ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 02:53 pm
Maybe they could test-run all this burning and shooting in Florida.
Seems like the right kind of environment for it.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 02:53 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 02:58 pm
Intrepid wrote:
You can't argue that it is a right for somebody to burn a flag and then deny him his rights if somebody beats him up in the commission of his deed.


Why not ? They're the one inciting violence.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 03:00 pm
CerealKiller wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
You can't argue that it is a right for somebody to burn a flag and then deny him his rights if somebody beats him up in the commission of his deed.


Why not ? They're the one inciting violence.


I am saying that if it is a right to be able to burn a flag and also a right to be protected from physical violence and harm.... how can you allow one to be enforced and the other not? Motive notwithstanding.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 03:02 pm
dyslexia wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
The cross-burning almost always takes place on somebody's private property and is just as much a threat to harm someone on that property as any terrorist threat. Not so with flag burning which takes place nearly always on public property as a protest to government actions, especially a war. Not the same thing.


Or is it just because you favor flag burning to cross burning ?

Someone could get hurt just as easily burning a flag as a cross.

But anyone that burns the flag in public as protest should not be able to press charges on anyone that beats him up in protest.

Should I choose to burn a flag and someone/s attempt to beat on me I will be carrying a gun and I will shoot to kill the bastard.


If someone lights a fire in public and burns my arm in the process, I'll punch him in the head to kill.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 03:04 pm
If the burning of a flag had been used for years in the commission of crimes against, and as a means of intimidation of, a minority group, I would find it to be other than free speech and would be against it.

That is the objection to cross burning, since it is associated only with the lynching and intimidation of african americans.

Burn all the crosses you like in your own yard. Get some marshmellows, too. Burn all the flags you like in your own yard. Just don't do it to intimidate, harrass, or otherwise express hatred towrds another person.

The argument about "ripping a flag off a coffin..." doesn't apply because the flag doesn't belong to the person snatching it to burn.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 03:06 pm
Intrepid wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
You can't argue that it is a right for somebody to burn a flag and then deny him his rights if somebody beats him up in the commission of his deed.


Why not ? They're the one inciting violence.


I am saying that if it is a right to be able to burn a flag and also a right to be protected from physical violence and harm.... how can you allow one to be enforced and the other not? Motive notwithstanding.


I disagree.

When you light something on fire you cross the line of peaceful protest. At that point you tend to get what you deserve.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 03:10 pm
squinney wrote:
If the burning of a flag had been used for years in the commission of crimes against, and as a means of intimidation of, a minority group, I would find it to be other than free speech and would be against it.

That is the objection to cross burning, since it is associated only with the lynching and intimidation of african americans.

Burn all the crosses you like in your own yard. Get some marshmellows, too. Burn all the flags you like in your own yard. Just don't do it to intimidate, harrass, or otherwise express hatred towrds another person.

The argument about "ripping a flag off a coffin..." doesn't apply because the flag doesn't belong to the person snatching it to burn.


I agree with everything you said.

What if at the funeral of the soldier the disgruntled party provided their own flag ?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 03:44 pm
Then, again, it would be determined by whther or not it was taking place on private or public property. At the graveside of a private cemetary... no.

On personal property or public property with proper protest permission from the city or other appropriate authority... Yes.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 04:21 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Should I choose to burn a flag and someone/s attempt to beat on me I will be carrying a gun and I will shoot to kill the bastard.


You love your Constitutional Rights, doncha' dys?

Yes I do and often times I feel like the only american who does, in fact, what I became used to fearing from the democrats has been taken to a vastly higher plane by the republicans. Conservative my ass, the modern republican has so little regard (save Rep Ron Paul of Texas) for individual rights that they can ONLY be described authoritarian elitist theocrathists.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 12:35 am
BBB
bm
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 12:52 am
Oh, give me a flyingt f*ck!

It takes a dick and a half to get riled up about this issue,

Keep on keep'in on you rag-a-muffins, and we will not screw you - This dickelodian confirms.
0 Replies
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 08:29 am
Im just really confused about the whole ordeal.

I grew up being told, "Crystal Dawn! If you let that flag touch the ground, you burn it." My father was very patriotic, I had a red and white ballet dress that I always skipped around in, and a little mini-sized American flag that I waved around. No reason, just did.

I grew up believing that it was the law to burn a flag if you touch the ground. All this recent hussle and bussle has me chuckling at all the folks just getting used to something I've grown acustomed to my whole life Laughing

I have no preferance either way. To me, it's a piece of fabric. I think flags should be identification pieces for countries, and nothing more. But I also have been raised to respect it and not to trash it. So, while I don't care for the American flag in itself, I still have no reason to "tarnish" it. I honestly haven't held one in years either way.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 09:16 am
BBB
The republicans drag out this old issue at the start of each election campaign season. That's all it is now, the flag, a campaign slogan. Sad.

Is anyone else disgusted by the use of the flag as an election weapon?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 01:00 pm
Is the American political equivalent of the UK's "Incitement of Racial Hatred Bill"?

Instead of making inciting racial hatred through words illegal, this bill is making it illegal to offend patriotic people by burning a flag.

It makes me wonder. Aren't there more important bills to pass and how much time are the Republicans wasting by trying to push this one through?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 05:44 pm
Quote:
Aren't there more important bills to pass and how much time are the Republicans wasting by trying to push this one through?


Their very actions are an answer to this query.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:05 am
Ticomaya wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Should I choose to burn a flag and someone/s attempt to beat on me I will be carrying a gun and I will shoot to kill the bastard.


You love your Constitutional Rights, doncha' dys?


No, I believe he loves the obvious irony.

One can get injured burning a flag, lighting fireworks, driving on L.A. freeways. Next?

That was so far away from my point, it was laughable.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:29 pm
as i understand the rules of displaying the u.s. flag, if the desecration amendment passes, these would be a criminal offense;

http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/A9/37/A9378A-lg.jpg

http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/A6/18/A6180B-lg.jpg

http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/A1/02/A10221A-lg.jpg

http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/A1/20/A12050B-lg.jpg
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 07:59 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:


http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/195/407/bushsignsflag.gif

Hmmm. Wonder what the penalty will be...
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 08:04 am
From Irregular Times, we get this interesting take:

Quote:
...George Herbert Walker Bush defeated opponent Michael Dukakis through the same jingoistic patrio-mumble that has dominated the ribald reign of George Walker Bush. Daddy Bush dared Michael Dukakis to say the Pledge of Allegiance as much as he did, and promised to support an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make it a crime to burn an American flag.

Just like Bush Senior, Since he occupied the White House, Bush Junior has vigorously sung "God Bless America" while supporting new laws to destroy the constitutional protection from governmental meddling in religion. Bush talks about waging a war between freedom and fear while locking up American citizens without a trial or lawyer and finding new ways to violate ordinary Americans' freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Most recently, George W. Bush has spilled ink all over the American flag he insists that he is sworn to protect.

A little over a month ago, at a Republican political rally in Livonia, Michigan, George W. Bush signed his name as an autograph on the American flag. He did so not just once, but with several flags brought by his conservative fans solely for that purpose.

The funny thing is that George W. Bush has openly supported efforts by the Republican Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would outlaw not just flag burning, but any "physical desecration" of the American flag.

This is where I start to get confused. You see, when I look up the meaning of "desecrate" (the root word of "desecration"), I find that to desecrate means to do damage to something that is sacred in such a way that reduces the religious nature of it. So, in order for the "desecration" of the American flag to even be possible, it must first be ordained as sacred. Thus, we see that an amendment to the Constitution forbidding the "desecration" of the American flag actually establishes an official governmentally-sponsored religious worship of the flag.

I thought George W. Bush was a born again Christian. Surely, he would know that the Bible strictly forbids idolatry. Hmm...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Flag Burning
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 01:41:24