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site