See this post, and then the very first comment. Then read all the other comments. Typical republican-libertarian, political-ignoramuses who have a complete inability to reduce constituent bits to their essential de-finite characteristics — save Bruce McQuain, the author, who ought (and does) know better.
Beck’s commentary. Note: I’m one of his one-in-a-thousand — that’s probably more like one-in-a-hundred-thousand.
I'd say I'm one of 'em too, that sees the essentials… 80% of the time. The 20% I leave out is some combination of not being able to find them however hard I try, and seeing them all too clearly in the mirror. I grew up with neither the necessary training nor the necessary examples, and the effects yet linger. Billy's right about that, no Drake or Churchill coming from it.
Had this passed it would have gone to the states to ratify it. The states would then let it's citizens decide on a state by state basis. When enough states said yes or no then it would go forward.
So why didn't the powers that be allow the people to decide? There is where our free speech is being suppressed.
prying,
If that is going to be your principle, you should want it applied universally. Think about what that means, and ask yourself if you really want to elevate "let the people decide" to a principle – on everything.
prying1:
"So why didn't the powers that be allow the people to decide?"
Aren't they? "The people" who don't want to burn flags have decided not to, which is A-OK with me and "the people" who do want to burn flags have decided to burn them — also A-OK with me.
The problem?
You know, I'm not so given over to flag burning myself. If I was going to burn a symbol, it would be The Declaration of Independence — but not in denouncement. It would rather be like a cremation. You know, when someone is dead.
Where do you suppose the most symbolic place would be to spread the ashes?
Why not let the people decide? That's what we are raised to believe is a strong point in America. America functions by letting the people decide. Right? How can you even suggest that we not allow the people to decide?
Kevin,
"How can you even suggest that we not allow the people to decide?".
You leave out the most important aspect: decide about what? How about you decide for you, and I decide for me, fair enough? Once they want to start deciding for me, then fuck "The People".
Kevin:
See my comment to prying1. Same thing.
Let me be more clear: you're lying to yourself. You pretend that when you say "the people decide," that it does _not_ mean that some individual people, because they are in greater number (amongst those who give a damn in the first place), are the ones deciding and imposing on everyone else, both opponents and those who don't give a damn alike, via deadly force and imprisonment if necessary.
You pretend that when you say "the people decide" that some sort of magic happens and the decision of those lucky ones in the majority is somehow magically endowed in everyone else — like some giant immaculate conception takes place and everyone is happy and all is hunky-dory.
Stop playing games and pretending like things are other than they really are.
If you're going to burn an issue down to its essentials, it's best to remember why it was brought up in the first place. The flag burning thing was meant to be a red herring for the mid-term elections, just like gay marriage had been in the 2004 elections. So yeah, the ISSUE itself is a private property issue, and kudos to you guys for pointing that out, but in terms of pertinence to important current events and debates, it's not even really an issue.
Whack! That is the sound of the hammer hitting the nail on the head. Thank You!
Another comment at my place, on which the instant matter here is only the hinge to a larger issue. Some assembly required: follow the links.
Honest to god: I get so sick of craven bullshit.