Is the country trending Democratic?

[Hoss]

The Pew Center seems to think so...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pew23mar23,1,7389496.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

Republican Party loyalty in decline since 2002

WASHINGTON -- Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged since the second year of George W. Bush's presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political dominance for more than a decade, a major new survey has found.

The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for People and the Press, found a "dramatic shift" in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, half of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, while only 35% aligned with Republicans....

The gap between Republican and Democratic identification, which Pew measured by counting people who are leaning toward one party or the other as well as those with a firm allegiances, is the widest spread between the parties since Pew began since the studies.

Although the gap between Republican and Democratic allegiances speaks to the GOP's current troubles, Kohut said that the shift mostly reflects the defection of independents from the party rather than a more favorable overall assessment of the Democratic Party.

The proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined since January 2001 by six points, to 54%. But the public's regard for Republicans cratered during the Bush years, as the proportion holding a favorable view of the GOP dropped 15 points to 41%.




Though not all of the trends for the Democrats are great, this doesn't surprise me. I keep hearing about how the country is trending right but in the past week I've heard Republicans pushing for the hippy oil ethanol and talking about the health care crisis with an expansion of Medcaid as a choice for most Americans. And we all saw how the country lashed out against Bush when he tried to privatize social security.

I think working class Americans are starting to realize that so many of the benefits that they've come to rely on - from Medicare to Social Security to Minimum wage to clean air standards to fair wage laws to public education - were championed by Democrats and attacked by Republicans. Yeah, Government is the problem until you're making $1.25 an hour and can't afford to take your asmatic kid to the doctor after he chokes on smog.

[Shellhead]

I would be surprised if there was a fundamental shift going on. It seems to me like roughly one third of Americans are very loyal to the Republican party, one third are very loyal to the Democratic party, and the other third are up for grabs in any given election year. Now, maybe a lot of people in that final third are more comfortable with labelling themselves, and need to think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans. I could see that group abandoning the Republicans right now, but then turning around again in a few years based on whatever is going in terms of current events.

[BlairH]

A lot of American conservatives are still pissed off about Bush's handling of the immigration issue, the national debt issue (and others). I'll bet that the fact that Rudy and McCain are the sort of front runners for the Republicans in '08 has maybe convinced a significant body of conservatives that the Republicans aren't really the party for them.

[Paul McEnery]

The top three issues on the table are Iraq, the environment, and the economy.

On all three, the current batch of Republicans aren't on the same page as the public.

[Mike Smash!]

I think working class Americans are starting to realize that so many of the benefits that they've come to rely on - from Medicare to Social Security to Minimum wage to clean air standards to fair wage laws to public education - were championed by Democrats and attacked by Republicans. Yeah, Government is the problem until you're making $1.25 an hour and can't afford to take your asmatic kid to the doctor after he chokes on smog.

Actually, most of that stuff was initially opposed by Democrats as well. It was only when third parties, labor groups and citizens' movements demanded them and picked up steam that the Dems were dragged into supporting them too. But always, kicking and screaming at first.

When the reforms you mention were first demanded, both parties shouted them down as extremist and unrealistic.

[Charles RB]

When the reforms you mention were first demanded, both parties shouted them down as extremist and unrealistic.

I can't wrap my head around the idea that minimum wage was considered extremist.

[K'Nort]

I can't wrap my head around the idea that minimum wage was considered extremist.

A decently-sized (and vocal) chunk over here still think that way. It interferes with the market. That's bad. You know, Communist.


Overall, I certainly wouldn't conclude from the study (or in general) that the country is trending Democractic, but it's definitely trending away from the current administration and is willing to shake things up in order to get those policies completely out of power rather than just passing them along.

[Jeff Brady]

The chairman of The Pew Center, a libidinous Parisian gentleman by the name of Pepe, also noted that people have become more interested in making love, not war.

[K'Nort]

The chairman of The Pew Center, a libidinous Parisian gentleman by the name of Pepe, also noted that people have become more interested in making love, not war.

Yeah, but I hear the guy's a furry.

[Mike Smash!]

I can't wrap my head around the idea that minimum wage was considered extremist.

Shows you how far we've come since the turn of the century. Women's suffrage was an "extremist" stance at one point. So were public schools and the 8-hour work days and overtime pay.

Of course, back at the turn of the century, it was generally only socialists and labor unions calling for these things, while the Democrats and Republicans largely called them names.

[Tony Bang]

Shows you how far we've come since the turn of the century. Women's suffrage was an "extremist" stance at one point. So were public schools and the 8-hour work days and overtime pay.

Of course, back at the turn of the century, it was generally only socialists and labor unions calling for these things, while the Democrats and Republicans largely called them names.

Well, thank God for the Roosevelts.

[Mike Smash!]

Well, thank God for the Roosevelts.Both of whom were also dragged into being reformers by socialists, third political parties like the Progressives, Populists and Socialists and by labor unions.

Hell, when FDR began his first run for president, he didn't have the New Deal programs as part of his platform. It was only pressure put on him by the growing popularity of Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas that FDR realized that he had better start adopting some of Thomas' ideas (social security, for one!) and put his own spin on them that he got popular himself.

Same would go for Teddy as well, who really became far more radical after he left office in 1908, but was forced to adopt alot of the issues of the burgeoning Socialist and Progressive movements of the time. But even then, there were far more progressive folks than Teddy at the time. Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette, for one. But it's the labor movement and others like LaFollette that forced Teddy in a more progressive position than he would have liked at first.

[Sparda]

Democrats in a way is getting a bit fashionable and Republicans marked as war mongering loons who suppost the rich while the other way around are hippies. Personally I'd like if this country had more of a system like Switzerland has with free health care while paying more taxes. I tend not to get much into politics since I don't know much on the matter but I do hope this country improves in the future with politicians actually keeping thier word.

[Fenris]

Although the gap between Republican and Democratic allegiances speaks to the GOP's current troubles, Kohut said that the shift mostly reflects the defection of independents from the party rather than a more favorable overall assessment of the Democratic Party.

The proportion expressing a positive view of Democrats has declined since January 2001 by six points, to 54%. But the public's regard for Republicans cratered during the Bush years, as the proportion holding a favorable view of the GOP dropped 15 points to 41%.

It sounds more like the country's trending away from the Republicans; the Democrats have also dropped, just not as much.

In the short term, at least, a greater Republican loss does amount to a Democratic gain; even though fewer people like the Democrats than before. But I wouldn't call it an endorsement of the Democrats, so much as an unendorsement of the Republicans.

õ
Which is a little sad!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Why is it sad? I see a public trend of folk trending away from the current GOP, and the larger trend away from identifying with either of the two major parties, as a very good thing. It might mean people are becoming a bit less stupid.

[spoon_jenkins]

I think the change could endure. A few months ago, I saw an article noting that one's partisan affiliation at some young age (I think it was 25) generally tends to endure through life. The suggestion was that since 20-somethings tend to be polling heavily Democratic, the country will move more that way.

Now, it's always possible that something to happen to make the next group of 20-somethings Republican, but the current one is generally Democratic.

[Fenris]

Why is it sad? I see a public trend of folk trending away from the current GOP, and the larger trend away from identifying with either of the two major parties, as a very good thing. It might mean people are becoming a bit less stupid.

Because it's entirely negative.

I would actually kind of prefer that the country tended Democratic, or even Green (URK! That one hurt) if it meant some kind of positive affirmation of what people wanted and what they believed in.

Dissatisfaction with the two parties is not the same as support for third parties. People who like third parties generally like them for their own virtues, not just because the Big Two are so awful.

But if someone dislikes the Republicans and Democrats, without any positive affirmation to counter it, they'll just drop out of voting entirely. Which is what has happened to a large portion of our country. This is not an improvement in our political culture.

õ
It's sad!

[JeffreyWKramer]

See, I personally think non-affiliation with any specific party is a good thing, because it reflects a recognition that it's a better idea to vote for a candidate than it is to vote for a party.

No party really reliably reflects the interests of any constituency; indeed, one of the problems with political parties is that ultimately, the mostly care about their own interest. As such "independent" is a good way to go, reflecting an awareness of the reality of how parties function (or fail to do so), as well as a fair bit of cognitive flexibility.

I don't think you're seeing so much people dropping out of the process as much as people simply failing to identify, or refusing to affiliate with, any specific party. Time will tell, though.

[Alex]

I think if they polled people on issues instead of political parties, you would see a majority of the country doesn't care for the republicans or democrats, and can't actually be pigeonholled into two very political machines that change their views depending on what office they are running for.
And what time of year it is.

[MJC]

It sounds more like the country's trending away from the Republicans; the Democrats have also dropped, just not as much.

In the short term, at least, a greater Republican loss does amount to a Democratic gain; even though fewer people like the Democrats than before. But I wouldn't call it an endorsement of the Democrats, so much as an unendorsement of the Republicans.

õ
Which is a little sad!


Like I always say, we don't vote candidates, we vote against (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30587) them.

[Hoss]

Actually, most of that stuff was initially opposed by Democrats as well. It was only when third parties, labor groups and citizens' movements demanded them and picked up steam that the Dems were dragged into supporting them too. But always, kicking and screaming at first.

When the reforms you mention were first demanded, both parties shouted them down as extremist and unrealistic.

Mike,
Who sponsored those legislations and voted for them? One party evolved and adapted and one party didn't. One party currently stands up for those ideas and one party currently fights against them.

As far as your description of how radical (for the time) new ideas gain mainstream momentum and get to the point were they can become the law of the land - Well, that's how it happens in a healthy democracy. Any extreme suggestion needs to be tempered with skepticism and tested. If it passes, good. If it fails, then more works needs to be done or the idea needs to disappear. If you move too quickly or too radically with out the will of the people the results tend to be fairly explosive. And you can't really fight a civil war over every issue. The founding fathers intended government to move slowly and carefully and designed it so that the machine would just stall rather than overreach - which is happening to GW right now.

The Democratic party represents the left of center establishment of this country and are the only thing keeping us from turning into GW's Saudi financed Christianist militant theocracy. Maybe the Greens will eventually gain enough traction and move the country farther to the left and become the establishment themselves. That's your job and I know that includes a disdain for the Democrats. Still makes it hard to swallow sometimes, though.

[Fenris]

See, I personally think non-affiliation with any specific party is a good thing, because it reflects a recognition that it's a better idea to vote for a candidate than it is to vote for a party.

Hmm. That is where we differ, then. I don't think that's a good idea.

For one thing, by voting for a candidate, you are voting for their party, whether you like it or not. You are reinforcing and empowering every other member of that party.

It sways Congressional votes, naturally; it affects majority control and appointments; it affects funding. All of these things have a cumulative effect that is probably going to be more important than the distinguishing characteristics of any one candidate.


No party really reliably reflects the interests of any constituency; indeed, one of the problems with political parties is that ultimately, the mostly care about their own interest. As such "independent" is a good way to go, reflecting an awareness of the reality of how parties function (or fail to do so), as well as a fair bit of cognitive flexibility.

Your criticisms are well-put; but don't they apply to individual politicians in the same way? How many politicans reliably reflect their constituents' interests, and put them ahead of the politician's own well-being?

I see another one of our differences here: I am (making up my own phrase here) a political personality agnostic.

I have no idea what George W. Bush- or Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, etc.- are "really like." I've never met them. What I see of them, and read about them, is totally affected and calculated to create an impression on voters. I don't think anyone knows what they're really like, except for the handful of people who are personal friends and family.

So I can't really vote for the candidate, as such. In most cases, that just amounts to voting for the most successful media manipulation. I can vote objectively, or semi-objectively, on the basis of his voting record; but then, if that's the criterion then I might as well vote by party, because the parties have semi-consistent voting records, too.


I don't think you're seeing so much people dropping out of the process as much as people simply failing to identify, or refusing to affiliate with, any specific party. Time will tell, though.

Indeed. And soon, too!

õ
Too soon, in some cases!

[The Mirrorball Man]

Personally I'd like if this country had more of a system like Switzerland has with free health care while paying more taxes.

You're probably not thinking of Switzerland. Here we have mandatory private health care. Switzerland spends a larger percentage of its national income on health care than any other country besides the United States. The Swiss spend 11.5% of their gross domestic product on health. So no, it's not free. I pay more than 250 dollars every month for health care, and since I have a 2000 dollars franchise, I usually have to pay my medical bills anyway.

[Jared]

The way things are going, future generations of Republicans will refer to Geore W. Bush only as "The Destroyer."

[Mike Smash!]

Mike,
Who sponsored those legislations and voted for them?

Actually both parties have had a hand in them during the turn of the century. For a short while, the Republicans were the slightly more progressive party during the Teddy Roosevelt era.

Even during the 1960s and 1970s, the Republicans could be dragged into a supporting things like the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and others.

To just parrot the "these are the good guys and those are the bad guys" dichotomy is inaccurate. Both parties are progressive as people force them to be.

The Democrats of today would never support anything as radical as the New Deal was in the 1930s.

One party evolved and adapted and one party didn't. One party currently stands up for those ideas and one party currently fights against them.

No, they don't. The Democrats gave us Welfare Reform, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, GATT, NAFTA, WTO, lower fuel emissions standards, sanctions on Iraq that killed over a million children... Not to mention that they held both Houses under Reagan and didn't do much to stop his policies in South America and refused to impeach him after Iran Contra.

It's not as black and white as you say.

Not to mention that under Bush, the Democrats had a 2001-2002 majority in the Senate, during which they passed the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act.

They largely move in the same basic direction, but at different speeds.

The real question to ask yourself is this: On what issues are the Democrats in direct, polar opposition to the Republicans? Not a different of tactics or scale or speed, but exact opposites when it comes to practice. Now take those issues and ask yourself on which issues are they willing to go to the mat and fight until the bloody end?

Not that many, sadly.

Remember that the Dems weren't willing to unite behind a filibuster effort to stop a reactionary judge from getting on the Supreme Court. The Republicans were willing to unite behind a filibuster against a non-binding resolution.

That's the real difference between the two parties.

The Democratic party represents the left of center establishment of this country and are the only thing keeping us from turning into GW's Saudi financed Christianist militant theocracy. Maybe the Greens will eventually gain enough traction and move the country farther to the left and become the establishment themselves. That's your job and I know that includes a disdain for the Democrats. Still makes it hard to swallow sometimes, though.

This actually has less to do with the Greens and more to do with historical precendent. The Dems do not represent the left of center in this country....certainly not their own rank and file, who are many times of a radically different opinion than their parties' leadership....whether its on Iraq, civil liberties or gay rights.

Against the "Saudi financed Christianist militant theocracy" as you put it, the Democrats aren't a shield at all. They've hardly fought -- and sometimes even helped -- this president's reach for unprecedented power and government surveillance. In battle after battle, the Democrats are either on the sidelines or fighting for an only slightly less shitty version of the Republicans' position. Kerry himself said it in the 2004 debates. He supports the war in Iraq, but not how it's executed. He supported the PATRIOT Act, but doesn't like how Bush uses it. He also opposes same-sex marriage, but in a nicer way.

The opposition from the Democrats isn't over what Bush does, but how he does it. Even before they took the House and Senate, they made it clear that impeachment was "off the table", that they weren't ready to exclude the possibility of war with Iran, and that they weren't going to touch questions of civil liberties or church and state separation, because they wanted to be "bi-partisan."

The REAL opponents of the Bush Administration -- and have been from the beginning -- are not the Democrats. It's the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign and every other civil liberty, safety, labor and gay rights organization that continues to organized and fought Bush in the courts over voter fraud, the environment, civil rights, gay rights...etc.

It's because of them that someone is fighting Bush on church/state erosion, abuses at Gitmo, while the Dems largely sit the fight out.

Think about it. The big fight the Dems are fighting now is the political firing of U.S. Attourneys, that while important, is dwarfed by the need to hold this president accountable for potential war crimes and attacks on the Constitution. They should be fighting to repeal things like the Military Commissions Act and restore habeas corpus, not fight the small battles on a big scale.

Want to really fight the Republican agenda? Then give your money to the ACLU, not the Dems.

[Citizen V]

Bush has destroyed any credibility that the Republicans had,im willing to bet that the USA will get a Democratic President in 2008.

[Theophilus]

Democrats in a way is getting a bit fashionable and Republicans marked as war mongering loons who suppost the rich while the other way around are hippies. Personally I'd like if this country had more of a system like Switzerland has with free health care while paying more taxes. I tend not to get much into politics since I don't know much on the matter but I do hope this country improves in the future with politicians actually keeping thier word.

Free health care ends up being a nightmare. America still has one of the best healthcare systems in the world (I'm not talking about price), and the motto "You get what you pay for" isn't the be-it-all of economics, but it rings pretty true.

I believe America should have need-based programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, but a blank check is too much.

You weren't wrong to bring up Switzerland as your example. If I recall, I believe Switzerland is the only real socialist success story. But you have to factor in its manageable size. It wouldn't work for the US.

That being said, I'm neither fond of politicians who want to cut off social programs or want to buy votes using programs as a vehicle. The simple fact of economics is you make hard choices, and we pay in one way or the other. Socialists have been instrumental in the past in bringing reforms into place, but Republican and Democratic resistance has prevented socialist extremism that would have bankrupted the country. I think we have some excellent programs in place for families in poverty. Some states do underplay their programs. Also I think it's hypocritical for ultra-conservatives to criticize social programs for poor families while being okay with handouts (I'm not talking tax cuts--those I approve) for big business. For instance, Arlington taxpayers forked over a huge bond recently to help "poor" Jerry Jones build a stadium at no risk to himself.

[Theophilus]

Bush has destroyed any credibility that the Republicans had,im willing to bet that the USA will get a Democratic President in 2008.

Not necessarily. The Republican frontrunners indicate that the party is realigining its focus from ideology to leadership. Also the party seems to be moving away from a focus on religion. That's going to bring back a lot of disenfranchised voters who feel like the GOP has become a vehicle for the religious right.

[Theophilus]

The ACLU, Mike? Is there a spot on the donation list where you can specify how much money you want allotted to defend the American Man Boy Love Association? Can you specifically appropriate money for John Cooey's legal defense fund?

EDIT: And yes, I realize John Cooey's case is not specifically involving the AMBLA (he murdered a young girl) but the emphasis of the ACLU is in that direction.

The AMBLA, Mike. Justify that!

[Mike Smash!]

The ACLU, Mike? Is there a spot on the donation list where you can specify how much money you want allotted to defend the American Man Boy Love Association? Can you specifically appropriate money for John Cooey's legal defense fund?

EDIT: And yes, I realize John Cooey's case is not specifically involving the AMBLA (he murdered a young girl) but the emphasis of the ACLU is in that direction.

The AMBLA, Mike. Justify that!

First of all, it's NAMBLA (you'd think people would have gotten the name right after that South Park episode) and they have the same rights as anyone else, regardless of how popular they are or their merits as human beings.

If the rights of a prick can be violated, anyone's rights can be violated.

As H.L. Mencken said once, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Defending a bastard's rights doesn't mean the same thing as supporting a bastard's point of view. The ACLU exists to defend civil liberties, even the civil liberties of assholes and scumbags on occasion.

The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh when the government tried to invade his privacy by going through his medical records as well.

[Drew Van T.]

If I recall, I believe Switzerland is the only real socialist success story.

As said earlier on, Switzerland's is privatized to a certain extent, which makes it less socialized than most other healthcare systems (certainly compared to Switzerland's neighbors)

[cactusmaac]

The failure to deliver success in Iraq has really torpedoed the GOP's electability since their strong position in 2004. Barely anything on Bush's major programs has moved through Congress. The problem the Democrats have is their slate of candidates aren't really convincing on national security issues (Obama, Edwards) or plain disliked by large sections of the country (Hillary). The right one could probably win but guys like Spitzer just aren't ready yet.

Also I think the US electorate would prefer divided government. The new Congress has performed OK so I suppose a GOP president will be elected albeit one who's more of a conciliator and not nearly as divisive. So either Guiliani or maybe Fred Thompson whose name is being circulated.

[Jared]

First of all, it's NAMBLA (you'd think people would have gotten the name right after that South Park episode) and they have the same rights as anyone else, regardless of how popular they are or their merits as human beings.

If the rights of a prick can be violated, anyone's rights can be violated.

As H.L. Mencken said once, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Defending a bastard's rights doesn't mean the same thing as supporting a bastard's point of view. The ACLU exists to defend civil liberties, even the civil liberties of assholes and scumbags on occasion.

The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh when the government tried to invade his privacy by going through his medical records as well.

d Rush Limbaugh at his worst isn't even in the same league as NAMBLA. People who et join a group that espouses child molestation give up their rights along with their humanity, IMO. Defending free speech, especially free speech that one doesn't agree with, is commendable. But the ACLU will never be a accepted by the mainstream as long as it chooses to get in bed (figuratively, of course) with some of the most loathsome and dangerous people alive. To willingly aid NAMBLA in the name of Free Speech, one must be as blinded by idealism as the Christian Fundamentalists that libertarians are so often in opposition to.

[Mike Smash!]

d Rush Limbaugh at his worst isn't even in the same league as NAMBLA. People who et join a group that espouses child molestation give up their rights along with their humanity, IMO. Defending free speech, especially free speech that one doesn't agree with, is commendable. But the ACLU will never be a accepted by the mainstream as long as it chooses to get in bed (figuratively, of course) with some of the most loathsome and dangerous people alive. To willingly aid NAMBLA in the name of Free Speech, one must be as blinded by idealism as the Christian Fundamentalists that libertarians are so often in opposition to.

There's no bed climbing and I wasn't saying that Limbaugh was as bad as NAMBLA. I was simply pointing out their diversity of clients. Limbaugh was an example of them coming to the aid of a guy who regularly attacked them on the air.

When even a loathsome piece of shit's rights are violated, we have to act, because if you don't, a precedent is set that such violations are okay and then they can expand it to the rest of us.

If you say, illegally spy on NAMBLA or jail them without legal counsel or trial, you can do it to anyone. As the Mencken quote above illustrates, this is where oppressive laws begin.

As for Christian fundamentalists, I believe that the ACLU has actually defended their rights too, on occasion.

The bottom line, either all of our rights are respected or our rights aren't worth shit.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As for Christian fundamentalists, I believe that the ACLU has actually defended their rights too, on occasion.

The bottom line, either all of our rights are respected or our rights aren't worth shit.

Interestingly, Christian fundies understand this, too.

Recently, the US Supreme Court heard arguments re: as school suspending a kid for extraschool statements re: drugs and politics. Various fundy Christian groups supported the kid and his parents, as did the ACLU, on free speech grounds, as they understand that rulings that apply to political speech can just as easily be applied to religous speech.

It really is all one fight, and much as I loathe the likes of NAMBLA, the Nazis, the KKK and abortion opponents - all of whom the ACLU has defended - if the same principles don't apply to everyone, potentially they apply to noone.

[K'Nort]

Interestingly, Christian fundies understand this, too.

Recently, the US Supreme Court heard arguments re: as school suspending a kid for extraschool statements re: drugs and politics. Various fundy Christian groups supported the kid and his parents, as did the ACLU, on free speech grounds, as they understand that rulings that apply to political speech can just as easily be applied to religous speech.

Germany's recent crackdown regarding their no-homeschooling laws may have them a little spooked too.

[Theophilus]

You're dead wrong, Mike, and that mentality costs children their lives and a kind of pain and suffering I can't begin to imagine. You're actually subscribing to the same kind of absolutism that you abhor in fundamentalists. The law doesn't mean anything if it doesn't protect children. If we want to sacrifice our own future to rationalization, that's fine and maybe we deserve it. But to argue that a child should suffer so you can maintain some pretense to constitutional entitlements that don't even exist and believe that somehow you're a defender of freedom...is warped beyond all belief.

There's no reason why internet sites should continue to exist where child molesters can congregate and swap notes. It's a whole new world because of the internet and it provides child molesters with abundant resources.

It's worse than yelling fire in a theater. Look, several of the ACLU positions are rationally defensible even if I disagree, but you're in danger of losing your soul when you align with child molesters and let ideology trump protecting the most vulnerable segment of our population.

I'd recommend you do a serious price check on your values, Mike. There's no excuse for what you've suggested.

[Paul McEnery]

The failure to deliver success in Iraq has really torpedoed the GOP's electability since their strong position in 2004. Barely anything on Bush's major programs has moved through Congress. The problem the Democrats have is their slate of candidates aren't really convincing on national security issues (Obama, Edwards) or plain disliked by large sections of the country (Hillary). The right one could probably win but guys like Spitzer just aren't ready yet.

Also I think the US electorate would prefer divided government. The new Congress has performed OK so I suppose a GOP president will be elected albeit one who's more of a conciliator and not nearly as divisive. So either Guiliani or maybe Fred Thompson whose name is being circulated.

I think you're right on this. I don't really have a horse in the race, though experience tells me that Republicans have an even worse grasp on the issues than Democrats, and are in general even more likely to disregard reality if it gets them more power. And that this has become more true since the Republicans started pandering to the religious right.

And I regret this, because I think that in their positive aspects, both parties have something to bring to the table (and that other potential parties would bring even more; and since at this point, only the Greens have a genuine defined position, let's get more of them in there -- from my POV, libertarians ought to be being represented by the genuine Republican party, which is why they have difficulty getting off the ground, I think).

But sticking with national security issues, I think the Dems (in theory) have a stronger case than the Pubs. The neo-con position has now shown its flaws. Might makes right national security doesn't work.

Pragmatically, the major threats to our national security are:
1) The environment
2) The economy
3) Throwing away our own civil liberties.

The Dems are currently more on the ball about all of this than the Pubs, and if they pump themselves up on this, this far outweighs fear of a muslim planet (which is ridiculous anyway).

Besides, as you often say yourself, we know damn well that radicalism in the Islamic world is just a reaction to global colonialism. Rectifying that, rather than pouring gas on the fire, is the way to go. And until the Pubs get that, they're not a safe pair of hands.

[Mike Smash!]

When it comes to extending civil rights to even "monsters", you're damned right I'm an absolutist. And so were our Founders.

And please drop the pious, self-righteous shit, Theo. Yes. You "can't begin to imagine." But I can.

I was the victim of a child molestor as a child, so I know far better than you on the subject. Unless you know what it's like to get a rectal exam from a doctor as a twelve year old, have to face the person who victimized you in court and go through years of therapy, then you should seriously consider shutting your mouth. Because I do know what that's like.

But my experiences don't make me want to take pedophiles' constitutional rights away or forget that they're human beings -- albeit disgusting, fucked up ones. Life isn't a Dirty Harry movie where people are either gunning down criminals like the Punisher or coddling them and setting them loose.

By fighting to make sure that the law treats them like human beings doesn't cost me my soul. If anything, the fastest way to sacrifice your soul is to only ration justice and civil rights to groups of people that you like or morally support.

Groups like NAMBLA have the right to organize and speak, but they do not have the right to molest children or distribute child pornography. That's the crime, being a perverted dickhead isn't. I never said that. The ACLU has never said that.

The fact that you cannot see the difference between defending an asshole's rights and defending an asshole's point of view is your problem not mine.

The Constitution doesn't make value judgments about peoples' merits, Theo. We all have the same rights and we're all subject to the same laws. The fact that you think that some people should have fewer rights than others, it's you who should be doing a values systems check.

Bottom line: civil rights apply to the worst of us or they don't apply at all.

[Paul McEnery]

You're dead wrong, Mike, and that mentality costs children their lives and a kind of pain and suffering I can't begin to imagine. You're actually subscribing to the same kind of absolutism that you abhor in fundamentalists. The law doesn't mean anything if it doesn't protect children. If we want to sacrifice our own future to rationalization, that's fine and maybe we deserve it. But to argue that a child should suffer so you can maintain some pretense to constitutional entitlements that don't even exist and believe that somehow you're a defender of freedom...is warped beyond all belief.

There's no reason why internet sites should continue to exist where child molesters can congregate and swap notes. It's a whole new world because of the internet and it provides child molesters with abundant resources.

It's worse than yelling fire in a theater. Look, several of the ACLU positions are rationally defensible even if I disagree, but you're in danger of losing your soul when you align with child molesters and let ideology trump protecting the most vulnerable segment of our population.

I'd recommend you do a serious price check on your values, Mike. There's no excuse for what you've suggested.

While we all share your disgust at pedophilia, this is a straw man, Theo.

Incitement to crime is still a crime on the books. If any specific site incites, facilitates, or profits from having sex with children, it's already illegal.

Where that isn't happening, people still have the right to free speech.




What's more, this is a straw man that's been used repeatedly against all freedom of information. The real aim of those who've used it in government -- and I'm pointing the finger at McCain right now -- is to restrict free speech in general. As I say, the law already protects children as much as it ever could. So any further legislation is aimed at destroying our civil liberties.

[Theophilus]

Mike,

I am genuinely sorry about your experience, but I still think you're misguided.

Their is nothing in the Constitution that sanctions the existence of NAMBLA. The founding fathers would have been horrified.

Children are hurt by their existence, and the law doesn't mean anything if we aren't proactive in defending children from heinous crimes in any way possible.

[rick]

Mike,

I am genuinely sorry about your experience, but I still think you're misguided.

Their is nothing in the Constitution that sanctions the existence of NAMBLA. The founding fathers would have been horrified.

Children are hurt by their existence, and the law doesn't mean anything if we aren't proactive in defending children from heinous crimes in any way possible.

Sorry to jump in but I think you are missing the ACLU’s actual point.

You are of course correct in saying that there is nothing in the Constitution protecting the members of NAMBLA for committing acts of pedophilia.

However there is nothing illegal, and this is the part the ACLU was defending, about these guys writing or talking about wanting to have sex with young boys.

The act itself is against the law, talking about the act, no matter how repulsive, is not.

That is what the ACLU was defending and they were right to do so.

[Valmore]

People are hurt by the existence of many groups. It's a sad fact of life. However, the country is based on the belief that every citizen in it has a certain amount of inaliable rights. Sure, we can quibble over what some of those rights are. But some of the most basic ones apply to everyone - one is that everyone, including scum like NAMBLA, have the right to legal representation in court, as well as peacable assembly.

Do they have the right to distribute kiddie porn? Or molest young boys? No. But they are entitled to their own sick belief that they can. And if they try to act upon those beliefs, they're breaking society's established laws and can be prosecuted for it. But you can't prosecute on just an idea or a feeling alone.

I disagree with everything they stand for, but they have certain rights that, if we take away from them, we risk taking away from others that may have unpopular ideas. It's a sliding scale. If we take it from NAMBLA, do we then take it away from Muslims? Jews? PETA?

[Theophilus]

I'll just leave it at this. You aren't allowed to talk about potentially assasinating the president, and there's no reason why our government should allow people to have open forums discussing perverse acts with children. They are a segment of the population entitled to special protection, and I just don't buy that all our constitutional freedoms would collapse if we shut down NAMBLA. The emergence of the internet has opened new opportunities to hurt children and the government is responsible to do everything in its power to protect them. And right now, children seem to mean very little to the world.

[Mike Smash!]

Mike,

I am genuinely sorry about your experience, but I still think you're misguided.

Their is nothing in the Constitution that sanctions the existence of NAMBLA. The founding fathers would have been horrified.

Children are hurt by their existence, and the law doesn't mean anything if we aren't proactive in defending children from heinous crimes in any way possible.

Yes, there is. It's called the First Amendment that gives them the right to speak and associate as they wish. Regardless of whether the Founders would horrified or not, that doesn't change the fact the Bill of Rights either applies universally or it doesn't at all.

But the right to swing their arm, as with anybody, ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

The Constitution doesn't protect their right to molest or victimize children. But that's not what I or the ACLU is saying. We're defending their right to hold disgusting fucked up views and share them with other disgusting fucked up people. But when they cross the line into action or actual victimization, it's time to toss them in a fucking cell.

But only after they actually commit a crime. What's misguided is that you're not only speaking from absolute ignorance, but that you fail to see that everyone is fucked up and disgusting to someone and that there's no guarantee that the people who see you that way won't ever be in charge.

You exempt NAMBLA from rights and who's next? What other unpopular group do we take "proactive" steps against?

[ragnarok_2012]

I'll just leave it at this. You aren't allowed to talk about potentially assasinating the president, and there's no reason why our government should allow people to have open forums discussing perverse acts with children. They are a segment of the population entitled to special protection, and I just don't buy that all our constitutional freedoms would collapse if we shut down NAMBLA. The emergence of the internet has opened new opportunities to hurt children and the government is responsible to do everything in its power to protect them. And right now, children seem to mean very little to the world.

What's wrong with free speech and freedom of association?

I mean, if you're going down this track, you're in effect arguing that freedom doesn't work.

[Mike Smash!]

I'll just leave it at this. You aren't allowed to talk about potentially assasinating the president, and there's no reason why our government should allow people to have open forums discussing perverse acts with children. They are a segment of the population entitled to special protection, and I just don't buy that all our constitutional freedoms would collapse if we shut down NAMBLA.

Threatening a person's life is a crime and in this case, it's the President, who is apparently entitled to "special rights" because even vague talk or a joke can be a crime. Joking about killing my neighbor is not a crime. Nor is having a forum to speak about using illegal drugs or beating up minorities or gays.

All of these things are morally abhorent to me, but they aren't illegal. Acting on those things is.

Perverts speaking about molesting kids isn't the same thing as actually molesting kids.

I know that I would have much rather have the guy who molested me writing a blog that what he actually did do. In one thing, there's a victim. In the other, there isn't.

The emergence of the internet has opened new opportunities to hurt children and the government is responsible to do everything in its power to protect them. And right now, children seem to mean very little to the world.

Protecting our children is a paramount duty, but we do that by preventing the molestation of children.... not by preventing the discussion of it.

The bottom line is that "everything in our power" is within the boundaries of the Constitution.

[Serik]

Is the country trending Democratic? My feeling: no, not more than usual.

It's just that the GOP has fucked up so royally bad that people are voting against them. If the Democrats keep control of Congress and win the presidency in 2008, I give it a few years before voters get pissed off with the Dems and vote in the GOP again. Rinse and repeat.

[Spike-X]

Their is nothing in the Constitution that sanctions the existence of NAMBLA.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems to cover it pretty well from where I'm sitting.

Some guy writing in his blog, "I should be allowed to have sex with children" harms no child, and is Constitutionally protected speech. A bunch of guys getting together and talking about how they should be allowed to have sex with children harms no child, and is also protected by the Constitution.

A bunch of guys getting together and going, "Let's target a bunch of kids and have sex with them!" is conspiracy to commit a crime, and they should abso-fucking-lutely have their arses nailed to the wall for it.

(btw, I'm a father of two, so don't even think about it)

[Tages]

I'll just leave it at this. You aren't allowed to talk about potentially assasinating the president,

I'm going to murder President Bush on November 16, 2007 at precisely 9:24 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

How much you want to bet that nothing happens to me?

Can you point to a law where it says you can't do this?

[Mike Smash!]

I'm going to murder President Bush on November 16, 2007 at precisely 9:24 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

How much you want to bet that nothing happens to me?

Can you point to a law where it says you can't do this?Ah, but which President Bush?

[Tages]

Ah, but which President Bush?

The current president, George Walker Bush.

[Spike-X]

I'm going to murder President Bush on November 16, 2007 at precisely 9:24 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.


That's a bold statement.



HA!!! Get it?!?!?!

[Tages]

That's a bold statement.



HA!!! Get it?!?!?!

Almost as bold as I will be, when I murder the current President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush.

But if anyone wants to beat me to it, go right ahead. I am openly advocating the assassination of the current President of the United States, George Walker Bush.

[Mike Smash!]

Almost as bold as I will be, when I murder the current President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush.

But if anyone wants to beat me to it, go right ahead. I am openly advocating the assassination of the current President of the United States, George Walker Bush.

I'm sorry. You're still being rather vague.

[Tages]

My point being: conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. If it could be proven in court that I did seriously plan on killing Bush, and that I had taken steps in that direction, then I'd go to jail.

But talking about killing the president is not illegal, and it shouldn't be. The President is not a king, he does not get special legal priveliges where you only get to say certain words regarding him.

Theophilus's point is completely wrong.

[Winslow]

Seems to cover it pretty well from where I'm sitting.

Some guy writing in his blog, "I should be allowed to have sex with children" harms no child, and is Constitutionally protected speech. A bunch of guys getting together and talking about how they should be allowed to have sex with children harms no child, and is also protected by the Constitution.

A bunch of guys getting together and going, "Let's target a bunch of kids and have sex with them!" is conspiracy to commit a crime, and they should abso-fucking-lutely have their arses nailed to the wall for it.

(btw, I'm a father of two, so don't even think about it)

Why is speech protected?

Because speech and ideas are powerful and empowering.

Do we really want groups like NAMBLA powerful and empowering?

I'm not is sure this is as simple as it looks.

Then again, I don't know what NAMBLA actually does with their free speech rights, so I am admittedly talking out my other body orifice.

[rick]

Why is speech protected?

Because speech and ideas are powerful and empowering.

Do we really want groups like NAMBLA powerful and empowering?

I'm not is sure this is as simple as it looks.

Then again, I don't know what NAMBLA actually does with their free speech rights, so I am admittedly talking out my other body orifice.


In the US it is really very simple, either we have free speech or we don't.

And if we do have free speech then that means that as long as we just talk then everyone gets to talk about anything they want to talk about.

No matter how repulsive.


That's how free speech works.

[Winslow]

In the US it is really very simple, either we have free speech or we don't.

And if we do have free speech then that means that as long as we just talk then everyone gets to talk about anything they want to talk about.

No matter how repulsive.


That's how free speech works.

I'll throw this out as an anecdotal, because conceptually I agree with the above, I'm just suggesting the lines have to be drawn somewhere sometimes.

What IF* NAMBLA established online seminars about how to recognize teens in chat rooms, and arrange for hook ups?

Is that protected free speech?

You can't yell, "FIRE!" in a theater is the concept I'm suggesting. How does that concept apply (or does it?) in this instance?

*If meaning this is pure hypothetical, I hope they don't do that.

And BTW, how did a thread on the country going Democratic get to this line of discussion? (I haven't read the whole thread).

[hoffmandu]

Is the country trending Democratic? My feeling: no, not more than usual.

It's just that the GOP has fucked up so royally bad that people are voting against them. If the Democrats keep control of Congress and win the presidency in 2008, I give it a few years before voters get pissed off with the Dems and vote in the GOP again. Rinse and repeat.

Isn't that the exact definition of "trending Democratic"? Voting for ther other party becasue the current one os a POS?

[Nate C.]

I'm sorry. You're still being rather vague.

LOL. That is hilarious.

[Mike Smash!]

Why is speech protected?

Because speech and ideas are powerful and empowering.

Do we really want groups like NAMBLA powerful and empowering?

I'm not is sure this is as simple as it looks.

Then again, I don't know what NAMBLA actually does with their free speech rights, so I am admittedly talking out my other body orifice.

Free speech doesn't empower bad ideas, it exposes them. Take the recent Ann Coulter slur against John Edwards. If she hadn't felt she could speak freely, she wouldn't have stuck her foot in her mouth and shown us what a bigot she was. She wasn't fined or punished by the government for what she said and she kept repeating it.

Her punishment was social and the exposure of her idea led her to be marginalized, even by many other conservatives who denounced her statements.

Ideas are indeed powerful things, but the proper response to them isn't censorship (now that empowers bad ideas). The response to free speech you don't like is free speech of your own. Challenge the "bad speech" and duke it out in the marketplace of ideas. And if your free speech retaliation has merit and power, you can marginalize the other speech.

The word "nigger" isn't considered bad because it's illegal. It's bad because we shifted culturally and became far less tolerant of it that we had been before, when it was commonplace. The government never stepped in, no one was jailed. People who disagreed spoke out, convinced others of its hateful nature and nowadays, you cannot imagine a politician being able to say that word in a speech and keep their career.

What censorship of the kind you are speaking of is essentially saying is that you don't trust your own ideas' power to defeat the ideas of the people in NAMBLA.

Let the perverts hang out and talk about fucked up things. Do you honestly think that they're going to win in the market place of ideas? That they're convincing anyone or that they can win any challenge to their beliefs in an open and free discussion? That they can convince anyone that they're right?

Because trying to censor them is waving the white flag and setting up a situation where people will be far more curious about what they're not allowed to hear.

NAMBLA isn't inciting men to molest young boys. Inciting others to commit a crime is illegal, so the "fire" analogy doesn't apply. They're simply a gang of perverts who hang about and talk about being perverts.

And speaking as someone who was molested, I'd much rather have them do that in the open than victimizing children in secret.

[Mike Smash!]

I'll throw this out as an anecdotal, because conceptually I agree with the above, I'm just suggesting the lines have to be drawn somewhere sometimes.

What IF* NAMBLA established online seminars about how to recognize teens in chat rooms, and arrange for hook ups?

Is that protected free speech?

You can't yell, "FIRE!" in a theater is the concept I'm suggesting. How does that concept apply (or does it?) in this instance?

No, that isn't protected speech. But as far I know, NAMBLA doesn't do that -- or it would be notorious for it. Much the way that High Times magazine can openly discuss illegal actions without holding seminars about how to smuggle drugs into the country.

But again, NAMBLA doesn't do that. I'd recommend actually doing some research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA) before tossing out hypotheticals. Not even NAMBLA is stupid enough to do half of the things peoples are suggesting.

[Tom]

Isn't that the exact definition of "trending Democratic"? Voting for ther other party becasue the current one os a POS?
No, This (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312)is the exact definition:

"Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies"

"The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly."

"a pattern of rising support since the mid-1990s for government action to help disadvantaged Americans. More Americans believe that the government has a responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves, and that it should help more needy people even if it means going deeper into debt."

"a reversal of increased religiosity observed in the mid-1990s. While most Americans remain religious in both belief and practice, the percentage expressing strong religious beliefs has edged down since the 1990s. And the survey finds an increase in the relatively small percentage of the public that can be categorized as secular."

"The poll finds greater public acceptance of homosexuality and less desire for women to play traditional roles in society."

In 1995, 58% said they favored affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better jobs. That percentage has risen steadily since, and stands at 70% in the current poll.

[Tages]

You can't yell, "FIRE!" in a theater is the concept I'm suggesting.

Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is perfectly legal if the theater actually is on fire.

Free speech isn't being punished. Fraud is.

[Valmore]

What IF* NAMBLA established online seminars about how to recognize teens in chat rooms, and arrange for hook ups?

Is that protected free speech?

Doubtful, since it's illegal to solicit underaged minors for sex, I don't believe providing instructions on how to do an illegal move is protected speech. However, the legal folks of the board would probably know better.

You can't yell, "FIRE!" in a theater is the concept I'm suggesting. How does that concept apply (or does it?) in this instance?

The "fire in a theater when no fire exists" thing doesn't fall so much under free speech as it does under inciting a riot. It's not a speech issue, but one of safety in society. Which could actually be the best argument against the symbolic speech of burning an American flag - public safety issues.

There are limits to free speech - libel and slander laws, for instance.

[Winslow]

I'll come back and discuss free speech after I've done some more research.

[Mike Smash!]

I'll come back and discuss free speech after I've done some more research.That is the coolest and most encouraging thing I've ever seen in an internet debate.

Let us know what you find, Winslow.

[Mike Smash!]

The "fire in a theater when no fire exists" thing doesn't fall so much under free speech as it does under inciting a riot. It's not a speech issue, but one of safety in society. Which could actually be the best argument against the symbolic speech of burning an American flag - public safety issues.

There's a real difference between intentionally urging people to violence and just doing something really offensive.

I personally think that flag burning is just stupid and counter-productive. Whatever you're trying to say is just caught up in a overpowering provocative image. But any image, no matter how offensive doesn't justify violence.

The flag burner is free to burn a hundred flags if they want to, but they should have the brains to guess what the reaction to it would be.

"If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." -- Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president.

Going back to the Coulter remark, she's free to say it and I'm glad that she has the freedom to show people what a bigot she is, but like all things, we have to live with the consequences of our actions. She's had her column dropped from numerous papers since then. There aren't many media outlets that want to be associated with a bigot.

Or the Danish cartoons portraying the image of Muhammad in them. I think the paper has the right to print whatever they like, and to be able to criticize any religion, but they'd be fools not to expect the reaction they got.

But no matter how offensive either is, it doesn't give anyone the right to use or threaten violence. We should always protect the right to say something that people don't want to hear.

Unless speech is fraudulent, slanderous, libelous or directly incites people to violence, then we have to limit our battles with it to the marketplace of ideas.

[Hoss]

No, This (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312)is the exact definition:

"Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies"


Why doesn't John Edwards do better - this is pretty much his campaign mantra? I think it is because he looks like a tweleve yeard old boy and looked like a chump in his debate with Cheney (Cheney lied and lied and Edwards never called him on it)

[cactusmaac]

Maybe because the average voter likes shopping at Wal-Mart.

[Valmore]

There's a real difference between intentionally urging people to violence and just doing something really offensive.

I personally think that flag burning is just stupid and counter-productive. Whatever you're trying to say is just caught up in a overpowering provocative image. But any image, no matter how offensive doesn't justify violence.

The flag burner is free to burn a hundred flags if they want to, but they should have the brains to guess what the reaction to it would be.

"If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." -- Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president.

Really, what I don't see is why people haven't made the argument that burning a flag in a public area is a potential fire hazard. It really makes the most sense of any rationalization against the burning of the flag. Clearly symbolic speech is a protected right. But fires in public areas? Especially during what tend to be very public rallies? It circumvents symbolic speech with a logical approach.

[Paul McEnery]

Really, what I don't see is why people haven't made the argument that burning a flag in a public area is a potential fire hazard. It really makes the most sense of any rationalization against the burning of the flag. Clearly symbolic speech is a protected right. But fires in public areas? Especially during what tend to be very public rallies? It circumvents symbolic speech with a logical approach.

C'mon. If you've learned nothing else from this board, you ought to realize that the solution is always fire.

[Chris Nowlin]

C'mon. If you've learned nothing else from this board, you ought to realize that the solution is always fire.

I have learned that here. Have I learned anything else? Sounds like a thread to me.

[Mike Smash!]

Why doesn't John Edwards do better - this is pretty much his campaign mantra? I think it is because he looks like a tweleve yeard old boy and looked like a chump in his debate with Cheney (Cheney lied and lied and Edwards never called him on it)

Well, I think it's because Edwards doesn't take the foundation of what he's saying to the logical conclusion and offer many specific programs. He could push for single payer healthcare, for one. Or push for living wage laws and increased worker protections.

His rhetoric is very good, but it's fairly unsustantive. Even the "universal healthcare" he talks about on his site is convoluted, confusing and is just a mandatory privatized system that doesn't cover everyone.

So I think a combination of that loses him support amongst some labor and progressive groups, as well as his membership in the DLC. And he's not progressive on social issues so he loses alot of progressive support there. And he doesn't talk about civil liberty issues at all and I think he'd need to given his vote for the USA PATRIOT Act.

All in all, even though he's to the Left of his 2004 campaign and I'm glad to see him have the guts to denounce his own vote on the war, he's still straddling the line too much. I think alot of people still smell the stink of Kerry on him as well and alot of rank and file Dems want to distance themselves from that campaign as much as they can.

[Mike Smash!]

Really, what I don't see is why people haven't made the argument that burning a flag in a public area is a potential fire hazard. It really makes the most sense of any rationalization against the burning of the flag. Clearly symbolic speech is a protected right. But fires in public areas? Especially during what tend to be very public rallies? It circumvents symbolic speech with a logical approach.

It depends if the goal is to be able to ban flag burning, which you can't do. You can however, pass safety laws about public fires in crowded places.

What I don't understand though is why some people see this as such a (no pun intended) burning issue. Considering we have a quagmire in Iraq and 18,000 people are dying a year due to lack of access to healthcare, why are we arguing about setting a piece of cloth on fire?

[Hoss]

What I don't understand though is why some people see this as such a (no pun intended) burning issue. Considering we have a quagmire in Iraq and 18,000 people are dying a year due to lack of access to healthcare, why are we arguing about setting a piece of cloth on fire?

Because it is easy to get worked up, feel patriotic, and denounce others with out actually risking anything or doing anything. Kind of like posting political here:)

[Mike Smash!]

Because it is easy to get worked up, feel patriotic, and denounce others with out actually risking anything or doing anything. Kind of like posting political here:)

Spoken like a true commie. ;)

But you're right. I think it's an issue that gives people a chance to get really pissed off about something, but an excuse to not do anything. Whether it's getting pissed at Harry Potter or the Dixie Chicks, they just have to get pissed and maybe write an obnoxious letter to the local paper.

If they were pissed about say, poverty, they'd realize that they'd have to get off of their asses and do something about it.