Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Enough of your generalities already. Can you name some of these corporate Democrats and how they used Democratic Party congressmen to defeat financial regulation.
Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced in the United States Senate at the 109th United States Congress on October 24, 2005, by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Later co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.).
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:
Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.
Although the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, the bill was intended, according to the New York Times, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision. Since the law was not passed or even considered by the United States Congress, its constitutionality was never challenged in the Supreme Court."
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:
Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.
Although the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, the bill was intended, according to the New York Times, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision. Since the law was not passed or even considered by the United States Congress, its constitutionality was never challenged in the Supreme Court."
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you think I think Al Franken is the same as Marco Rubio?
Corporate Democrats are the same as corporate Republicans because -surprise- they're bought by the same special interests
I know you don't believe/understand/accept the way actual government corruption works in America, so I don't expect you to believe/understand/accept any logical or rational argument that highlights it. What's funny is during James Comey's testimony, one of the Republican senators questioned his use of the word 'hope', as if to say Trump's quote;
"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,"
Trump is on his way to avoiding impeachment because his supporters don't see anything wrong with this quote, to the FBI director, alone.
There's something wrong when tribalism takes over and allows supporters to dismiss or ignore obvious ethical violations committed by their candidate in the advancement of 'the greater good'..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton sided with a Republican against the 1st amendment and got laughed out of congress for it
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so i guess there are zero corporate democrats and only one non-corporate republican.
RETARD
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what does this have to do with all these economic issues (see: one single issue, glass-steagall) you keep whining like a little bitch about?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Joe Crowley
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You don't understand how American government works, yet you argue about it non stop. This tells me you're actually a dumb person. That's not a personal attack, just an obvious observation.
Someone who spends so much time doing something should be an expert by now, yet you prove to have an elementary and shallow understanding of the subject, completely controlled by your inability to divorce emotion from reality, much like Trump supporters.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you claimed working class voters only voted for hillary because the alternative was donald trump.
then i showed you that working class voters also voted for hillary clinton when the alternative was bernie sanders.
LOL
and apparently you think the entirety of american economics is glass-steagall. you are dumb.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why did Hillary Clinton side with Republicans against the 1st amendment?
Don't you think I have the right to burn the American flag?
I can't imagine someone like Bernie Sanders, an actual progressive, ever endorsing the idea that American citizens should go to jail for up to a year for burning the American flag. That sends authoritarian signals, something Trump will likely endorse, if he hasn't yet..
Christ man.
How much is clinton giving you from her speech money? You're the textbook definition of a keyboard warrior. Just sitting here bashing on everyone. This political section was a mistake it seems like many here are just as bad as the cuckservatives.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Everyone has their own opinion, brother.
This is the place to debate, listen to different views and develop your own.
He and I butt heads on the regular but he's still a friend- and he's definitely been the stone upon which I've been sharpening my own political philosophy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
shut up, bitch tits.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Holy shit do you not have any leg to stand on when it comes to knowing fuck all about the subject.
This post proves it.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Seriously?
So you support the Party with 0 members of Congress but some how I don't know how Govt works?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAGAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHA!
Enjoy sleeping alone again.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So which major party is doing such a great job for me again?
Why do you still keep going back to Sanders?
That wasn't even a contest.
Clinton manipulated along with DNC and now she blames them.
I hope she's not holding her breath for 2020.
She's pretty much a laughing stock.