That it was no mandate

ummmmmmmm when did I ever use that term?

I never said you did Don Mike

you quote my picture and my first line then make a comment but not saying what you really mean then say what you mean but claim it has nothing to do with what I said?

I can see someone bought the good stuff this week :p j/k

you quote my picture and my first line then make a comment but not saying what you really mean then say what you mean but claim it has nothing to do with what I said?

I can see someone bought the good stuff this week :p j/k [/b][/quote]No DonMichael! It's Kerryese!

I voted for it, before I voted against it. I meant to say this, but only after I said that, before I really said what I meant.

Spin Spin Spin. Never really saying what they really mean. If you know what I mean!

It cannot be helped.

Don Cardi

Wow....I just noticed something. We kinda went off topic, eh?

Anyway, I think the Amendment will die in the Senate, as previously.

After reading up some more on this, I think that you may be right.


Don Cardi

Hey... "Ignore User" is only to be used against people who are consistently annoying. I was only annoying once.

WASHINGTON (June 22) - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote - eight more than needed - House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.


06/22/05 15:08 EDT

____________________________________________________________


Don Cardi

BB.NET poll has 15 to 7 at the moment AGAINST this Amendment.

Now if the Amendment passes the Senate, which it has a strong chance, would it pass the required number of states for ratification?

.

One of these arguments is based upon liberal democratic principle and reason. The other relies upon emotion and vengeance.

I would find Cunningham's words extremely offensive if I had lost a loved one on 9-11. To use disaster as political capital is always poor form; to use it to bolster an illiberal measure is dispicable. And it is giving the terrorists exactley what they want - more discontent, less liberty in the Land of the Free.

I agree with you 100%!

To use what happened on 9/11 in the context that he uses it in is just Dispicable!

But by the same token Nadlers remarks are pure rhetoric bullshit.

Politicizing being done here by both parties.

Don Cardi

Politicizing by both parties?! I'm shocked!! What will be next? Politicians making back-room deals to forward their agendas, pandering to lobbyists, taking money from special interest groups???

If this gets through the Senate, do they then have to wait for seven years for all the states to ratify before the Constitution can be changed? And can they do that in 38 separate states within the time frame?

Jeez, I'd forgotten all about this friggin' thread. But I've nothing better to do today, sooo...

You brought the religious thing in (see page 1), so I was just responding to your assumption that your beliefs about the Bible were like reaaallly going to piss some folks off. I, for one, couldn't care less. Yeah, you are
accountable for what you believe. You see, it's my belief that we're all accountable, regardless of what we may want to pick-n-choose to believe about theological matters. In the end, it's my belief that we're all going to be called to the carpet for our actions and our beliefs. When that day comes, it's not really going to matter a whole lot what "I" believe or what "you" believe. Rather, the only matter will be God's standard for what is and what is not righteousness...as He defines it, not as how you or I define it. But that's my belief. And if it's not yours, fine and dandy. But there again, I've a right to express my belief.

BTW, if you'll read my response, I called myself a "cowboy," and you a "sport."

Soooo, killing babies is preferable to...oh, what's that thing that's been around for forty+ years which the liberals say we need to educate folks about...oh yeah! Birth control!
Yeah, man, all that education has really paid off, huh?!? IMO, it's not the baby's fault that his/her parents are irresponsible, horny sh*ts...why punish the baby?

We do agree on the speech issue...within limits. Burning a flag isn't opening your mouth to say a thing. It's just stupid, period. You're right, men did fight and die for a country, but that flag represents the country. But, as I said, symbols mean nothing to some folks, so we're on two different planes there anyway.

Yeah, I'm all for compromise. But to those who aren't, then I can play as nasty as them, hence, there are boats that both arrive and leave the good ol' USA. I'm willing to compromise, to anyone who'll listen. Most liberals DON'T LISTEN...so, I've got no time for 'em.

And I get my kick-a** avatars from "Kick-A** Avatars R Us"

That's my new quote of the week for my AIM profile!

While I've also asked for an ignore user post, I certainly wouldn't use it on someone as new as Dr.WFL, since I barely know him yet. And besides, if we had one, no would would read my posts.