Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anti-flag-burning amendment clears Senate panel

  1. May 4, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://today.reuters.com/News/newsA...Z_01_N04343017_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-FLAG.xml

    Is there anything more important that we can talk about; say perhaps, whether Keith Richard fell from a palm tree or a jet ski?

    For those who don't know, flag burning ammendments are what you talk about when you're desparate - desparate to avoid real issue. There is also the great issue of the Senate elevator operators. True some years ago and I assume that it still is, even though we haven't needed operators in elevators since the 50s or 60s, the Senate still has them. Every now and again a new Senator comes along who sees these unnecessary employees, and who then raises a stink about getting rid of the operators. But then the young Senator is educated as to the real function of the operators, and the issue goes away until the next young new Senator comes along. You see, the Senators use the elevator operators as a go-between [in some fashion] when they don't wish to meet with another Senator directly. Anyway, like elevator operators, flag burning ammendments have their place.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2006 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This confuses me. There is nothing to gain from it. It has no hope of passing, and will alienate more moderate conservatives (not to mention, liberals). I don't see any desperation, just bad decision-making.
     
  4. May 4, 2006 #3

    Which is about inline with what one would expect.

    This reminds me of the Democratic Party congressmen who always reintroduce a military draft bill (there's two of them, I forget who). Made me smile during the '04 election to hear people prattling about the draft we would get if Bush got reelected.

    This I'm not worried about. As russ said, it will never pass. Now, this worries me.
     
  5. May 4, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sounds like that amendment those democrats were trying to get passed to allow more then 2 terms. Ain't happening.

    If you ever take a look, Congress tends to toss in some dumb as hell things that they know won't get passed... im not sure what they think they're going to get out of it.
     
  6. May 5, 2006 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, that's exactly how I see it. There wasn't any desperation with the draft thing either. It was just pointless.
     
  7. May 6, 2006 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think they hope to [are desperate to] rally the base of old school conservatives.

    What else do they have?

    "Tax and Spend" liberals won't fly anymore. Just let the "Borrow and Squander" Republicans try that one again. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2006
  8. May 6, 2006 #7

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Because the Republican base is more concerned about Mexican flags being flown right now, I suspect this ban won't "fly." They'll have better luck with gay marriage props to attact the religious-right.
     
  9. Jun 4, 2006 #8
    I have never considered burning a flag before. However I just might if it is banned, because the flag will no longer be a symbol of freedom.
     
  10. Jun 4, 2006 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Don't worry it won't. They want attention but not to actually do anything.

    Edit: Well, maybe this time is different. After all, they are desparate.

    I had a little one in my office but threw it away when Bush got re-elected. ...guess we had better get a flag throwing-away ammendment as well.

    Of course it wasn't just that Bush got re-elected, it was the half of the country who voted for him.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2006
  11. Jun 4, 2006 #10
    I thought the suprme court said it was more of a state thing then a federal one.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Anti-flag-burning amendment clears Senate panel
  1. Canadian Senate (Replies: 2)

Loading...