Flag burning

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And both the Freepers and DUers are happy now. Think about it, opposition to this is actually something they can agree on.

I'm disappointed in Dayton, but he's leaving anyway. Hopefully Klobuchar is better.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To some extent yes. You'll often see a bunch of them against drug laws whenever that issue comes up.

The main reason why they generally oppose it though is because they correctly see it for what it is, meaningless wedge issue politics. Your typical thread on the amendment has them whining about how Congress can be so concerned with something so silly and unimportant instead of focusing on issues like abortion, immigration, stabalizing Iraq, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Both Senators in Favor
Both Senators Opposed
Senators Split

Hopefully we'll see more blue on that map next time around.

With the election projections, you won't.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Using that mindset, I should be able to park my car in the middle of the street, torch it, and claim that I am protesting against the government for not cutting us off of foreign oil.

That is a completely separate issue.  Burning a car in the middle of the road isn't a free speech issue, it's a public safety issue.  Obviously a torched car in the middle of a road has the potential to harm others.  Now, if you want to ban flag burning based upon this logic, then you should feel that burning any piece of cloth should be illegal, as it poses the same safety to hazard to anybody as would burning a flag.

Correct. Now if you were to torch the car on your own property without endangering anyone, it should be legal.

So would you support a hypothetical amendment to prohibit the desecration of the Soviet flag?  The Nazi flag?  That's the only way your argument is logically consistent, and even if it is, it isn't a speech issue but rather a safety issue.

As I said before (even in this thread), I think all soveriegn nation flags should be protected.  The soviet union and nazi germany no longer exist, so no, their flags would not be protected (though there is no reason why anyone in the US should be burning their flags anyway).

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

Yes and Yes.  All three nations are sovereign.

So? That doesn't mean anyone is under any obligation to respect them, nor shoud anyone, considering their horrendous policies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Am I the only one here who actually agrees with the Jehova's Wintesses on this btw?

Elevating the flag to some sort of legally protected status is basically just furthering the idoltary already given to it. That's the reason I refuse to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance, it is idoltary simply, and I won't pledge allegience to any sort of wordly power, or treat it with any sort of reverance.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So North Korea's and Iran's should be protected? You think someone burning a Sudanese flag to protest Darfur should be arrested?

Yes and Yes.  All three nations are sovereign.

So? That doesn't mean anyone is under any obligation to respect them, nor shoud anyone, considering their horrendous policies.

Not fully understanding what you are asking, but I assume you are saying like "Everyone is under the obligation to respect these countries in question, even though they have horrendous policies?"  The answer is yes.  You respect the country, since the country is more than just their leader.  You can protest the policies and their leaders, but their flag is more . . . it's the symbol of the citizens of that nation, and they are the innocent bystanders caught in the game of international politics.  People need to learn where to put the blame.  In discussions, you blame Bush for his policies but not all American citizens, right?  The same holds true when you discuss/protest international issues.

(Ok, I got to stop responding for now and get back to work.  Someone else can pick it up from here.)

That's actually not true in the case of North Korea, since there has always only been one Korea, and when the regime in the North falls, there will be no reason for the seperation anymore. The seperation of Korea and hence the state of the North are inseperable from the regime.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Am I correct that this amendment already passed the House and that one more Yea vote would've sent this to the states?

If so, I oughta mail personal thank yous to Bennett and McConnell, and scathing denouncements to Feinstein and the other Dems (REID!) who've broken my heart.

yeah well things will likely get better. As Nym pointed out, there's really no anti-amendment seats likely to flip. Tester is on record of being against it too, so we can probably count on one pick up there.

And yes, Bennett and McConnell actually did save the day.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

McConnell actually really has his head on straight on this issue. Odd.