Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says

Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill to make it a crime to burn the American flag -- but she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag desecration. WCAX-TV Burlington, VT

Mrs. Clinton, out of which side of your mouth do you feed yourself? In that one sentence, while it is not a direct quote, you contradicted yourself.

If you want to make it a crime to burn an American flag, why do you oppose a constitutional ban? Why do you wish to keep it a 'freedom of expression' thing in one breath and co-sponsor an anti-flag burning law in the next?

In her public statements, Clinton has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.

The measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

Mrs. Clinton, if someone intimidates me with burning a flag, he or she will just show his or her ignorance. Since the flag means nothing to that person, it is just material and stiching. By burning that particular flag, you are not hurting anyone, but only destroying your own property.

However, if anyone but touches my American flag in any disrespectful manner on my property or off my property, we will have some serious problems. No one has a right to vandalize my property.

Of course, if that same person were on my property burning a cross, a flag, or whatever, he or she will meet my water-hose and I will have to take the proper measures to get the tresspasser off my land. It is that simple!

I do not see why Senator Bob Bennett or Senator Hillary Clinton are even wasting their time passing this particular law. I would like to think that, "intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property," would already be covered by anti-vandalism laws, anti-assualt laws, or maybe even criminal tresspass laws. Could this be both Senators' way of getting some attention by politicizing patriotism?

A New York Times [retrieved from the International Herald] piece puts it quite perfectly in the following excerpt:

Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

I would like to know why the New York Times finds it unfortunate that Hillary appears to try to "have it both ways." Why is that so unfortunate? Is it unfortunate because Hillary is not able to fool the American public as easily any longer?

Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

Is anyone else getting confused by the blatant double-speak going on here? So if Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, why is she wasting her time trying to bring this in front of a 'more conservative' Supreme Court this time around? Doesn't Hillary Clinton have better things to do, like criticize Bush for a war she states to support?

Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says s

The measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

Mrs. Clinton, if someone intimidates me with burning a flag, he or she will just show his or her ignorance. Since the flag means nothing to that person, it is just material and stiching. By burning that particular flag, you are not hurting anyone, but only destroying your own property.

However, if anyone but touches my American flag in any disrespectful manner on my property or off my property, we will have some serious problems. No one has a right to vandalize my property.

Of course, if that same person were on my property burning a cross, a flag, or whatever, he or she will meet my water-hose and I will have to take the proper measures to get the tresspasser off my land. It is that simple!

I do not see why Senator Bob Bennett or Senator Hillary Clinton are even wasting their time passing this particular law. I would like to think that, "intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property," would already be covered by anti-vandalism laws, anti-assualt laws, or maybe even criminal tresspass laws. Could this be both Senators' way of getting some attention by politicizing patriotism?

A New York Times [retrieved from the International Herald] piece puts it quite perfectly in the following excerpt:

Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

I would like to know why the New York Times finds it unfortunate that Hillary appears to try to "have it both ways." Why is that so unfortunate? Is it unfortunate because Hillary is not able to fool the American public as easily any longer?

Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

Is anyone else getting confused by the blatant double-speak going on here? So if Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, why is she wasting her time trying to bring this in front of a 'more conservative' Supreme Court this time around? Doesn't Hillary Clinton have better things to do, like criticize Bush for a war she states to support?

Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says

I do not see why Senator Bob Bennett or Senator Hillary Clinton are even wasting their time passing this particular law. I would like to think that, "intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property," would already be covered by anti-vandalism laws, anti-assualt laws, or maybe even criminal tresspass laws. Could this be both Senators' way of getting some attention by politicizing patriotism?

A New York Times [retrieved from the International Herald] piece puts it quite perfectly in the following excerpt:

Her supporters would characterize this as an attempt to find a middle way between those who believe that flag-burning is constitutionally protected free speech and those who want to ban it, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, it looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways.

I would like to know why the New York Times finds it unfortunate that Hillary appears to try to "have it both ways." Why is that so unfortunate? Is it unfortunate because Hillary is not able to fool the American public as easily any longer?

Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

Is anyone else getting confused by the blatant double-speak going on here? So if Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, why is she wasting her time trying to bring this in front of a 'more conservative' Supreme Court this time around? Doesn't Hillary Clinton have better things to do, like criticize Bush for a war she states to support?

Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says

I would like to know why the New York Times finds it unfortunate that Hillary appears to try to "have it both ways." Why is that so unfortunate? Is it unfortunate because Hillary is not able to fool the American public as easily any longer?

Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.

Is anyone else getting confused by the blatant double-speak going on here? So if Clinton opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning, why is she wasting her time trying to bring this in front of a 'more conservative' Supreme Court this time around? Doesn't Hillary Clinton have better things to do, like criticize Bush for a war she states to support?

Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says

Flag burning, while truly disrespectful, is nothing more than people with no real ideas trying to get some attention. While they enjoy the freedoms of this country, they hate those same freedoms that give them the right to be foolish. By offending people who may have took the time to listen to their points of view, they have now lost any credibility as an intelligent person.

These same people who would like to burn a flag would support Hillary through Hades and back. It would behoove her to keep her constituents strongly behind her.

In yet another political move to position herself for the Presidential Elections of 2008, she is trying to make America think she is a conservative. However, Hillary does something or says something that shows her true colors at every other turn and completely ruins the image she wishes to portray. Does she truly expect that we will forget things she publicly says about the president or the war by going public practically the next day with something that might impress us knuckle-dragging conservatives? Thankfully, there are still many of us in this country who have a memory span longer than the regular commercial break.