Flag burning??? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2005, 10:38 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by echo0001
Actually, in many cases you have a process of judging intentions--as in murder cases.

Spray painting graffiti on someone's house because you're sixteen and stupid and can't come up with anything better to do with your free time is one thing.

Spray painting graffiti on someone's house because you are a hateful racist bigot who wishes to intimidate, terrify, and threaten is entirely different in intention.
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.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-09-2005, 05:19 AM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


And they are both just vandelism. Otherwise, you have begun a process of judging speech.

Is that what you want?
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 nigger 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.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-10-2005, 11:31 AM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 nigger 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.
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-22-2005, 03:55 PM   #94
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Miami, my mammy
Posts: 172
Local Time: 04:58 AM
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.
__________________
jkid is offline  
Old 06-22-2005, 03:58 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:58 PM
It is an issue of free speech; they should be allowed to burn the flag.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-22-2005, 10:16 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 10:58 PM
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 06-22-2005, 10:37 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:58 PM
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)
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-22-2005, 10:39 PM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Guatamala? Oh, my god....

*s 80sU2isBest* You poor thing...

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 06-23-2005, 06:52 AM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:58 PM
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-23-2005, 07:47 AM   #100
New Yorker
 
the soul waits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 2,528
Local Time: 06:58 AM
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!
__________________
the soul waits is offline  
Old 06-23-2005, 07:57 AM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by the soul waits
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!
I felt like it; you wouldn't believe how many times I felt like it.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-23-2005, 05:59 PM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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.
LOL, nice. People like that are funny.

And you're welcome, by the way .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 06-24-2005, 04:16 PM   #103
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 711
Local Time: 04:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
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
I know, here we are focusing on burning a bit of cloth when we could we focusing on flushing some bits of paper down the toilet...........
__________________
cardosino is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:45 PM   #104
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
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.
Thank the founding fathers for the three-fourths clause...it is possible to change the Constitution, but at least they didn't make it too easy.
__________________

__________________
echo0001 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com