Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[windy90]

Compare President Obama in his 2006 vote as then Senator Obama, in regards to Flag Burning.

Obama voted NO, thus defeating an amendment to protect the Flag of the USA from desecration.  On the same token, Obama now thinks it is a bad idea for a few Korans to be torched??  Why a symbol, National Flag of USA is of lower stature in Obama's mind than the Koran?

Why does Obama have more sympathy with burning the Koran than burning the US flag?

Here is vote in 2006.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189

[NKSoccerFan]

It is a bad idea to torch anyone's sacred symbol.  We don't need a law to tell us that.
What you need is people using common sense and respect for others.
Hard to legislate civility.

[windy90]

It is a bad idea to torch anyone's sacred symbol.  We don't need a law to tell us that.
What you need is people using common sense and respect for others.
Hard to legislate civility.

Agreed!  The Flag is a sacred symbol of freedom to my family (US Army), yet Obama voted to allow it to be desecrated (burned).... then on TV today I see he is sooooo concerned about burning a Koran.... it begs hypocrisy to me.

[swinginrichard]

Forget Obama. Look how our own Senators voted. Cantwell and Murray. Sad......

[windy90]

Forget Obama. Look how our own Senators voted. Cantwell and Murray. Sad......

Yeah, but the Senators are not on record as supporting the Koran, 911 Mosque, giving first international interview on the strongly antisemetic AlJazeera news, addressed the Muslims word giving credit to Islam for the ancient Egyptian world wonders....

Mr.Obama thinks that the Islamic call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset"...... and the list goes on and on.

[who?]

Most of us would agree that burning Flags, Bibles, or Korans is a disrespectful and stupid thing to do - and we would probably try very hard to dissuade others from doing so.  However, this is very different from advocating that it should be illegal or unconstitutional for others to do such things.   If I read the news correctly last week, the President was clear that he thought that it was a really bad idea to burn the Koran.  I agree that he did not say that it should be unconstitutional do so - but that is a very different matter. I do not recall the President (or any of the other elected officials mentioned above) advocating flag burning a few years back -  they simply did not support a constitutional amendment redefining free speech.  Same stance then as now.  Unfortunately, sometimes the cost of free speech is having to listen to, or observe acts, that you really dislike.  This does not mean that you support, nor agree with these extreme expressions.  Please don't blur the issues (or we will have to make it unconstitutional for you to keep posting )

[EWSoccer64]

Putting up a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero is constitutional.
So is burning a koran everyday, right outside of it, in protest.
Neither are terribly good ideas, but of the two, I find burning the koran less offensive.  And less dangerous.

If the people behind the mosque do not want korans burnt, and do not want more Americans to be less tolerant of the supporters of Islam, then perhaps they should show some respect and move the damned mosque?!

Or they can do a Lefty, and say that it is fine and proper to build an Adolf Hitler Memorial Pagan Temple at Begen-Belsen...........

[swinginrichard]

Forget Obama. Look how our own Senators voted. Cantwell and Murray. Sad......

Yeah, but the Senators are not on record as supporting the Koran, 911 Mosque, giving first international interview on the strongly antisemetic AlJazeera news, addressed the Muslims word giving credit to Islam for the ancient Egyptian world wonders....

Mr.Obama thinks that the Islamic call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset"...... and the list goes on and on.

Windy,
I simply pointed out it was not Obama alone who defeated the bill. You started the thread having that your main discussion point. Burning the US flag, in the US, should be illegal. It's not a freedom of speech issue, Only lefties would twist it into something it's not.
BTW, sorry for political stance in advance.

[Left Foot]

Putting up a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero is constitutional.
So is burning a koran everyday, right outside of it, in protest.
Neither are terribly good ideas, but of the two, I find burning the koran less offensive.  And less dangerous.

If the people behind the mosque do not want korans burnt, and do not want more Americans to be less tolerant of the supporters of Islam, then perhaps they should show some respect and move the damned mosque?!

Or they can do a Lefty, and say that it is fine and proper to build an Adolf Hitler Memorial Pagan Temple at Begen-Belsen...........

Dude, why do you have such a problem with the frickin' constitution? The power of the the thing is that it applies whether you are really pissed and exercising your particular prejudice or not. And you still didn't answer my question about the existing mosque 4 blocks away which almost certainly was covered in ash like the area 1 block away. Should the one 4 blocks away be torn down?

Just more of the same for the inial post on this thread. As someone else mentioned. There is a huge difference between defending the contitutionality of an action and condoning the action. Not that the political entertainment hate media could make that distinction.....too frickin' funny and sad

[EWSoccer64]

Learn to read, Lefty.  I said it was constitutional, just not very bright.
Still championing the Hitler Memorial Museum at Bergen-Belsen, Lefty, because it is "constitutional"?
Let's not use the fact something is "constitutional" as an excuse to stop thinking for ourselves, eh?

Putting up a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero is constitutional.
So is burning a koran everyday, right outside of it, in protest.
Neither are terribly good ideas, but of the two, I find burning the koran less offensive.  And less dangerous.

If the people behind the mosque do not want korans burnt, and do not want more Americans to be less tolerant of the supporters of Islam, then perhaps they should show some respect and move the damned mosque?!

Or they can do a Lefty, and say that it is fine and proper to build an Adolf Hitler Memorial Pagan Temple at Begen-Belsen...........

Dude, why do you have such a problem with the frickin' constitution? The power of the the thing is that it applies whether you are really pissed and exercising your particular prejudice or not. And you still didn't answer my question about the existing mosque 4 blocks away which almost certainly was covered in ash like the area 1 block away. Should the one 4 blocks away be torn down?

Just more of the same for the inial post on this thread. As someone else mentioned. There is a huge difference between defending the contitutionality of an action and condoning the action. Not that the political entertainment hate media could make that distinction.....too frickin' funny and sad

[Left Foot]

Last I checked, Hitler is not a religion and Bergen-Belsen is in Germany. Are you saying we should adopt the constitution of some other country? Or aree you willing to accept the one we have?

By the way, the fact that Bergen-Belsen and other concentration camps existed in Germany is an example of why you should absolutely not allow the government (or others) to dicriminate against it's citizens based upon race or religion. I'm so glad that Jefferson and the gang were way smarter than Rush and the rest of the populist hate mongering media you listen to.

Please see this case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie which addresses the whole Nazi Jewish thing as it is played out in our country under our constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

[Left Foot]

It is a bad idea to torch anyone's sacred symbol.  We don't need a law to tell us that.
What you need is people using common sense and respect for others.
Hard to legislate civility.

Agreed!  The Flag is a sacred symbol of freedom to my family (US Army), yet Obama voted to allow it to be desecrated (burned).... then on TV today I see he is sooooo concerned about burning a Koran.... it begs hypocrisy to me.

What part of the enlistment oath you and I apparently swore didn't you understand:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

Obama is apparently better at understanding the danged old constitution than you are.

[EWSoccer64]

Actually, you are wrong again, Lefty.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that burning the flag falls under freedom of speech.  No-Where.

It is a bad idea to torch anyone's sacred symbol.  We don't need a law to tell us that.
What you need is people using common sense and respect for others.
Hard to legislate civility.

Agreed!  The Flag is a sacred symbol of freedom to my family (US Army), yet Obama voted to allow it to be desecrated (burned).... then on TV today I see he is sooooo concerned about burning a Koran.... it begs hypocrisy to me.

What part of the enlistment oath you and I apparently swore didn't you understand:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

Obama is apparently better at understanding the danged old constitution than you are.

[EWSoccer64]

Glad to see that you brushed up on your geography, Lefty. 
You may be wrong about Hitlerism not being a religion, though.  Check up on the SS taught nazi-pagan doctrines.

But it is interesting that you do not try to refute the point I was making.

Last I checked, Hitler is not a religion and Bergen-Belsen is in Germany. Are you saying we should adopt the constitution of some other country? Or aree you willing to accept the one we have?

By the way, the fact that Bergen-Belsen and other concentration camps existed in Germany is an example of why you should absolutely not allow the government (or others) to dicriminate against it's citizens based upon race or religion. I'm so glad that Jefferson and the gang were way smarter than Rush and the rest of the populist hate mongering media you listen to.

Please see this case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie which addresses the whole Nazi Jewish thing as it is played out in our country under our constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

[cheese]

Actually, you are wrong again, Lefty.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that burning the flag falls under freedom of speech.  No-Where.

The Constitution does not specificially list the act of flag burning.  It is however ruled upon by the US Supreme Court...

The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burnt, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."

[EWSoccer64]

Actually, you are wrong again, Lefty.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that burning the flag falls under freedom of speech.  No-Where.

The Constitution does not specificially list the act of flag burning.  It is however ruled upon by the US Supreme Court...

The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burnt, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."

Correct, but the USSC was incorrect.   Just like with their latest reinterpration of "eminent domain".

[Left Foot]

Actually, you are wrong again, Lefty.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that burning the flag falls under freedom of speech.  No-Where.

It is a bad idea to torch anyone's sacred symbol.  We don't need a law to tell us that.
What you need is people using common sense and respect for others.
Hard to legislate civility.

Agreed!  The Flag is a sacred symbol of freedom to my family (US Army), yet Obama voted to allow it to be desecrated (burned).... then on TV today I see he is sooooo concerned about burning a Koran.... it begs hypocrisy to me.

What part of the enlistment oath you and I apparently swore didn't you understand:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

Obama is apparently better at understanding the danged old constitution than you are.

I'm thinking that there is something called the Supreme Court that gets to decide what free speech is.Unlike the political entertainment hate media, these folks actually have to keep their eye on the big picture and think about things. You know, precedent and other silly complex stuff.  Another one of those pesky constitutional thingees that stand in the way of folks being able to get around those silly bill of rights doodads despite their personal grudges. It's a mine field out there for the political entertainment hate media motivated.

What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money!

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

[Left Foot]

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

No, Dude, that would be all of them. Limbaugh, Olberman etc. You do know that Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central right? And at least Beck has admitted that he could care less about politics -- he's just a frickin' entertainer. Sheesh!

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

No, Dude, that would be all of them. Limbaugh, Olberman etc. You do know that Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central right? And at least Beck has admitted that he could care less about politics -- he's just a frickin' entertainer. Sheesh!

Of course they are on comedy central.   You asked about the "rant of the week".  That was them, they are the latest.  Do try to keep up, Lefty.   

[Left Foot]

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

No, Dude, that would be all of them. Limbaugh, Olberman etc. You do know that Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central right? And at least Beck has admitted that he could care less about politics -- he's just a frickin' entertainer. Sheesh!

Of course they are on comedy central.   You asked about the "rant of the week".  That was them, they are the latest.  Do try to keep up, Lefty.   

Luckily, with your Limbaugh and Beck inspired rants, it isn't a matter of keeping up, more like looking backwards into the distance....

[EWSoccer64]

I can understand how you prefer to look back rather than keeping up.  That's why you supported O'Carter in the last election.
 

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

No, Dude, that would be all of them. Limbaugh, Olberman etc. You do know that Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central right? And at least Beck has admitted that he could care less about politics -- he's just a frickin' entertainer. Sheesh!

Of course they are on comedy central.   You asked about the "rant of the week".  That was them, they are the latest.  Do try to keep up, Lefty.   

Luckily, with your Limbaugh and Beck inspired rants, it isn't a matter of keeping up, more like looking backwards into the distance....

[Left Foot]

I can understand how you prefer to look back rather than keeping up.  That's why you supported O'Carter in the last election.
 

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

No, Dude, that would be all of them. Limbaugh, Olberman etc. You do know that Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central right? And at least Beck has admitted that he could care less about politics -- he's just a frickin' entertainer. Sheesh!

Of course they are on comedy central.   You asked about the "rant of the week".  That was them, they are the latest.  Do try to keep up, Lefty.   

Luckily, with your Limbaugh and Beck inspired rants, it isn't a matter of keeping up, more like looking backwards into the distance....

Looking back at you, sir. Reading your National Enquirer science section and listening to Rush, Beck and the gang for your next parroted rant....

[EWSoccer64]

I am rubber, you are glue.  What you say, bounces off me and sticke to you!!!!

I can understand how you prefer to look back rather than keeping up.  That's why you supported O'Carter in the last election.
 

>>>>What's the rant of the week pitched to the weak minded and who is the target?!!! Yippee! Let's make some money<<<  That would be Steart/Colbert

No, Dude, that would be all of them. Limbaugh, Olberman etc. You do know that Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central right? And at least Beck has admitted that he could care less about politics -- he's just a frickin' entertainer. Sheesh!

Of course they are on comedy central.   You asked about the "rant of the week".  That was them, they are the latest.  Do try to keep up, Lefty.   

Luckily, with your Limbaugh and Beck inspired rants, it isn't a matter of keeping up, more like looking backwards into the distance....

Looking back at you, sir. Reading your National Enquirer science section and listening to Rush, Beck and the gang for your next parroted rant....

[meluvsoccer]

You all got WAY off the subject.

Windy said that Obama came out and voted against an amendment that would protect the Flag from being desecrated, but he says it is a bad idea to burn the Koran.

"Who?" said it best though.  Just because you think something is a bad idea, does not mean it should be unconstitutional.  I think burning the flag is a terrible thing to do. But, that is exactly why people do it. To get our attention as to their point of view (freedom of speech).
I think burning the Koran is a terrible thing to do. It is a religious symbol to millions of people.  Though I don't hold to that belief, I understand the message it implies by burning it.
But, thinking it a bad idea and voting to make it unconstitutional are two vastly different things.  I may not like the fact that by my vote, I allow others to trample on my 'sacred' symbols, but if by doing so, I take away that right, who is to say that others could not take away some of the 'rights' I may want to display that cause them 'heart-ache'.

Please get out of the business of bad logic.  Just because Obama voted to allow some to express their freedom of speech does not make it so he thinks it is a good idea to do so.

[Left Foot]

You all got WAY off the subject.

Windy said that Obama came out and voted against an amendment that would protect the Flag from being desecrated, but he says it is a bad idea to burn the Koran.

"Who?" said it best though.  Just because you think something is a bad idea, does not mean it should be unconstitutional.  I think burning the flag is a terrible thing to do. But, that is exactly why people do it. To get our attention as to their point of view (freedom of speech).
I think burning the Koran is a terrible thing to do. It is a religious symbol to millions of people.  Though I don't hold to that belief, I understand the message it implies by burning it.
But, thinking it a bad idea and voting to make it unconstitutional are two vastly different things.  I may not like the fact that by my vote, I allow others to trample on my 'sacred' symbols, but if by doing so, I take away that right, who is to say that others could not take away some of the 'rights' I may want to display that cause them 'heart-ache'.

Please get out of the business of bad logic.  Just because Obama voted to allow some to express their freedom of speech does not make it so he thinks it is a good idea to do so.

Subject? Who needs a frickin' subject? Check out the "test post please ignore" mega-thread!
I believe we addressed your position earlier on and I agree with your take. (Except for the part about sticking to the subject.