I know this can get into “inciting riot”, and stuff like that, but how do you deal with it? It is either right or wrong to burn the flag.

But the fact that something is morally wrong does not mean that it should be illegal. There are hundreds of wrongs that one can commit that should be outside of the purview of government.

The socially conservative view of government believes that it should regulate even our most private acts. The fiscally conservative view of government believes that government should have nothing to do with such things. It’s this conflict that makes the thirty-year marriage of convenience between these two groups untenable, and that’s the rift that will ultimately split the Republican Party.

I find burning a national symbol such as a flag, borders on an act of War. Now having said that, if Hugo Chavez held a press conference and burned our flag as part of it… That is an act of War.

Individual Venezuaelan’s (think I spelled that right) commiting the same act, is just a bunch of uneducated rabble insulting our country.

Individual Americans burning our own flag… It just disgusts me to see someone do such a thing. The flag burning amendment should be amended to waive the rights of the violator (flag burner) to charging another American with simple assault upon that person. I think that would be an interesting compromise.

How about that, you can burn the flag, but lose all legal recourse against the American Citizen who beats your ass (superficial injuries) because you committed the act?

I know this can get into “inciting riot”, and stuff like that, but how do you deal with it? It is either right or wrong to burn the flag.

For some, the war hasn’t ended, I guess.

The confederacy was founded to forstall the possibility of freedom and self government for the enslaved and to elevate the slavemasters over them and their poorer white kith and kin.

Ironically, supporters of the Confederacy would have told you that the Union was the nation premised on preventing freedom and self government on the part of its member states.

There is no possible way to commerate and revere the confederacy without concomitantly honoring white supremacy. All of the flags created in that era are symbols of the confederacy. The confederacy was founded to forstall the possibility of freedom and self government for the enslaved and to elevate the slavemasters over them and their poorer white kith and kin.

and those evil south carolinans firing on ft. sumter?

virginia was more neutral or pro-union, until that happened.

As a D, I am tired of Dems attacking the confederate flag.

He only recognizes this now? He didn’t understand this when he was a delegate, U.S. Rep, or governor? Obviously he’s only making this statement now to cover his own ass or else he’d be considered mildly retarded not to catch on sooner.

As a Northern transplant, for the life of me, I cannot understand the Confederate flag and how (especially) southern, white males cling to it. Is there no other symbol for southern heritage?

Good points, all, and well said. I hope we can at least agree that slavery was the most tangible symptom of a pervasive and problematic disease.

The south was far less democratic than the north; it was run entirely by the rich, white, slave-holding men. They all had similar interests, and had much to lose or gain by the government’s actions, so naturally they insisted that other white, slave-holding men make the decisions.

If we can agree that the civil war was because the men who ran the north and the men who ran the south had very different opinions on how the union should be run (and I don’t think that’s a point of contention), and that the men who ran the south were in very large part dependent upon slave labor for their wealth and power, then we don’t need to split hairs any further. You say potato; I say potato.

Even more interesting when you consider the SCV announcement is being pushed by one of its leaders who goes by the name of Mudcat.

Ha! This is all starting to make a little more sense now. :)

Only if it’s true. Mudcat is a known member, and could have pushed for this, but is there any evidence that he’s a “leader”? It could be true, but it could equally be true that this is another in the series of fact-free assertion from the Allen campaign to try to blame their problems on their accusers. Without even so much as a link, I’m not inclined to assume either one is the truth.

Personally, I’ve been expecting this kind of thing ever since Allen’s stronger apology. He put himself between a rock and a hard place with the macaca incident — he could either try to avoid apologizing for present and past insensitivity, and risk alienating a lot of new voters he needs, or make a real apology, and risk alienating some of his past supporters. (Those were just risks, of course, there was also the possibility with either course that the people in question would let it blow over.) I think that’s part of the reason his apologies have been all over the map.