A quick poll

[adam]

Discuss.

[Tender Branson]

What is flag desegration ?

[adam]

What is flag desegration ?

Desecration* are things that well...desecrate the flag. Like Flag burning and things of that nature.

[David S]

Flag desecration and gay marriage are smoke screens to deflect attention away from real issues.

[NewFederalist]

Flag desecration and gay marriage are smoke screens to deflect attention away from real issues.

Sez who?

[David S]

I guess I'd say that if two gay guys get married it doesn't hurt me. If some nut burns a flag, that doesn't hurt me either assuming its not my flag. On the other hand;
 huge deficits could hurt me.
Continuous errosion of our rights could hurt me.
Fast food taxes on my lunch could hurt me too.

[NewFederalist]

Continuous errosion of our rights could hurt me.

At our age if they don't erode pretty fast it won't make much difference!

[nclib]

I obviously don't support the amendment and I find it ridiculous that anyone would think this issue is important enough to be written into the Constitution.

[The Dowager Mod]

We need these things in case a gay Mexican sneaks over the border and gets married in a tux made out of an American flag.

[Jake]

Congress isn't going to solve either of the issues you mentioned even if they do discuss them, so I do think it is a legitimate thing to discuss.

[dazzleman]

You think this is a time of record economic failures?  What planet do you live on?

[Nym90]

Clearly it is a very insignificant issue compared to many others. Option 2.

One constitional amendment that the Republicans seem to have given up on is the balanced budget amendment. I wonder why.

[dazzleman]

Clearly it is a very insignificant issue compared to many others. Option 2.

One constitional amendment that the Republicans seem to have given up on is the balanced budget amendment. I wonder why.

You're a great jokester, Eric.   I can't imagine why Bush isn't pushing for a balanced budget amendment.  Actually, Reagan did while running record deficits, but then he had the Democrats in the House of Representatives to blame for the excessive spending.

I generally don't support constitutional amendments on policy issues, so I have to say that I wouldn't support this constitutional amendment, though I think that laws forbidding the burning of flags in public places should be considered constitutional, and that the courts once again ruled incorrectly in this case.

[Nym90]

Clearly it is a very insignificant issue compared to many others. Option 2.

One constitional amendment that the Republicans seem to have given up on is the balanced budget amendment. I wonder why.

You're a great jokester, Eric.   I can't imagine why Bush isn't pushing for a balanced budget amendment.  Actually, Reagan did while running record deficits, but then he had the Democrats in the House of Representatives to blame for the excessive spending.

I generally don't support constitutional amendments on policy issues, so I have to say that I wouldn't support this constitutional amendment, though I think that laws forbidding the burning of flags in public places should be considered constitutional, and that the courts once again ruled incorrectly in this case.

Well, I was only half joking, considering that for a long time it was a pretty routine thing for the GOP to bring up, right through the Clinton years at least.

I agree that I wouldn't support such an amendment either; I think that a balanced budget, while generally good for the economy, should not be forced by law due to the inflexibility this would give the Congress in setting the budget. I think it hurts state governments more than it helps them to have balanced budget requirements, especially in poor economic times.

[dazzleman]

Clearly it is a very insignificant issue compared to many others. Option 2.

One constitional amendment that the Republicans seem to have given up on is the balanced budget amendment. I wonder why.

You're a great jokester, Eric.   I can't imagine why Bush isn't pushing for a balanced budget amendment.  Actually, Reagan did while running record deficits, but then he had the Democrats in the House of Representatives to blame for the excessive spending.

I generally don't support constitutional amendments on policy issues, so I have to say that I wouldn't support this constitutional amendment, though I think that laws forbidding the burning of flags in public places should be considered constitutional, and that the courts once again ruled incorrectly in this case.

Well, I was only half joking, considering that for a long time it was a pretty routine thing for the GOP to bring up, right through the Clinton years at least.

I agree that I wouldn't support such an amendment either; I think that a balanced budget, while generally good for the economy, should not be forced by law due to the inflexibility this would give the Congress in setting the budget. I think it hurts state governments more than it helps them to have balanced budget requirements, especially in poor economic times.

Requirement for a balanced budget tends to magnify whatever the economic direction is at the time, when government should really be countercyclical.

State governments increase taxes during recessions because tax revenue has dropped and demands for spending increase, and then spend like crazy during good economic times, when the money is rolling in.

It should really be the opposite, but the politicians can never be trusted to resist spending temptations when they have the money, and they'd rather worry about tomorrow later.  The public is not attentive enough to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, and rewards politicians who spend freely when the money is easily flowing in, and then blame them when the money dries up during a recession.  There is no easy answer, because without balanced budget requirements, they'd engage in deficit spending through good times and bad, as the federal government does.

[Downwinder]

Clearly it is a very insignificant issue compared to many others. Option 2.

One constitional amendment that the Republicans seem to have given up on is the balanced budget amendment. I wonder why.

And term limits.  I wonder why.

I'm not saying that I would support either one as a constitutional amendment either, but it's clear that some hot button issues are more important to the republicans than others--and some are not really pressing at all when THEY are in power.

[Downwinder]

We need these things in case a gay Mexican sneaks over the border and gets married in a tux made out of an American flag.

I hadn't ever thought about it in those terms, but I'm glad you framed it that way.  It's changed my entire viewpoint about THREE issues!!  Good job!

And remember, that a gay Mexican could also get married in a wedding dress made out of the American flag!  Female or male!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No.

[TomC]

Protecting our freedoms which includes burning our own property in a safe manner, is always important.

[minionofmidas]

What is flag desegration ?

Desecration* are things that well...desecrate the flag. Like Flag burning and things of that nature.

Flag being touched by a redneck with greasy fingers?

What about use of the flag for mundane purposes, such as advertisement? Isn#t that desecrating it?

[adam]

What is flag desegration ?

Desecration* are things that well...desecrate the flag. Like Flag burning and things of that nature.

Flag being touched by a redneck with greasy fingers?

What about use of the flag for mundane purposes, such as advertisement? Isn#t that desecrating it?

Are you saying that all rednecks have greasy fingers? Also, why would they be touching the flag its self in the first place? I hope you were no more than half serious.

Desecrating as used in this sense means it's overall destruction. Wrapping yourself in it during an election to appear more patriotic than your opponent is not desecrating it.

[MaC]

We need these things in case a gay Mexican sneaks over the border and gets married in a tux made out of an American flag.

Yes, but is he burning the tux while wearing it Texasgurl?  I would think that should be taken into consideration.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[MODU]

What economic failures?  Anyway, scratching that from your question, the answer is "yes."  Congress is capable of handling more than one issue at a time.