deep
Blue Crack Addict
echo0001 said:
Spray painting swastikas and "Die Dirty Jews" on a synagogue is more than just property destruction.
But, some still say there are no hate crimes.
Flag burning???
- Thread starter BVS
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Spray painting swastikas and "Die Dirty Jews" on a synagogue is more than just property destruction.
But, some still say there are no hate crimes.
OP
OP
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
I completely disagree. If you can't take in context and intent then what happens when a man's house is spray painted with "leave ****** or die", he doesn't move and is murdered 2 weeks later? Sorry we couldn't take that as a threat it was just vandalism.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
You are referring to a different crime. Threatening to kill someone is a crime by itself.
There should be no difference between (1) someone threatens to kill you because they don't like you and (2) someone threatens to kill you because they don't like you because you are [insert protected class here].
The threat is a treat is a threat.
jkid
The Fly
New news on flag burning:
"House approves flag-burning amendment, may pass Senate for first time
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
June 22, 2005, 5:56 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure rejected twice by the Senate in the past decade but expected to get a closer vote this year.
By a 286-130 vote _ eight more than needed _ House members approved the amendment by the required two-thirds majority after a debate over whether such a ban would run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.
If approved by a similar two-thirds majority in the Senate, the amendment would then move to the states for ratification. It would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.
Sixty-three senators, four short of two-thirds needed, voted for the amendment in 1995 and again in 2000. With Republicans increasing their majority in last fall's election, activists on both sides of the issue said the amendment has its pass chance ever of passing this year. But a rough count by The Associated Press shows 34 _ one more than needed to defeat it _ either as having voted against the amendment in the past or committed publicly to opposing it.
Connecticut's House delegation was split on the amendment, with three voting for it and two voting against it. Two Republicans, Reps. Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons, and Democrat John Larson voted for the amendment. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., voted against it.
Shays, one of only 12 Republicans to vote no, said he would do whatever he could to stop someone who was desecrating the flag. But, he said, "I think this constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexistent problem."
Simmons said that with troops deployed abroad, "it is important that we recognize their service and the unbroken tradition of honor and sacrifice that that flag represents."
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.
Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed.
But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.
The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday."
I think this is a bad move. As much as I disagree with it, it is covered by freedom of speech.
"House approves flag-burning amendment, may pass Senate for first time
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
June 22, 2005, 5:56 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure rejected twice by the Senate in the past decade but expected to get a closer vote this year.
By a 286-130 vote _ eight more than needed _ House members approved the amendment by the required two-thirds majority after a debate over whether such a ban would run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.
If approved by a similar two-thirds majority in the Senate, the amendment would then move to the states for ratification. It would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.
Sixty-three senators, four short of two-thirds needed, voted for the amendment in 1995 and again in 2000. With Republicans increasing their majority in last fall's election, activists on both sides of the issue said the amendment has its pass chance ever of passing this year. But a rough count by The Associated Press shows 34 _ one more than needed to defeat it _ either as having voted against the amendment in the past or committed publicly to opposing it.
Connecticut's House delegation was split on the amendment, with three voting for it and two voting against it. Two Republicans, Reps. Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons, and Democrat John Larson voted for the amendment. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., voted against it.
Shays, one of only 12 Republicans to vote no, said he would do whatever he could to stop someone who was desecrating the flag. But, he said, "I think this constitutional amendment is an overreaction to a nonexistent problem."
Simmons said that with troops deployed abroad, "it is important that we recognize their service and the unbroken tradition of honor and sacrifice that that flag represents."
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.
Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed.
But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.
The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday."
I think this is a bad move. As much as I disagree with it, it is covered by freedom of speech.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
It is an issue of free speech; they should be allowed to burn the flag.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly. This move by the government is stupid. Wouldn't you think they'd have more serious issues to be focusing on right now?
Angela
Angela
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
When I worked as a waiter at Pancho's back in the late 80s, I often wanted to burn that little flag, especially when I was very busy and people would just keeping raising that dadgum flag "Give me more chips!" "I want some more sopapillas!" "Where's my tacos with extra cheese and guatamala??!!" (yes, people did actually call gaucamole that)
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Guatamala? Oh, my god...
.
*
s 80sU2isBest* You poor thing...
Angela
.*
s 80sU2isBest* You poor thing...Angela
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
Thanks for the hug, Angela!
Here's a humorous story of a woman who thought she was hot stuff, but she showed herself for the dufus she was.
I remember one customer pronounced Chile Rilleno as Ree-len-o, which I don't consider very bad, because it's pretty close to the real thing (Ree-ya-no), and is actually a very popular mispronunciation .
Well, his wise-acre wife piped up and said very rudely to him "Uh, you don't how to say it. Let me say it." Then she turned to me and said "He'd like a Chilly Really-inno."
Inside, I was cracking up, but of course I couldn't say anything about it.
Here's a humorous story of a woman who thought she was hot stuff, but she showed herself for the dufus she was.
I remember one customer pronounced Chile Rilleno as Ree-len-o, which I don't consider very bad, because it's pretty close to the real thing (Ree-ya-no), and is actually a very popular mispronunciation .
Well, his wise-acre wife piped up and said very rudely to him "Uh, you don't how to say it. Let me say it." Then she turned to me and said "He'd like a Chilly Really-inno."
Inside, I was cracking up, but of course I couldn't say anything about it.
the soul waits
New Yorker
That's funny, 80s!Burn that daym bastard flag or ripp it up so the customers can use the shreds to dip in their guatemala!
80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
the soul waits said:
Burn that daym bastard flag or ripp it up so the customers can use the shreds to dip in their guatemala!
I felt like it; you wouldn't believe how many times I felt like it.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
80sU2isBest said:
LOL, nice. People like that are funny.
And you're welcome, by the way
.Angela
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
