Poll: Should flag-burning be illegal?

I'm assuming you mean the American Flag. Strangely enough the way to honor it is to allow it to be burned.

I always liked what Abbie Hoffman said. "People shouldn't burn the flag they should wash it, symbolically cleaning the country, not destroying it."

Abbie was tres cool.

I'm curious to hear from the two extremely misguided people here who support amending the First Amendment with this exception.

Why? What are you afraid of? Who is physically or financially hurt when the flag is burned?

Or do you just hate freedom?

And with comments phrased like this you wonder why people don't bother to discuss?

I wasn't really looking to discuss, I was more looking to just voice my distaste for the people who supported the amendment. :)

Exactly.

I find that I get almost as offended by most people on Air America as I do with Rush even though I agree with them. The lack of civility in discourse is very discouraging.

Restricting first amendment free speech to protect a piece of cloth is even less American than the act of burning the flag itself.

Not to mention it would be the first Amendment since Prohibition that would restrict rights of the people, rather than restrict the power of the government.

But only when it's so dirty or damaged that it can't/shouldn't be displayed any more.

But hey, unless you're burning someone else's flag, it's a private property issue. My piece of cloth, I can do with it what I like.

Actually, it technically wouldn't - the amendment would just give Congress the power to enact legislation restricting rights, but wouldn't outright ban flag burning.

Regardless, this may be one of the few issues you and I agree on. :)

I agree with Gordon. If Lawrence wants a conversation about this subject, I am willing to hear those two people's side. I would like to know their oppinion, however, if they are too annoyed to ancwer, I can totally understand.

Gordon, Did you see the Daily Show when the writer of "rebel president" (a pro-bush book) was a guest?

I feel more programs did something like that, red people and blue people can just learn to get along.

its hard to be civil when you know your government is lying to you and innocent people have died because of it. I do try to be civil in discourse, but I honestly believe that the government under its current leadership wants to silence all those who criticize and actively oppose it.

With interesting timing there was an incident this week in New York where vandals burned other people's flags. That is how it was treated as vandalism as it should have been.

"I honestly believe that the government under its current leadership wants to silence all those who criticize and actively oppose it"

I don't think anyone with half a brain would refute that.
They've made it clear time after time that that is the way it's going to work.

Beyond that, they've made it clear that if they have ANY way to do so, they'll wrongfully imprison and ... if they can't do that... at least restrict the freedoms of anyone with differing views. Or, you know, the wrong name... or background... or friends.... or if you look at them funny.

Welcome to big brother, my friends. *le sigh*
We can only hope that the intelligence level in this country isn't so amazingly lacking that we elect someone of similar fascist beliefs the next time around.

I guess it is pretty obvious that most believe that the government wants to muffle its critics. My point was the ones in power and those that support them are acting completely irrational yet we are expected to engage with them in rational civil discourse. How is that possible? Its ridiculous to try and engage them in a civil discussion when they make it clear they have no interest in actual facts or opposing viewpoints.Thats what I like about Air America radio,that they do stand up and fight back. I wish the Democats in congress would do the same. Civility has its place but it certainly hasn't changed the path of the current administration. We are engaged in a war of words with those who will use any tactic to sway public opinion or intimidate the opposition. And for a while those on the left may have to be just as extreme.

You two are my OTP.

Along these lines....interesting arcticle I just read.

That was good. It is also something we can all actually do something about. We can't change the world but we can all be personally more civil.

ahahahaha.

That is a frightening image, Leah.

The problem with that approach is that we wind up with 2 camps who don't listen to anything the other has to say.

I know I used to feel that I could talk to people who disagreed with me on politics (i.e., usually the right), politely and with mutual respect. I really don't feel that way anymore. They'll go on the attack, and every shred of logic or reason gets lost in the heat of verbal battle, when what I'd hoped for was a conversation where one or both of us might *gasp* learn something, or understand more of the reasons for other's point of view.

When the left does the same - attacking ad hominem, phrasing every point in damning language ("So, Mr. Smith, have you stopped beating your wife?") - it creates a similar closed audience. And nothing is going to be accomplished by preaching to the choir. In fact, what often happens is that the choir will turn on itself over nuances, leaving everyone even more alienated and less likely to participate in problem-solving or constructive theorizing.

It discourages me, really.

You put that much better that I did. You also get points for using "ad hominem."

Yeah, like you never thought that on your own.

Yeah? Fuck you. :)