Hillary Opposes Flag Burning Amendment

[mtnsnake]

If Hillary is such a loser around here for co-sponsering the proposed flag desecration law (which is her way of preventing a far worse flag burning amendment to the Constitution from taking place), then why were all the moronic right wing blogs and talk show hosts so up in arms about her opposition to the flag burning amendment back in June?

"New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who insisted last year that Democrats were just as patriotic as Republicans, said Wednesday that she's against a Constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the American flag."

"I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer, Clinton said last night, in a statement issued after the House passed the anti-flag burning amendment yesterday by an overwhelming margin of 258 to 130."

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic, she shrieked at a 2003 Connecticut fundraiser. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

By opposing protecting the American flag with a constitutional amendment, Clinton is catering to the more radical wing of her party, whose support she'll need to win the 2008 presidential nomination.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/23/95624.shtml

Do a google search on this and you'll find you're in good company when it comes to whining about the same thing all the right wing blogs are when it comes to Hillary, just like the one that authored the article from above.

[ronnykmarshall]

1. mmmmmmm popcorn!

:popcorn:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Since when is it radical to protect free speech?

(Responding to the quote, not you) :shrug:

[MadHound]

3. Sorry, but opposing an amendment that reduces our free speech rights

By supporting a law that reduces our free speech rights is not a good strategy for protecting our free speech rights. Rather Hillary should come out strongly against any law or amendment that curtails our free speech rights. And the fact that she is doing so in order to pander to voters whose vote she won't get anyway is just doubly galling.

Whatever happened to standing up in the face of browbeating bully boy tactics and fighting? Instead, Hillary is caving on this one, sorry.

[Selatius]

8. I agree

It's like she's choosing to chop off your hand because it's better than losing an entire leg. In any case, you end up losing out.

Regardless, "standing up" is no longer en vogue. It went out of style when folks like Martin, John, and Bobby were slaughtered.

[Yollam]

9. Agreed. Desecrating the flag should be protected speech.

What "America" is is an ever-evolving thing. A totalitarian America is not at all far-fetched, and when and if the time for revolution comes, so would the time for a new flag.

Trying to enshrine a symbol of a moment or an idea for all time is the exact opposite of what America is supposed to be about, IMO.

I personally would be much more likely to desecrate an effigy of Bush or something like that than the flag, which I've personally yet to give up on completely, but there are legitimate gripes against this nation, and people should be free to express them in their own way.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Exactly

And people are so ignorant on the issue as well. Flag burning is the only way to dispose of the flag as well. So are they going to stop that? :eyes:

[papau]

4. The hate Hillary crowd (either on the left or right)does not need facts or

analysis to post a dump.


A circle shoot is fun ... :-(

:popcorn:

[ronnykmarshall]

5. We might need to pop another batch.....

:popcorn:
:popcorn:
:popcorn:

[Yollam]

11. The right's reasons for hating Hillary are pure fantasy

(She's a lesbian, she was sleeping with Vince Foster before she murdered him, she's a "feminazi", she's a socialist) their canards against her are so far from the truth as to be utterly laughable.

The left's arguments against her, however, hold a lot more water. She has signed onto silly ideas like video-game censorship, etc. in a time when civil liberties are being tramples, and she voted for the war resolution against the wishes of most of her constituents. I don't think they are unfairly demonizing here, they are simply rightly pointing out where her her right-leaning DLC ideas are working against America's best interest.

Hillary is a bright and appealing person. I still hope she will move in the right direction in the future, but if she does not, the left will be entitled to hold her to the fire for it.

[MrBenchley]

19. That is rich.....

"she voted for the war resolution against the wishes of most of her constituents"
Really? I doubt most New Yorkers opposed it back at the time of the vote. Chimpy had a three to one approval rating among people in overwhelmingly liberal NYC in 2002....

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11370.xml?ReleaseID=455

And about half in NYC were in favor of the war when it began....

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11370.xml?ReleaseID=355

I doubt there was as much opposition in the more conservative areas of the state....

[Yollam]

26. Opposition to the war was strong at the time of the resolution.

The numbers slid once we were on the ground - people wanting to "support the troops" and all.


And the poll you cite on POS Bush's approval ratings was less than 6 months after 9-11 & Bush's all-time highs in the polls, and was during the Afghan invasion which had much broader support. His numbers were much lower in NY by the IWR vote in October of the same year.


Hillary's office was SWAMPED with calls & letters and protesters begging her not to vote for the fraudulent war, be she really didn't care.

Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl, I suppose.

[MrBenchley]

27. Not so....

As we saw, even in liberal NYC, voters were split on the war when it began.

Overall approval of the war was at 68% when it began....

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


"Hillary's office was SWAMPED with calls & letters and protesters begging her not to vote for the fraudulent war"
I'll bet it was...just like I'll bet you can back that up with some evidence.

"Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl"
(snicker)Yeah, nothing at all's happened in Hillary's life since 1964.</sarcasm>

[Yollam]

29. October 2002 and "when the war began" are two very different times.

People in New York were against the IWR, but when the decision was made, they fell in line.

War protesters hole up inside Sen. Clinton's New York office

http://web.archive.org/web/20021016070318/http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--warprotest-clinto1010oct10,0,5594946.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

A majority of New Yorkers oppose invading Iraq without international support, and seven out of 10 fear a terrorist retaliation against the city if war breaks out.

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/56116p-52508c.html



A majority of New Yorkers oppose war in Iraq, but many of the city's politicians are now standing behind the president as military action begins in the Middle East. Even the City Council may modify its anti-war stand.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=28742


And don't give me "liberal NYC" - Almost half of all New Yorkers live in New York City.

[MrBenchley]

30. When WAS that vote Hillary's getting criticized for? Why, October, 2002

Sorry to bust your bubble, but five protestors isn't a swamp...it isn't even a puddle. The loony in Times Square who used to rant about black people being the real Jews (Jews being imposters somehow) had a bigger crowd than that....

http://64.106.149.201/movies/detail.asp?MID=2621

The Daily News story only reminds us that at the time of the vote, UN support was being promised by Chimpy...and what the fuck the City Council has to do with this is anybody's guess....

By the way, New York State has 19.1 million people, and just 8.1 million of them live in New York City.

[Yollam]

31. You're not busting any bubbles.

You're citing polls taken in March 2003 to say that the IWR vote in Oct 2002 had support in NY. It did not.

"By the way, New York State has 19.1 million people, and just 8.1 million of them live in New York City."

Exactly what I said. Nearly half the state lives in NYC.

[MrBenchley]

32. Yeah, and five people is a "swamp"

And 40% is nearly half the way Faux Noise is fair and balanced....

[Yollam]

36. Tens of thousands protested the IWR in central park

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0242,ferguson,39218,6.html

Prior to the vote, both Clinton and fellow senator Chuck Schumer were flooded with calls from New Yorkers, most urging them to oppose war.

"The letters to the editor have been running three to one against the war, and Hillary somehow thinks a vote for the war is representing her constituents?" asked Sarah Grey, a 21-year-old graduate student at the New School. "There's no accountability."

[bowens43]

15. the FACT is that she wants to outlaw free speech.

[jsamuel]

6. thats why I say all the political catering to the right is killing her

both sides will hate her for it

[mtnsnake]

7. How is she catering to the right by opposing that amendment?

[jsamuel]

22. NYPost giving info that is still true and it still restricts free speech

[Walt Starr]

10. Then she's a FLIP-FLOPPER!

To heck with Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

14. How is she flip flopping when she's been consistently AGAINST the

proposed flag-burning amendment to the Constitution? This other bill is her reasoning for trying to prevent such an amendment from ever taking place. Is it perfect? No. Is it the next best thing? Well, if it prevents an amendment from happening, what would you say?

[Walt Starr]

17. So she proposes a law she knows is unconstitutional to stop

an amendment to the constitution?

:silly:

she's whacked!

And she'll be called a Flip-flopper on the flag burning issue, and RIGHTLY SO!

She's a political whore. Nothing more.

[mtnsnake]

24. Okay Walt but I wanna know one thing

When she's inaugerated in Jan 2009, are you going to refer to her as President Clinton or just Hillary? I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning towards still calling her Hillary. :evilgrin:

[Walt Starr]

25. IF she makes it past the primaries

I'll be working towards seeing her defeated by a third party candidate.

[High Plains]

33. Sorry, foiling a flag-burning amendment by sponsoring a...

...flag-burning law doesn't make much since to me.

Somebody further up on this post used the word rings most true to my ears: pandering.

I think that is a lot of people's problem with Hillary. She seems less a politician with convictions than a vote-sniffing robot.

[bowens43]

13. BFD , she still is favor of ARRESTING people

for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. Please tell me how this is better then not supporting the flag burning amendment. In many ways , it's much WORSE because it doesn't have to be approved by the states.

Hillary is a neo-con thug of the same caliber as Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

[mtnsnake]

16. "Hillary is a neo-con thug of the same caliber as Zell Miller"

Good gawd I can't believe this.

[bowens43]

18. You don't believe it?

You need to start paying attention.

[MrBenchley]

28. Some people seem to have no grasp of reality, do they?

[mtnsnake]

40. You said it. It's the same thing when people around here claim that

this country isn't ready for a female president, and they cite that as one of the many reasons why Hillary wouldn't stand a chance. The reality is that this country IS ready for a female president, but most DU'ers AREN'T. Figure that!!

[Walt Starr]

20. Yep, only difference between Hillary and the neo-cons is purely

cosmetic.

[mtnsnake]

42. Walt, do you know what the diffrence is between Abe Lincoln & Richd Nixon?

They both had beards except Nixon.

[Don Claybrook]

21. Hey, I've got a FABULOUS idea for Hillary

Using your "logic", I think Hillary should push hard for the biggest tax cut we've ever contemplated, and it should only go to the top .05% of the richest Americans.

This would, of course, keep the evil Republicans from lowering taxes, which would result in hurting common people. Wow! She's going to make those Republicans sorry by, by, um, by doing their work for them so they don't have to lift a finger.

[Walt Starr]

23. She could always say, "I voted AGAINST flag buring

right after I voted FOR it."

:eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. SHRIEKED???? Oh... I see. Newsmax link. (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

39. Eh aí rapaz!

Faz muito tempo não te vejo! :hi:

[wixomblues]

35. She just wants to ban violent video games.

Whatever the flavor of the right is, she's got it all over her lips.

[mmonk]

37. Why not oppose both?

Oh yeah, that imaginary middle.

[AZBlue]

38. Give it up. You'd trash her for supporting it, for not supporting it, for

wearing a shade of blue you didn't like...it's more fun for you to trash her than Bush. I don't get it, never will, and think it's disgusting. Give me a reason that's backed with accurate facts and that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But, stop slinging the we-hate-Hillary-just-because-kool-aid-drinking talking points. You don't even know what you're talking about, you're just regurgitating what you've heard. I'm not saying I'm for Hillary, I'm not saying I'm against her. I'm saying I'm sick of the whining and babbling with absolutely no substance behind it whatsoever.

(and by "you" I don't mean mtnsnake - I'm just responding to the original post because there were too many others to respond to individually in this thread)

[mtnsnake]

43. Thanks, I agree, & for a second I did think you were responding to me, lol

Most of the criticism hurled at Hillary on this board isn't based any more on fact as is the criticism hurled at her by the right wing. Most of it's derived from spin and bandwagon jumping, mostly spin though...and from people who just can't face the reality that someone like Hillary is a true blue Democrat despite being a little bit too much centrist according to their "perfect" ideals of what a candidate should be like. Trouble is, the "perfect" candidate by their ideals would probably garner about 5% of the vote in a real election. LOL

[DanCa]

41. No senators as presidential nominees.

This is the perfect reason why.