~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876 
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:23:22 GMT
In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. It never made it out of committee, but she actually took it further than Trump's simply "saying" it should be illegal.
Oh how hypocritical we are here. Hillary does it; no problem. Trump does it; He's the devil!!!!
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:29:00 GMT
To be completely fair, the NYT did criticize her and accused her of being in "pandering" mode. But I don't recall ever seeing a complaint from any of the peas.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 10:25:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 20:33:48 GMT
In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. It never made it out of committee, but she actually took it further than Trump's simply "saying" it should be illegal. Oh how hypocritical we are here. Hillary does it; no problem. Trump does it; He's the devil!!!! This was already discussed on another thread and determined to be a weak attempt to get a "Hillary gotcha." From the description of the bill ". However the bill's language was designed so as to prohibit the desecration of a flag " when the intent was found to be a threat to the public safety," the intention being that it would therefore not violate the First Amendment and not be declared unconstitutional." Kind of like yelling "fire in a crowed theater". |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:35:39 GMT
I must have missed that thread. Can you point me to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 29, 2016 20:36:42 GMT
Just another thread to make fun of a group of people you want to take digs at all.the.time.
You keep calling people hypocrites, but really--are they? Has this topic been discussed here before that had peas getting their panties in a wad about HRC cosponsoring a bill that never went anywhere?
The answer to that is NO. You don't recall seeing any of the peas here complain because it wasn't discussed. But obviously that doesn't matter to you because it wouldn't fit your agenda of slamming a group of people.
So before you go on another bender and accuse a group of being hypocritical over a specific topic, get your facts straight.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,034
|
Post by used2scrap on Nov 29, 2016 20:40:09 GMT
To be fair, she was a legislator, proposing legislation was her job. And to be fair, she certainly didn't suggest revoking citizenship. And to be fair, she isn't the Pres Elect, Donald Trump is. What he says and does now matters now.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:40:12 GMT
Well it seems you don't know, Paper. And I haven't seen it discussed. And HIllary was accused by more than one paper and person of pandering, so I'll continue to post these threads as I choose and I'll continue to call them as I see them.
So, if the thread makes you unhappy or upset, just mosey on over to one of the umpteen "we hate Trump" threads and park yourself there.
|
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
|
Post by schizo319 on Nov 29, 2016 20:40:57 GMT
I must have missed that thread. Can you point me to it? Page 2 (about 1/2 way down the page) of the "Trump says flag burning should be illegal" thread. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:42:48 GMT
To be fair, she was a legislator, proposing legislation was her job. And to be fair, she certainly didn't suggest revoking citizenship. And to be fair, she isn't the Pres Elect, Donald Trump is. What he says and does now matters now. I agree that the idea of revoking citizenship is extreme. However, proposing that particular legislation was an attempt to punish people for burning a flag; the same thing Trump is talking about now. Yes, the punishment proposed is different, however, both sough to punish actions that the Supreme Court had previously deemed protected. If anything, I consider HIllary's worse because she did it just to politically pander to all sides. Trump, as misguided as he may be, actually believes that the flag is sacred and people should be punished for destroying it. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:43:10 GMT
I must have missed that thread. Can you point me to it? Page 2 (about 1/2 way down the page) of the "Trump says flag burning should be illegal" thread. Thanks, I'll check it out. |
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Nov 29, 2016 20:44:00 GMT
Is Hillary even relevant now?
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 20:45:45 GMT
I don't know. Guess it depends on the outcome of the election recount. I certainly hope she is no longer relevant. And btw, I checked out page 2 of the other thread and surprise of surprises....when the Act was pointed out we got the same old "but that's different" response.  |
|
|
|
Post by 2peaornot2pea on Nov 29, 2016 21:02:48 GMT
To be fair, she was a legislator, proposing legislation was her job. And to be fair, she certainly didn't suggest revoking citizenship. And to be fair, she isn't the Pres Elect, Donald Trump is. What he says and does now matters now. I agree that the idea of revoking citizenship is extreme. However, proposing that particular legislation was an attempt to punish people for burning a flag; the same thing Trump is talking about now. Yes, the punishment proposed is different, however, both sough to punish actions that the Supreme Court had previously deemed protected. If anything, I consider HIllary's worse because she did it just to politically pander to all sides. Trump, as misguided as he may be, actually believes that the flag is sacred and people should be punished for destroying it. The only thing sacred to Trump is money.
And guess what? Trump IS pandering to his base.
And my position of flag burning hasn't changed. If there was any discussion of the issue in 2005, I would have expressed the same opinion then that I have today. It is protected free speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 29, 2016 21:14:17 GMT
I don't think that she should have.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 10:25:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 21:35:16 GMT
Oops he's changed his mind since he said this then.....nothing new there   |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 29, 2016 21:37:42 GMT
To be fair, she was a legislator, proposing legislation was her job. And to be fair, she certainly didn't suggest revoking citizenship. And to be fair, she isn't the Pres Elect, Donald Trump is. What he says and does now matters now. I agree that the idea of revoking citizenship is extreme. However, proposing that particular legislation was an attempt to punish people for burning a flag; the same thing Trump is talking about now. Yes, the punishment proposed is different, however, both sough to punish actions that the Supreme Court had previously deemed protected. If anything, I consider HIllary's worse because she did it just to politically pander to all sides. Trump, as misguided as he may be, actually believes that the flag is sacred and people should be punished for destroying it. Trump doesn't believe anything is sacred except his own money and ego. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 21:42:49 GMT
Oops he's changed his mind since he said this then.....nothing new there All politicans (and all people for that matter) change their minds at one time or another. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 21:43:36 GMT
I agree that the idea of revoking citizenship is extreme. However, proposing that particular legislation was an attempt to punish people for burning a flag; the same thing Trump is talking about now. Yes, the punishment proposed is different, however, both sough to punish actions that the Supreme Court had previously deemed protected. If anything, I consider HIllary's worse because she did it just to politically pander to all sides. Trump, as misguided as he may be, actually believes that the flag is sacred and people should be punished for destroying it. Trump doesn't believe anything is sacred except his own money and ego. That's your opinion as someone who doesn't like him. Doesn't make it a fact, no matter how many times you say it. |
|
|
|
Post by jackie on Nov 29, 2016 21:45:37 GMT
Is that 2011 tweet for real? Omg...
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Nov 29, 2016 21:46:28 GMT
Really, it's got to be difficult now that Hillary is out of the picture. It really doesn't matter what she did or didn't do, because she's no longer a candidate.
Now that Trump is president-elect, he will be judged on HIS merits and HIS actions. Not by what a former candidate would or wouldn't have done.
Hillary could have introduced a bill that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall. It doesn't matter, though, because she is no longer under consideration for the office of president.
The time to care about what Hillary did or didn't do was prior to November 8. Now that the election is over, Trump will have to prove himself. There is no more "but Hillary..." as an excuse. Hillary is retired. She's out walking her dogs in the countryside and cuddling her grandchildren. Trump holds an office - one that is going to put him under intense scrutiny. He is going to be judged for what he says and does, and Hillary's words and actions have no bearing on whether or not history will judge him positively or negatively. He will have to rise to the challenge of actually being a leader now.
Hillary is irrelevant.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Nov 29, 2016 21:48:06 GMT
In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act which, while it did not call for the stripping of citizenship, made flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine. It never made it out of committee, but she actually took it further than Trump's simply "saying" it should be illegal. Oh how hypocritical we are here. Hillary does it; no problem. Trump does it; He's the devil!!!! This was already discussed on another thread and determined to be a weak attempt to get a "Hillary gotcha." From the description of the bill ". However the bill's language was designed so as to prohibit the desecration of a flag " when the intent was found to be a threat to the public safety," the intention being that it would therefore not violate the First Amendment and not be declared unconstitutional." Kind of like yelling "fire in a crowed theater". "a weak attempt"  ETA: Really, it's got to be difficult now that Hillary is out of the picture. It really doesn't matter what she did or didn't do, because she's no longer a candidate. The only reason I thought it was relevant (on the other thread) was because Clinton supporters were among the very vocal about what Trump said regarding flag burning. I thought it was relevant that Clinton also tried to have a flag burning ban bill passed. That's all the relevancy I intended...that not only is Trump an idiot about this, so was his most recent opponent, albeit 10 or so years ago. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 10:25:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 22:00:17 GMT
Oops he's changed his mind since he said this then.....nothing new there All politicans (and all people for that matter) change their minds at one time or another. except that is par for the course for him, far more than normal people do. |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Nov 29, 2016 22:03:59 GMT
You'd be surprised. Remember Kerry? He was known as the Waffle king in 2000.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,034
|
Post by used2scrap on Nov 29, 2016 22:28:06 GMT
Trump doesn't believe anything is sacred except his own money and ego. That's your opinion as someone who doesn't like him. Doesn't make it a fact, no matter how many times you say it. Also just your opinion and not fact that Hillary was pandering and Donald thinks the flag is sacred. Only they know their true beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 29, 2016 22:40:09 GMT
Really, it's got to be difficult now that Hillary is out of the picture. It really doesn't matter what she did or didn't do, because she's no longer a candidate. Now that Trump is president-elect, he will be judged on HIS merits and HIS actions. Not by what a former candidate would or wouldn't have done. Hillary could have introduced a bill that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall. It doesn't matter, though, because she is no longer under consideration for the office of president. The time to care about what Hillary did or didn't do was prior to November 8. Now that the election is over, Trump will have to prove himself. There is no more "but Hillary..." as an excuse. Hillary is retired. She's out walking her dogs in the countryside and cuddling her grandchildren. Trump holds an office - one that is going to put him under intense scrutiny. He is going to be judged for what he says and does, and Hillary's words and actions have no bearing on whether or not history will judge him positively or negatively. He will have to rise to the challenge of actually being a leader now. Hillary is irrelevant. Beautiful!! |
|
|
|
Post by knit.pea on Nov 29, 2016 22:59:38 GMT
Oops he's changed his mind since he said this then.....nothing new there All politicans (and all people for that matter) change their minds at one time or another.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 10:25:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:29:35 GMT
Really, it's got to be difficult now that Hillary is out of the picture. It really doesn't matter what she did or didn't do, because she's no longer a candidate.Now that Trump is president-elect, he will be judged on HIS merits and HIS actions. Not by what a former candidate would or wouldn't have done. Hillary could have introduced a bill that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall. It doesn't matter, though, because she is no longer under consideration for the office of president. The time to care about what Hillary did or didn't do was prior to November 8. Now that the election is over, Trump will have to prove himself. There is no more "but Hillary..." as an excuse. Hillary is retired. She's out walking her dogs in the countryside and cuddling her grandchildren. Trump holds an office - one that is going to put him under intense scrutiny. He is going to be judged for what he says and does, and Hillary's words and actions have no bearing on whether or not history will judge him positively or negatively. He will have to rise to the challenge of actually being a leader now.
Hillary is irrelevant.Not really. She's totally relevant when she introduced a bill 2 years ago that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall and nobody cared until Trump did it yesterday. As so often is the case when comparing the 2 of them. Except for the fact that HIS bill is so much worse because it proposed that we used the remains of our very first president and do the deed on the steps of the White House. Hers is "different" and okay because it was only Lincoln's remains and not the White House steps. As so often is the case when comparing the 2 of them. |
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Nov 30, 2016 18:39:01 GMT
Really, it's got to be difficult now that Hillary is out of the picture. It really doesn't matter what she did or didn't do, because she's no longer a candidate.Now that Trump is president-elect, he will be judged on HIS merits and HIS actions. Not by what a former candidate would or wouldn't have done. Hillary could have introduced a bill that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall. It doesn't matter, though, because she is no longer under consideration for the office of president. The time to care about what Hillary did or didn't do was prior to November 8. Now that the election is over, Trump will have to prove himself. There is no more "but Hillary..." as an excuse. Hillary is retired. She's out walking her dogs in the countryside and cuddling her grandchildren. Trump holds an office - one that is going to put him under intense scrutiny. He is going to be judged for what he says and does, and Hillary's words and actions have no bearing on whether or not history will judge him positively or negatively. He will have to rise to the challenge of actually being a leader now.
Hillary is irrelevant.Not really. She's totally relevant when she introduced a bill 2 years ago that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall and nobody cared until Trump did it yesterday. As so often is the case when comparing the 2 of them. Except for the fact that HIS bill is so much worse because it proposed that we used the remains of our very first president and do the deed on the steps of the White House. Hers is "different" and okay because it was only Lincoln's remains and not the White House steps. As so often is the case when comparing the 2 of them. I don't agree with either of their positions. Just because I supported Hillary doesn't mean I think every move she made was correct. Which I (and others) have said repeatedly but that always seems to be ignored. I also didn't always agree with Obama all the time - shocking I know. Please quit treating Hillary supporters as if we were the borg and I will not treat Trump supporters that way either. |
|
scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,521
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Nov 30, 2016 18:48:11 GMT
Is Hillary even relevant now? Nope... |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 3, 2024 10:25:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 19:43:12 GMT
Not really. She's totally relevant when she introduced a bill 2 years ago that calls for baby seals to be clubbed to death with the remains of Abraham Lincoln on the Washington Mall and nobody cared until Trump did it yesterday. As so often is the case when comparing the 2 of them. Except for the fact that HIS bill is so much worse because it proposed that we used the remains of our very first president and do the deed on the steps of the White House. Hers is "different" and okay because it was only Lincoln's remains and not the White House steps. As so often is the case when comparing the 2 of them. I don't agree with either of their positions. Just because I supported Hillary doesn't mean I think every move she made was correct. Which I (and others) have said repeatedly but that always seems to be ignored. I also didn't always agree with Obama all the time - shocking I know. Please quit treating Hillary supporters as if we were the borg and I will not treat Trump supporters that way either. It's been the general consensus when comparing the 2 of them. Of course there will be exceptions, that's a given, so not spelling out the obvious of every possible exception is not treating anyone like Borg. We all understand that not everyone fits into a particular discussion, it doesn't have to include a disclaimer every time. It's just understood. |
|
My original pea date was November 1999 and my number was 1803
Refupea #39
