Gut Rumbles

June 23, 2005

the end is near

Holy Bejus! For once in my life, I actually agree with Hillary Clinton. She doesn't support a Constitution amendment to outlaw flag-burning, and neither do I. I believe that the entire issue is a clown-show, and we've damn sure got enough clowns in Congress to conduct a fine one.

They're much better at clown shows than they are at running the country. You want to hear a REAL Doop-Stick? Read this:

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., remained undecided, a spokesman said.

Can you just imagine the furrowed brow, the sleepless nights and the battle with his conscience Salazar must be fighting now? After all, he's "undecided" on an issue that has reared its ugly head FIVE TIMES in the past several years. He STILL can't make up his mind? That man is a leader if I ever saw one.

My position on this "issue" is simple. You don't amend the Constitution unless you've got a DAMN GOOD reason for doing so. This ain't a damn good reason.


They do this all the time in the House. And it gets shut down in the Senate....

Posted by: Ruth on June 23, 2005 05:19 PM

He can't decide because he's not sure which way will be more politically advantageous to him. He needs a mini-Karl-Rove to strategize for him.

Posted by: Ciggy on June 23, 2005 05:26 PM

Doop Stick?

Posted by: livey on June 23, 2005 05:55 PM

i was always taught as a child, that if you let a u.s. flag touch the ground, you have to destroy it. and you do that by burying it, burning it, or both.

as far as the nutcases burning old glory for a political statement, let them. it doesn't mean i can't make my statement with a fire extinguisher.

they need to leave the constitution alone.

Posted by: mlah on June 23, 2005 06:11 PM

What should you do if you accidentally set a flag on fire?

Anyway, I don't know about the flag, but bald eagle is delicious when grilled properly....and anyone who takes these comments seriously doesn't understand sarcasm (before you all jump on my arse over the eagle thing)

But seriously, what I want to know is, how will this improve the lives of American citizens in any way?

Big whoop, they want to make it illegal to burn the flag, well maybe when they are done dicking around with the Constitution, these arseholes can get to work lowering my taxes, or fixing these goddamn potholes all over the roads.

This is nothing more than slight-of-hand. They take away our liberties with one hand (eminent domain for starters) while they distract us with the nice colorful flag in the other, saying they are protecting what America stands for. Classic misdirection.

Posted by: Ruth on June 23, 2005 06:22 PM

And let me add they might get to work stopping the invasion of illegal ALIENS (along with lowering my taxes and fixing the roads, etc etc)

But they sit and argue about the flag while the illegals stream across the borders (many of whom are carrying antibiotic resistance strains of TB) It WAS once a great country folks.....but we are circling the drain here....

Posted by: Ruth on June 23, 2005 06:27 PM

I am fine with people making a "statement" by burning the flag. Because that sets a precident for me. If performing an action (i.e. buning the flag) is protected under the first amendment as free speech. Then my knocking there teeth down their throught is my statement and should be just as protected. But to amend the constitution is ludicrous.

Posted by: gravdigr on June 23, 2005 06:30 PM

I agree that this is political grandstanding at it's worst. The best solution is to pass a law making it a crime to beat the living shit out of someone who burns the flag, punishable by a $1 fine.

That works for me.

Posted by: beaker on June 23, 2005 06:34 PM

That should have been throat

Posted by: gravdigr on June 23, 2005 07:08 PM

They just keep chipping away at our free speech. i.e. campaign finance reform (a fancy way of saying little people shut your mouth while our media lap dogs get to hog the conversation) , now flag burning. They won't be happy till they've established an oligarchy with themselves in charge.

Posted by: bbuddha on June 23, 2005 07:42 PM

"My position on this "issue" is simple. You don't amend the Constitution unless you've got a DAMN GOOD reason for doing so. This ain't a damn good reason. "

The Supreme Court amended the Constitution today. Now government can take the "cracker box" away from you and give it to a wealthy developer. What do you think about that?

Posted by: Goobar on June 23, 2005 08:36 PM

I get mad enough to eat the croutch out of Hillary Clinton's drawers when I see someone desecrating the country's flag. But, I remind myself that the flag is a symbol of a country that allows free speech-the greatest country ever know on earth that still allows more personal and economic freedom than any place on earth. We don't need an amendment to prevent flag desecration. In fact I can't think of any amendments that I would vote for at the present-well maybe forcing public schools to teach gun use and safety.

Posted by: GUYK on June 23, 2005 08:37 PM

We don't always agree, but you always make a good point. We've had 200 years of idiots trying to fuckup the constitution, and this is not the time to succeed...especially over cloth.
The flag is a beauty, but everyones got one, and they all feel the same way about it.
Soldiers fight for the flag, but that flag represents their families, their homes, mothers/fathers/sisters/brothers.. their life.
Much more important than a casual decal on a hat, a bumper...a back window.
God bless the soldier protecting my right to "burn the flag".
I never have, and I never will,..but I know I can.

Posted by: Bob in the hills on June 23, 2005 09:56 PM

If we must amend the Constitution, a better idea would be to amend it to strengthen the fifth amendment's "takings" clause. This, so that Government, Inc. could not transfer private property from one owner to another.

Posted by: Paul B on June 23, 2005 10:41 PM

It is a fucking piece of cloth. Why you can't count on a Republican to carry your water.

Posted by: Velociman on June 23, 2005 11:38 PM

The flag represents a cumless piece of shits freedom to burn that very flag. It also represents my freedom to call a cumless piece of shit a cumless piece of shit.

I love it.

"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Posted by: James Hooker on June 24, 2005 01:23 AM

Slight Correction . . .

Why you cannot count on "government" in any form to carry your water.

But you better check your property deed--what you thought was yours now effectively belongs to the dadgummint! Gummint makes cannon fodder of our kids, and now, owns our property, too. It's a good schtick, sports fans. Take those civil service exams and you, too, can own what is not yours without being called a lib or democrat.

Better yet, let's go kill Persians in Iran. Those damned Arabs in Iraq are kicking our ass, and we need a change of venue in this heah unconstitutional war we are fighting in the name of the flag, or oil, or both.

Damn, is it hot in this kitchen or what?

Downing Street Memo? What the f**k is that? Our gummint lied to us? Shades of f**king Vietnam!

Besides, Iran has oil, too!

The flag is soon to become even holier to the state than the cross to the church.

Hello? Anybody there? Is there even a dial-tone?

Challenge . . . name one thing, short of collecting taxes and sending our children to die over bitch sessions between politicians near and far, that the private sector has not proven it can do better than government? Ok, well--the local yokels in gummint do the sewage disposal business fairly well. They know how to deal in shit.

(Those who believe a desert sheik took down WTC are exempt, because you are living proof that you believe anything government tells you)

So we need government for . . . exactly what?

Blame Ted Kennedy or Hillary . . . yeah, that'll work as an excuse for my failure to see the truth.

Ooops--exceeded my word limit. Mea culpa. :-)

"I pledge allegiance to the flag" . . . a "flag" which is the government standard--which is a pledge to servitude on behalf of the state--precisely the opposite of the reason for the founding of America.

I pledge allegiance to freedom for the individual citizen--a point about which I am regularly excoriated, and one for which I take pride every time Gut e-mails me . He backs servitude to government, but like any good democrat, he wants exemptions for his own personal reasons.

If the only reply is that I use (overuse) his bandwidth, then I can only offer a free-market, non-governmental solution--

Ban all comments. How hard is that?

"Sorry, this number is no longer in service at this time. Please dial again, or consult your directory for intructions."


Posted by: jb on June 24, 2005 01:56 AM

"But, I remind myself that the flag is a symbol of a country that allows free speech-the greatest country ever know on earth that still allows more personal and economic freedom than any place on earth."


Yeah GUYK, your statement was mighty true before the Bush Nazi's came along and destroyed those wonderful freedoms we have all come to take for granted. 9/11 was just an excuse for them to abuse power and create a police state in America with Taliban-like religious extremism, Constitutional amendments that would limit free-speech, government-backed private property condemnation and confiscation, proposed national ID cards, illegal alien infiltration, limitations on bankruptcy for everyone but the wealthy, and much, much more.

Posted by: PJ on June 24, 2005 03:58 AM

PJ - your comparisons of Republicans to Nazis is a perfect example of why Democrats will not hold the majority again - let alone the Presidency - for a long time.

Keep up the overblown rhetoric, we appreciate it.

Posted by: Roy AlderseBaes on June 24, 2005 08:04 AM

"My position on this "issue" is simple. You don't amend the Constitution unless you've got a DAMN GOOD reason for doing so. This ain't a damn good reason."

Rob....It doesn't matter anymore. Our 1st amendment rights were trashed with the McCain-Fiengold act, and the supremes just shit all over the 5th amendment a couple of days ago. All I can say is to keep your powder dry.

Posted by: Vulgorilla on June 24, 2005 08:13 AM

Hey PJ it was your Democrat apointed Justices that just gutted the 5th Amendment.

Do not blame Bush for this one.

Posted by: hoosierboy on June 24, 2005 08:56 AM

I want a Constitutional Amendment (or possibly a series of them) to stop the (figurative) burning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We should start by reversing the recent Supreme Court decision.

Is overruling the Supreme Court's stupidity a good enough reason to change the Constitution?

Posted by: Robin S. on June 24, 2005 08:57 AM

Robin S. I would say so.

Posted by: GUYK on June 24, 2005 09:17 AM

PJ, if there even were such a thing as 'Bush's Nazis', the likes of you would already be languishing in a concentration camp, eating rock soup and waiting to be exterminated. To say that you disagree with the President and his party on issues, and present a logical arguement as to why is one thing. To compare someone you disagree with to a Nazi is both immature, and a slap in the face to those who were either killed in the Holocaust, or their survivors. When you lower the discourse to name calling, you have lost the arguement.

Were we to amend the Constitution, I would suggest repealing the 17th, and creating term limits for Supreme Court justices.

Posted by: Anthony L. on June 24, 2005 09:24 AM

Every four years in Florida the ballot has a place to vote whether to retain or get rid of each state supreme court justice. I vote every time to get rid of the bums but thus far the public has oted to keep them. But, maybe this is what we need a national level.

The imminent domain decision was really nothing all that new. The governments were condemning private property and giving it to the railroads over a hundred years ago.

Posted by: GUYK on June 24, 2005 11:23 AM

I'm with Acidman. We don't need to amend the Constitution for flag burning. You see some asshole burning the flag whip his or her ass got-dammit. Thats what you got fists for. As for the President and calling him a Nazi or any other derogatory name for that matter I say "What the hell is wrong with you people?" He is the leader of our country. The American people have spoken and they chose him. That means all American citizens should support his got-damn ass. I don't like everything he does but he is in charge until next election and all your damn name calling and boo-hooing ain't going to amount to one fucking thing. So stop it. Play nice with each other will you. I say we take turns shoving every loud mouth republican up every loudmouth democrats ass and vice versa until the place quiets down some. Can I get a "Hell Yeah !" ?

Posted by: assrot on June 24, 2005 12:24 PM

I can't help it! I have acne! I can't go to work right now because this cyst on my face is so swollen that I can't open my left eye. SO, I read GutRumbles ALL DAY LONG! It makes my 2 inch dick hard.

Posted by: PJ on June 24, 2005 01:39 PM

But I guess it's okay that a raft of Republicans in Congress have called Democrats Nazi's many times and have invoked Hitler and Nazism on issues from stem cell research, to abortion, to taxes and the environment.

You hypocritical, right-wing nutjobs make me laugh.

Posted by: PJ on June 25, 2005 04:38 AM

"PJ - your comparisons of Republicans to Nazis is a perfect example of why Democrats will not hold the majority again - let alone the Presidency - for a long time."

Roy AlderseBaes


I can see you are a real student of American History. You might want to do some research to look back at the last time the Republicans had control of both the White House AND Congress. The Republicans drove this country into a Depression under Herbert Hoover and Americans couldn't wait to vote the Democrats back in power to get everything back on track again....just like they are gonna do after this monkey ass dumbfuck runs us all into a ditch.

FYI - A recent NBC news poll shows that the American public would actually prefer a Congress controlled by Democrats. 47 percent say they would rather see Democratic control, versus 40 percent who would prefer Republican control. That doesn't bode too well for the GOP in 2006 or 2008.

Posted by: PJ on June 25, 2005 04:50 AM

PJ, just 2 questions for you. Since FDR, we have spent literally billions upon billions of dollars trying to reduce poverty. Explain how a government handout will do anything to reduce poverty. In your answer, also include a passage from the Constitution that states the government has the duty to take money from people who choose to work, and distribute it to those who either refuse to, or cannot work.

We currently spend an average of $8,000 per year, per student for a public school education. With an average class size of 30 students, that works out to be $240,000 per class, per year. Explain why we are graduating students from high school who can barely read at a 5th grade level, and also provide a reference to the Constitution that mandates the government to educate children.

YOU are the people always bitching about the poor and homeless, and how we don't spend enough money on education. Your beloved dems have tried for 40 years, as you pointed out above, and failed miserably. Please answer the questions above, and if you want to, I will accept wagers for how many more Senate and House seats you guys will lose in '06.

Posted by: Anthony L. on June 25, 2005 08:32 AM

"Explain how a government handout will do anything to reduce poverty. In your answer, also include a passage from the Constitution that states the government has the duty to take money from people who choose to work, and distribute it to those who either refuse to, or cannot work."

Anthony L.

The biggest government handouts are not to those who refuse to work you weak link. The biggest government handouts are to corrupt corporate political campaign contributors like the pharmaceutical companies that have raped and pillaged the system that will cost U.S. taxpayers over three times that promised by Bush during his Prescription Drug reform legislation in 2002. This kind of corruption keeps old people like your mother and my mother from trying to afford basic prescription drugs while stuffing the pockets of those big drug makers that contributed heavily to Bush's re-election. Halliburton and other Bush cronies have also profited more on this fucked up war at a cost that is far beyond that of what it would take to feed those that are hungry in America due to mental illness or birth defects. THIS Bush administration is more concerned about spending $354 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure the gotdam Iraqi's have new trash trucks and Internet service for everyone there while creating the largest deficit in history. That is all after discovering that Saddam posed NO threat to the American people. And you say that Democrats are wasting YOUR hard earned dollars feeding the lazy, poor people here in America?

As far as the part of your question that seems to blame Democrats for taking what is yours and giving it to others, it is THIS Bush administration that has ENCOURAGED the recent Supreme Court ruling that will allow the government to take YOUR property in order to give it to a private developer for his own interests. And you don't think we are headed for a police state with rulings like this? That is what they do in Communist China.

And as far as the education issue part of your question, it is THIS Bush administration that has failed to fulfill their commitments to funding NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND. They are more worried about funding their NO MILLIONAIRE CORPORATE EXECUTIVE CAMPAIGN DONOR LEFT BEHIND agenda.

I hope I answered your question.


Posted by: PJ on June 26, 2005 04:11 AM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.