NationStates Jolt Archive

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

Why do you do this?

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.


So you're going to punish people by "allowing" them to leave. What if they don't want to?

And what if they were born and bred in the USA

It's a piece of cloth. It's no more or less important than any other patterned piece of cloth symbolizing some other nation and their heritage. Not everyone in the world is American or loves Americans; this forum is based in the United Kingdom and was created for us by an Australian. I even hear there are other nations out there such as Canada, and Sweden, and Italy and... oh, thousands more. There are even other CONTINENTS out there, I am told -- South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia.... oh, tons! Even that one with the penguins.... Antarctica!

The flag's SUPPOSED to be burned if you need to dispose of it.

Really, aren't there better things to stir hornets' nests about?

straight lines and only 3 overdone colours represent America:confused: well I know individuality is fairly crushed but wow!

and what if I desecrate the flag? does that mean I can't get sent to gitmo? :p

Much respect to the flag, as always. :)

Locking up people who don't respect it though... not going to solve anything.

It's SUPPOSED to be burned if you need to dispose of it.
Even if it touches the ground.

Why do you do this?

Irrepressible optimism.

Or possibly more perplexing, why do people bother to respond?

-snip

That is the dumbest shit I have read in a long time. Do you honestly think holding a piece of cloth will instill unity to 300 million people?

Better yet, let's go kill those people for holding a different rag! UNITY!

1840 ended a long time ago champ.

Or possibly more perplexing, why do people bother to respond?

something to do I guess, though it is painful to read and I wish it would just stop

Or, as a modest counter-proposal, we don't change a damn thing and let people make up their own minds about what a flag means to them.

Even better, we focus on laws that actually address issues that impact the country. War, budget deficit, immigration, taxes, our incredible unpopularity with the rest of the world, etc.

Or possibly more perplexing, why do people bother to respond?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12781773&postcount=8
Irrepressible pessimism.

SnipFunny how you can respect the symbol so much and despise what it represents equally as much.

It's no more or less important than any other patterned piece of cloth symbolizing some other nation and their heritage.

I agree; I am certainly not a xenophobe. Other nations should adopt similar patriotic measures. I would be a proponent of all the research bases in the Antarctic proudly displaying the symbol of their continent; however, I live in America, and I therefore make posts in reference to my country of residence. However, the same general principle applies globally.

The flag's SUPPOSED to be burned if you need to dispose of it.

Obviously, exceptions should be made for extenuating circumstances. For example, if your house burns down while you are away and your American flags along with it, you may still be a good citizen and therefore should not be deported.

And what if they were born and bred in the USA

Then their actions will be that much more treasonous; it disgusts me that such people may betray their country after residing within it and enjoying the benefits it has to offer for decades. It's one thing for an immigrant unaccustomed to our modern, freedom-loving way of life to show disrespect towards our flag; however, it is quite another thing for someone who was born and bred in this country to commit so vile a deed.

I would be a proponent of all the research bases in the Antarctic proudly displaying the symbol of their continent

actually... (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/antarctic_region_pol_95.jpg)

I agree; I am certainly not a xenophobe. Other nations should adopt similar patriotic measures. I would be a proponent of all the research bases in the Antarctic proudly displaying the symbol of their continent; however, I live in America, and I therefore make posts in reference to my country of residence. However, the same general principle applies globally.



Obviously, exceptions should be made for extenuating circumstances. For example, if your house burns down while you are away and your American flags along with it, you may still be a good citizen and therefore should not be deported.Are you like, into law and stuff with words and codes?

Even better, we focus on laws that actually address issues that impact the country.

As the fabric of the flag is destroyed by the blistering inferno, so too is the fabric of our society being rent apart every time a flag is burned. This issue has a most profound impact on our beloved country, for there are those who seek to defile that which is most sacred to us; if unchecked, they may corrupt the minds of our children, increase social tension, dissipate the nascent feeling of oneness among Americans, etc. Their atrocious behavior must be focused on.

actually... (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/antarctic_region_pol_95.jpg)

While there is no official flag, the Graham-Bartram design is the de facto emblem of the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Antarctica

There is no requirement that people love the United States or what the United States does implicit in being a citizen of the United States.

What there is implicit in the United States, in theory at least, is a respect for certain rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1

While an offensive practice to many, burning the flag of the United States (or any other country or organization) is a long-standing form of protest. The right of people to protest or express their "grievances" in a public fashion is considered rightly to be protected speech. To deny this expression - no matter how distasteful or offensive it is to some - is to cheapen the principles the flag itself stands for.

I do think that protesters within the US that burn the US flag are at least misguided - if nothing else, it isn't a good way to encourage support for your cause to offend and insult. However, I'd never support anything that bans burning the flag as a form of protest or expression - to me, what that does to the ideals the flag stands for is far worse than burning the flag itself could ever be.

No-one should ever debase what the flag actually stands for to protect the flag itself.

Obviously, exceptions should be made for extenuating circumstances. For example, if your house burns down while you are away and your American flags along with it, you may still be a good citizen and therefore should not be deported.

Are you supposed to be Captain America's even more rabidly patriotic second cousin twice removed by marriage?

Obviously, exceptions should be made for extenuating circumstances. For example, if your house burns down while you are away and your American flags along with it, you may still be a good citizen and therefore should not be deported.

Where's my troll'b gone?

It's one thing for an immigrant unaccustomed to our modern, freedom-loving way of life to show disrespect towards our flag; however, it is quite another thing for someone who was born and bred in this country to commit so vile a deed.

What if said immigrant came from Europe? It's more free than the US.

Anyway, no, I do not liek anyone burning the flag, but when you get down to it, it's prety much a piece of cloth. cloth is flammable. Not saying it's supposed to be burned, but people will show disrespect toward it. Deporting people for not respecting a piece of cloth with unoriginal colors will not solve anything.

Are you supposed to be Captain America's even more rabidly patriotic second cousin twice removed by marriage?

Someone's gotta carry it on.
http://forevergeek.com/commentary/shocking_events_of_captain_america_25_revealed.php

As the fabric of the flag is destroyed by the blistering inferno, so too is the fabric of our society being rent apart every time a flag is burned. This issue has a most profound impact on our beloved country, for there are those who seek to defile that which is most sacred to us; if unchecked, they may corrupt the minds of our children, increase social tension, dissipate the nascent feeling of oneness among Americans, etc. Their atrocious behavior must be focused on.

Quite poetic, though incredibly erroneous.

Unity comes from shared belief in democracy, freedom, etc., not in the "sacred" flag. It is only a material symbol of immaterial values, completely undeserving of legal protection because such protection would be a violation of the more important immaterial values.

There is no requirement that people love the United States or what the United States does implicit in being a citizen of the United States.

If my ideas were already being implemented, proposing them would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? I am suggesting that there should be such a requirement (well, not exactly, but something similar) precisely because there is no such measure currently in place and it is having adverse effects on society.

The right of people to protest or express their "grievances" in a public fashion is considered rightly to be protected speech.

Freedom of speech? No, I'm not professing to be a master in regards to the English language, but I can tell you that burning is not the same thing as speaking. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees many rights, yet does not mention the right to free burning.

Where's my troll'b gone?

http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/8505/258trollspray0ur.jpg

Freedom of speech? No, I'm not professing to be a master in regards to the English language, but I can tell you that burning is not the same thing as speaking. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees many rights, yet does not mention the right to free burning.

speech =/ speaking

The American Flag is no ifferent from any other flag, and a flag is no different from any other piece of cloth. Therefore, people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it.

The American Flag is no ifferent from any other flag, and a flag is no different from any other piece of cloth. Therefore, people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it.
You know what Im gonna do
Im gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps
And all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)
And Im gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour
Gettin' 1 mile per gallon,
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds
In the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers
And when Im done sucking down those greeseball burgers
Im gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then Im gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the side
And there aint a goddamn thing anybody can do about it
You know why, because weve got the bombs, thats why
2 words, nuclear f*cking weapons, OK?
Russia, Germany, Romania, they can have all the democracy they want
They can have a big democracy cakewalk
Right through the middle of Tiananmen Square
and it wont make a lick of difference
Because weve got the bombs, OK?
John Wayne's not dead, hes frozen, and as soon as we find a cure for cancer
Were gonna thaw out the duke and hes gonna be pretty pissed off
You know why,
Have you ever taken a cold shower, well multiply that by 15 million times
Thats how pissed off the dukes gonna be!
I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Cassavetes,
and Lee Marvin, and Sam Peckinpah, and a case of whiskey,
and drive down to Texas and say.....
...and proud of it.

Freedom of speech? No, I'm not professing to be a master in regards to the English language, but I can tell you that burning is not the same thing as speaking. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees many rights, yet does not mention the right to free burning.

Speaking = passing a given idea. Actions pass ideas. Linguistics 101.

Good thing you're not professing to be a master in Language.

If my ideas were already being implemented, proposing them would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? I am suggesting that there should be such a requirement (well, not exactly, but something similar) precisely because there is no such measure currently in place and it is having adverse effects on society.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here, but if you're proposing that it be a requirement to be a citizen to love the country, that is futile and - short of massively Orwellian measures, unverifiable (probably even then, and if you're willing to take the issue to that degree, you may feel more at home in totalitarian regimes who do *try* to make it a requirement).

Freedom of speech? No, I'm not professing to be a master in regards to the English language, but I can tell you that burning is not the same thing as speaking. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees many rights, yet does not mention the right to free burning.

The Supreme Court tends to disagree with you. Probably not the most recent example but check Texas V. Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989), where the court found that "Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment."

"Speech" has been construed legally and properly as "Expression" in regards to the First Amendment - talking is not the only way to "Speak" and, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

Looking at it that way, it makes sense for a protester to burn the flag, if only to garner attention.

I always figured the best way to protect the flag is to protect what it stands for. Anything else, and you just feed the argument that many protesters already have that the government and administration the United States has little more than hypocracy to offer regarding the rights they are supposed to protect and guarantee.

Speaking = passing a given idea.

Perhaps you should take a gander at the dictionary. Allow me to post all the definitions of "speech" included within it.

1.

a. The faculty or act of speaking.
b. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.

2. Something spoken; an utterance.
3. Vocal communication; conversation.
4.

a. A talk or public address: "The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance" Ruth Gordon.
b. A printed copy of such an address.

5. One's habitual manner or style of speaking.
6. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech.
7. The sounding of a musical instrument.
8. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.
9. Archaic Rumor.

Now, please highlight the definition which lends itself to an interpretation whereby it can be construed as implying "burning."

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. .

.



Whatever happened to freedom of speech, one of values that the founding fathers fought for? That would be censorship, and therefore goes against the constitution, which is what really makes the country a good idea. I value the ability to say what ever I want far more than any piece of cloth. If you ask me, denying one of the rights our forefathers gave to use in the name of their memories is far closer to treason that exercising that right to the fullest is. After all, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

Freedom of speech is not merely limited to words alone, but to other forms of expression.

I trust in the Constitution; I do not make inferences which are not supported by the text. In this case, the document only mentions and condones speech, not diverse forms of expression. Flag burning is neither supported nor condemned by the Constitution.

After all: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

Allow me to reiterate: speech =/= burning. The Constitution protects free speech, not free burning of flags. After all, Voltaire did not say, "I may not agree with what you burn, but I will defend to the death your right to burn it."

*Voltaire*
A Frenchman to make your point? :D

j/k, Voltaire ROCKED.

Are you supposed to be Captain America's even more rabidly patriotic second cousin twice removed by marriage?

I can only dream of being related to such a heroic individual.

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

Lolz.

Flag burning is neither supported nor condemned by the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court, which is the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, have ruled written material as speech, and flag burning as well.

Even setting that aside, as you've said, the Constitution does not directly condemn or support it, so:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Any way you look at it -- it's allowed.

I can only dream of being related to such a heroic individual.

Well, Captain America is fictional, and you're beyond belief, so...

A Frenchman to make your point? :D

j/k, Voltaire ROCKED.


I'd rather know a frenchie that a ultra rightwing neocon like F&G ;)

Allow me to reiterate: speech =/= burning. The Constitution protects free speech, not free burning of flags. After all, Voltaire did not say, "I may not agree with what you burn, but I will defend to the death your right to burn it."

I quote wiki(I know, not that reliable, but still)

The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

*insert something about beer here

I always figured the best way to protect the flag is to protect what it stands for.

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

Well, Captain America is fictional, and you're beyond belief, so...

I know he's fictional; that's why I can only dream of being related to him.

However, the Supreme Court, which is the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, have ruled written material as speech, and flag burning as well.

The Supreme Court also deemed the mass murder of babies (or, if you prefer, foetuses) on an unimaginable scale to be legal, so pardon me if I take their opinions with a grain of salt.

*insert something about beer here


You win the thread.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

*points to above sentiments when reading Fag's posts.*

Fag, I'm wondering if this is you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuke_%28Marvel_Comics%29) whenever you're not blogging.

http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/0/03/Nuke.jpg

Let's see if this works. *Ahem*

"No V.C."

*Waits for response.*

Even setting that aside, as you've said, the Constitution does not directly condemn or support it, so:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Any way you look at it -- it's allowed.

The Constitution does not say that murder is illegal. Do you think the ninth and tenth amendments thus give citizens the right to wantonly murder?

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.
We did not fight the revolutionary war. A bunch of libertarians in the 18th century did. And since they were libertarians, this banning of flag burning would really piss them off.

The Constitution does not say that murder is illegal. Do you think the ninth and tenth amendments thus give citizens the right to wantonly murder?

As hard as it is for you, don't be dumb. There are fucking STATE LAWS against that. Also, if you say that you don't care about what the Supreme Court says, then you don't care about the Constitution, and therefore you're the one who doesn't care about what this country stands for.

abortion is not murder. Those things are hardly even alive.

Let's not get into a debate about abortion; that's not what this thread is about.

Why are people still taking F.A.G. seriously?

The Supreme Court also deemed the mass murder of babies (or, if you prefer, foetuses) on an unimaginable scale to be legal, so pardon me if I take their opinions with a grain of salt.

abortion is not murder. Those things are hardly even alive.

abortion is not murder. Those things are hardly even alive.

STOP NOW!!!

Please, let's not let Fag get started on the abortion debate. Swilatia, I don't agree with you on this issue, but the bigger issue right now is not giving Fag any more reason to start on all of us.

the Supreme Court says, then you don't care about the Constitution, and therefore you're the one who doesn't care about what this country stands for.

The Supreme Court is composed of fallible (and possibly senile) individuals. They, in their activism or idiocy, may distort the message of the Constitution. I trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, not political cronies appointed to the bench (Harriet Miers, for example [and yes, I know she was rejected by the Senate, but others were confirmed]).

STOP NOW!!!

Please, let's not let Fag get started on the abortion debate. Swilatia, I don't agree with you on this issue, but the bigger issue right now is not giving Fag any more reason to start on all of us.

Actually, I have no wish to indulge him in such a debate; in my previous post, I stated as much. However, thank you for trying to retain the original point of this thread against such diversions.

The Supreme Court is composed of fallible (and possibly senile) individuals. They, in their activism or idiocy, may distort the message of the Constitution. I trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, not political cronies appointed to the bench (Harriet Miers, for example [and yes, I know she was rejected by the Senate, but others were confirmed]).

But the fucking Constitution says you should respect them. Do you not care about the Constitution? Nothing is a more important symbol of what America should be than the damn thing!

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

Oh my creator, you've found it!

The terrorists want to tax us! Just like those tax and spend Democrats!

Wait! Democrats are British, and terrorists!

You've saved America from. . . . . . . .








Taxes.

Creator Forbid.

...Fag...

I am not a homosexual and disapprove of being referred to as "Fag." If your intent is to refer to me using a derogatory term, that is flaming. If you wish to use an abbreviation of my name, then use capital letters to denote it. Also consider calling me "F&G" or "F.A.G."

Allow me to reiterate: speech =/= burning. The Constitution protects free speech, not free burning of flags. After all, Voltaire did not say, "I may not agree with what you burn, but I will defend to the death your right to burn it."

If only the framers had made it clear that the Constitution was not the end-all, be-all of rights. Oh, wait:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of course, that still doesn't tell us anything about flag desecration or if it is protected by the Constitution. If only a body created by the Constitution had rendered decisions about flag desecration...

Oh, wait:

Texas v. Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson)

The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech", but the court reiterated their long recognition that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. This was an uncontroversial conclusion in light of cases such as Stromberg v. California (display of a red flag as speech) and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (wearing of a black armband as speech).

...

The court found that, "Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment... Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

United States v. Eichman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman)

In a 5-4 decision (with the justices voting the same way the did in Texas v. Johnson), the Court reaffirmed Johnson and struck down the law against flag burning. Brennan stated in the Court's opinion that "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering."

Unless you want to challenge the Constitutional basis of SCOTUS' authority, you may need to rethink your idea...

STOP NOW!!!

Please, let's not let Fag get started on the abortion debate. Swilatia, I don't agree with you on this issue, but the bigger issue right now is not giving Fag any more reason to start on all of us.

Don't worry. Fag has tended to ignore me, prolly from lack of a good argument on his side.

Actually, I have no wish to indulge him in such a debate; in my previous post, I stated as much. However, thank you for trying to retain the original point of this thread against such diversions.

Wow, apparently you're not Nuke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuke_%28Marvel_Comics%29), Captain America's extreme copy-off gone wrong. Much as I hate to say this, thank you for your (this is difficult) control in moderating the discourse on this thread. (That took a lot, by the way. A LOT!!!)

But the fucking Constitution says you should respect them.

Let's say that an ultra-conservative Congress appointed nine former KKK members to the bench, who decided that all blacks should still be slaves. Would you still respect them then? I certainly hope not.

Additionally, the Supreme Court should not have the power to pervert the message of the Constitution. The intent of the Founding Fathers was to only allow the Constitution to be changed by unanimous state ratification of a super-majority of the voting populace in the country. They did not foresee a future in which the Supreme Court could alter the document single-handedly.

The Supreme Court is composed of fallible (and possibly senile) individuals. They, in their activism or idiocy, may distort the message of the Constitution. I trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, not political cronies appointed to the bench (Harriet Miers, for example [and yes, I know she was rejected by the Senate, but others were confirmed]).

So you would deny a branch of the American gov't its power, simply because of age? Some patriot you are, now you want to destroy two parts of our constitution, simply because they don't agree with you.

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

Yahaaarrrr!

"What do ye think 't stands fer: meekly panderin' t' revoltingly immoral swabbies? Be that why we fought th' Revolutionary War? Do ye b'lieve 't stands fer allowin' traitorous fiends t' desecrate what we hold dear? Does 't stand fer timidly submittin' t' th' will o' such criminals? Nay! This nation be founded based on th' strength o' heroic men who refused t' allow the'r country t' be wrenched apart by th' maleficent English; we ortin't now surrender t' another breed o' maleficent foe who threatens th' same horrendous outcome." -Captain FAG of the USS Glory Fiend

*win snip*
http://spyhunter007.com/Images/game_over.jpg

So you would deny a branch of the American gov't its power, simply because of age? Some patriot you are, now you want to destroy two parts of our constitution, simply because they don't agree with you.

I wonder how that forms his feelings on Saint Ronald of Reagan.

I notice that you haven't responded to my post, F&G.

America was founded by libertarians. They were not red Republicans or blue Liberals. They were LIB-ER-TAR-IANS. They were not going to illegalize burning the flag, because it was against their ideology.

Any nation that's "mutilated" by someone desecrating it's flag doesn't deserve to be a nation in the first place.

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

Ah, here we get to the gist of it.

I am not going to meekly pander to "revoltingly immoral individuals" who will try to dilute the freedoms the founding fathers fought the revolution over to defend by passing laws specifically concieved to restrict those freedoms - especially when they make a show of standing on the moral high ground to do it. Any such law I would fight - as would the very heroic men who did found the United States. The strength of those heroic men was surpassed by their wisdom when they chose the cause and rights they were fighting for.

It seems you think they were fighting for a flag. I believe they were fighting for rights and a nation. There's a big difference. The English crown was fighting to preserve a status quo that treated the colonists as a resource to be used, rather than people with rights - one of those rights was the right to expression - this is why it is specifically enshrined in the constitution (and no, I am not going to debate the meaning of the word speech - that's ground that has been covered adequately).

As far as another breed of foe, I hate to say it, but the enemy you're referring to is *us* in this case, not some foriegn power.

The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance. - Thomas Paine

Any government that would threaten to exile people for protesting - whether in "speech" or flag burning - has given up anything but the pretense of supporting rights and moved on to despotism - and those heroic men knew that.

Let's say that an ultra-conservative Congress appointed nine former KKK members to the bench, who decided that all blacks should still be slaves. Would you still respect them then?

No, but based on a few of your previous posts, you might.

No, but based on a few of your previous posts, you might.
Not every rabid conservative is a racist, you know.

I can only dream of being related to such a heroic individual.

I want to have sex with Morrigan, myself. Of course, since we're both talking about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS here...

Not every rabid conservative is a racist, you know.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529105

I didn't say all of them were. I merely said that he was.

I agree; I am certainly not a xenophobe. Other nations should adopt similar patriotic measures. I would be a proponent of all the research bases in the Antarctic proudly displaying the symbol of their continent; however, I live in America, and I therefore make posts in reference to my country of residence. However, the same general principle applies globally.



Obviously, exceptions should be made for extenuating circumstances. For example, if your house burns down while you are away and your American flags along with it, you may still be a good citizen and therefore should not be deported.

Jingoism Jingoism, YEEHAW! Seriously, deporting people for burning a flag? Giving tax cuts if you fly one? So you'd like to force people to be patriotic because it's better that way then when it comes from within your own heart and soul. I've always wondered when your posts would get to the point of utter nonsense and congratulations!!!

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

Apart from the fact that he never said nor wrote that...

I want to have sex with Morrigan, myself. Of course, since we're both talking about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS here...

Me too! :)

Anyway, I oppose flag burning, because burning things generally isn't good for the environment. So..yeah..

Flag-beating, flag-lynching, and flag-tarring/feathering are tolerable.

I can only dream of being related to such a heroic individual.

Somehow, I think Cap might have a problem with your argument here - considering in the latest story-arc he actually took the fight against the American Government because that government began a registration program that he felt was impinging the freedom, rights and safety of heroes operating in the United States. It seems to me that the writers wanted him to feel more strongly for the principles of the USA than the symbols or the government itself. Just my interpretation there though.


Back to reality now. :-)

If my ideas were already being implemented, proposing them would be unnecessary, wouldn't it? I am suggesting that there should be such a requirement (well, not exactly, but something similar) precisely because there is no such measure currently in place and it is having adverse effects on society.



Freedom of speech? No, I'm not professing to be a master in regards to the English language, but I can tell you that burning is not the same thing as speaking. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees many rights, yet does not mention the right to free burning.

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you on many occasions. You CANNOT make someone love you or love your flag. America is more than the flag your ignorant troll. Damnit, I'm done feeding your overindulged ego.

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

You DO realize that to the English, the Americans were the maleficent ones, right?

Maleficence is in the eye of the beholder, chief.

Me too! :)

Well, actually it's between her and - for instance - Mystra or the Simbul or a powerful goddess. Kinda depends on power level regarding the act.

I can only dream of being related to such a heroic individual.

yeah, because you're both fake

Somehow, I think Cap might have a problem with your argument here - considering in the latest story-arc he actually took the fight against the American Government because that government began a registration program that he felt was impinging the freedom, rights and safety of heroes operating in the United States. It seems to me that the writers wanted him to feel more strongly for the principles of the USA than the symbols or the government itself. Just my interpretation there though.


Back to reality now. :-)

Shhh. Let's let him think Captain America is an yes-man to whatever government happens to stop by. That not to mention several OTHER characters, heroes at that, that are pacifist and question the jingoistic idea of "patriotism".

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War?

Wasn't the Revolutionary War fought so rich white dudes wouldn't have to pay taxes?

Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals?

Actually, it stands for 13 colonies and 50 states. Hell, the flag is an expose (an apostrophe grave belongs there, I believe) on how divided America is; every little section is kept separate...

No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

Right, 'cause we'd have be worse off under British rule. I mean, look at Canada and Australia. How awful.

Well, actually it's between her and - for instance - Mystra or the Simbul or a powerful goddess. Kinda depends on power level regarding the act.

You think about this much? :p

Too much power might be painful...

You think about this much? :p

Too much power might be painful...

Oh, the power isn't their sheer power or strength, it's about ability to warp reality.

Don't ask. You don't want to know. Just rest assured it's nothing evil. ;)

Apart from the fact that he never said nor wrote that...

Yea he did, try picking up almost any history book.

Oh, the power isn't their sheer power or strength, it's about ability to warp reality.

Don't ask. You don't want to know. Just rest assured it's nothing evil. ;)

Warp reality... right, yeah, don't want to know at all. Not the least bit interested. Best if you never mentioned it.

<.<

>.>
psst... Quick, all the details, before someone else highlights this post..

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage

The World != America. The wondrous interweb tubes don't stop at the US border y'know. Jump to fatuous conclusions much?

Warp reality... right, yeah, don't want to know at all. Not the least bit interested. Best if you never mentioned it.

<.<

>.>
psst... Quick, all the details, before someone else highlights this post..

Well, think about what a goddess could do, and you'd reach the conclusion that there are MANY possibilities, including the fact that I'm whiting this part out so as to play a bit with whoever highlights it but will TG you if asked with the crazier details. You can either TG me for them or ask for them here, but do tell if you wish. See?

Yea he did, try picking up almost any history book.

First of all, the actual quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

And it was written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. It was written in her biography of Voltaire, as a way of illustrating his beliefs.

Well, think about what a goddess could do, and you'd reach the conclusion that there are MANY possibilities, including the fact that I'm whiting this part out so as to play a bit with whoever highlights it but will TG you if asked with the crazier details. See?

*thinks*
:eek:

:cool:

:)

Crazier details, awesome. I welcome a TG. The only thing that sends me TGs is the bloody UN. Dang peacekeepers... I get so desperate that I sometimes send TGs to myself.:(

Alright, now I am just messing with your heads. White text ftw.

Flag desecration is morally justified on principle, in contempt of countries and in rejection of the corruption of patriotism.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to desecrate the US flag, too... but I'll leave those aside.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to desecrate the US flag, too... but I'll leave those aside.

What he is trying to say, is that when you run out of toilet paper, there aren't many decent alternatives...

The US Supreme Court has disagreed with you on many occasions. You CANNOT make someone love you or love your flag. America is more than the flag your ignorant troll. Damnit, I'm done feeding your overindulged ego.

While I don't disagree, the Supreme Court isn't exactly infallable. :p

You DO realize that to the English, the Americans were the maleficent ones, right?

Maleficence is in the eye of the beholder, chief.

Yeah, but history clearly proved them wrong, remember. :)

What he is trying to say, is that when you run out of toilet paper, there aren't many decent alternatives...

Don't compare national flags to toilet paper.

No one ever uses toilet paper to represent murderous imperialist states.

Don't compare national flags to toilet paper.

No one ever uses toilet paper to represent murderous imperialist states.

Makes a nice white flag once the murderous imperialist states start winning.

Don't compare national flags to toilet paper.

No one ever uses toilet paper to represent murderous imperialist states.

Oh. Sorry. :(

I crossed the line there.

I should probably post this in the confessions thread.

*forms a murderous imperialist state and makes a flag out of toilet paper*
muahahaha

Makes a nice white flag once the murderous imperialist states start winning.

We will never surrender.

Oh. Sorry. :(

I crossed the line there.

My comment wasn't meant seriously... but you knew that.

We will never surrender.



My comment wasn't meant seriously... but you knew that.

No we shall not! Remember the Alamo!

Wait, you were joking? I thought I really was in the wrong there.
Man, you had me running to the bathroom to apologize. But you already knew that.

I can only dream of being related to such a heroic individual.

Captain America supports the right to burn the American flag.

Captain America supports the right to burn the American flag.

Morrigan supports the right to have sex on the Scottish one! :D

How do a bunch of colors on a cloth illustrate what people fought and died for?

it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great.
The main value of the US is freedom, obviously you don't understand the concept.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave. A symbol is not the object it symbolizes. A simple concept that people can't seem to understand. In the US the most patriotic people are those that protest wrong. The least patriotic are those that protect a piece of cloth over the first amendment.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags). The common thread is the freedoms of the constitution.

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

From Hitler's head to yours. Fascist is fascist no matter what country.

Captain America supports the right to burn the American flag.

And the supersoldier formula involves stem cells.

Morrigan supports the right to have sex on the Scottish one! :D

:(
I'm not scottish...
:(

:(
I'm not scottish...
:(

ON a Scottish flag, not WITH a Scottish person ON a flag. :p

ON a Scottish flag, not WITH a Scottish person ON a flag. :p

I'm not a Scottish flag either...:(

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

*Dismisses this direct nationalistic crap and rolls around in the mud with all the flags of the world*

Come on FAG. We all know what blind nationalism leads to.

Hint: It was WWI last time... and thus WWII as well... and all that badness.

And thus I leave.

... is gigglesworthy.




:D





silly colonials.

Hint: It was WWI last time... and thus WWII as well... and all that badness.

And thus I leave.

Arg! Why did you have to ruin the prequels?
You know people can't resist spoilers..

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

Fuck nationalism. People in one country are not inherently better than anyone in any country.

You CANNOT make someone love you or love your flag.

No, but you can expel those who overtly show contempt for the flag and can instill positive values in future generations by exposing them to widespread patriotism and unity. If one grows up in an environment where love for one's country is openly and consistently expressed, the experience will mold them and steer them down the path towards being devoted to America, its flag, and its populace.

It's a brilliant idea. Because, naturally, giving tax breaks is the best way to promote patriotism.

No, what it would do is to mean that there's more flags everywhere, giving me and various others headaches. You can't make people be patriotic.

Fuck nationalism. People in one country are not inherently better than anyone in any country.

Inherently is a funny word. Are you implying that Americans are born as equals to, say, Zimbabweans, but become superior to them only later in life?

No, but you can expel those who overtly show contempt for the flag and can instill positive values in future generations by exposing them to widespread patriotism and unity. If one grows up in an environment where love for one's country is openly and consistently expressed, the experience will mold them and steer them down the path towards being devoted to America, its flag, and its populace.

You know what? I was wrong earlier. Our nation's youth need good bellyfeel goodthink; freedom is slavery, after all, yes? Foreigners doubleplusungood. All hail Big Brother! All hail Oceania!

To those who don't get it, I made allusions to 1984 in order to satirize FAG.

Inherently is a funny word. Are you implying that Americans are born as equals to, say, Zimbabweans, but become superior to them only later in life?

No; I'm saying that being American makes them no better in any way. Only how one acts toward their fellow man can do that.

"Experience is not what happens to a man, but what a man does with what he is given" -Aldous Huxley (paraphrased)

Inherently is a funny word. Are you implying that Americans are born as equals to, say, people like me, but become superior to them only later in life?

That was actually pretty witty.

I know he's fictional; that's why I can only dream of being related to him.Oh, if i weren't only relatively straight .... :p

Sigworthy.

Most American flags are made in China.

Have fun financing your downfall.

The United States is no longer a huge world power.

But we can hold onto the illusion a bit longer.

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

Most American flags are made in China.

Have fun financing your downfall.

No, but you can expel those who overtly show contempt for the flag and can instill positive values in future generations by exposing them to widespread patriotism and unity. If one grows up in an environment where love for one's country is openly and consistently expressed, the experience will mold them and steer them down the path towards being devoted to America, its flag, and its populace.
Ah, Japan in the 1930's through the 40's. Nice, facism at its finest.

Remember the Alamo!

Remember Def Leppard!

How do a bunch of colors on a cloth illustrate what people fought and died for?

Same way a communion wafer and grape juice illustrate ceremonial cannibalism, i suspect.

Remember Def Leppard!

What? What did you say? Can't hear ya!

And the supersoldier formula involves stem cells.
Does it? Is the Black Oil based with special stem cells?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonist_(The_X-Files)

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

Fuck nationalism. People in one country are not inherently better than anyone in any country.

Other than Elbonia, of course.

What? What did you say? Can't hear ya!

You're right, they were only marginally involved.
It's Ozzy who's never gonna forget The Alamo.
http://www.leisuresuit.net/Webzine/articles/behind_themusic.shtml

How do a bunch of colors on a cloth illustrate what people fought and died for?

Symbolism?

Symbolism?

...the American flag symbolizes that people can count...

Or

George Washington is credited for saying: "We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty."

So... how does that symbolize the people who fought and died for lower taxes?

So... how does that symbolize the people who fought and died for lower taxes?

Because we seperated from Britain and...and they were making us pay taxes...um.. and now we have more taxes.
:(

Leave us alone..we are bit a wee lass of a country!

If F&G thinks flag-burners should be deported, he probably wants Canada detached from North America. After all, we burned the White House.


The loser was America,
The winner was ourselves,
So join right in and gloat about the War of 1812

And the White House burned, burned, burned,
And we're the one's that did it!
It burned, burned, burned,
While the president ran and cried.
It burned, burned, burned,
And things were very historical.


Hope I got the quoting HTML right. Also I found the band's name rather amusing.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

So you oppose:

1) Private property rights
2) Free speech
and
3) The right to dissent?


Whoa. *steps back*

So you oppose:

1) Private property rights
2) Free speech
and
3) The right to dissent?


Whoa. *steps back*

Since I don't know who you quoted there.*

Yes.
*waves spear with flag attached*
You might want to take a few more steps*
*stabs*


*after the first QUOTE tag word thing, put = and then the name:
like [QU.OTE=FreedomandGlory]blahblahihatepeople[/QU.OTE]

without the .'s

So... how does that symbolize the people who fought and died for lower taxes?

George Washington is credited for saying: "We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't America separate from Great Britain in some war or such?

George Washington is credited for saying: "We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't America separate from Great Britain in some war or such?

Yeah. So you're saying the Revolutionary War was fought for the sake of war?

Wasn't the Revolutionary War fought so rich white dudes wouldn't have to pay taxes?

Yes. As I understand, they were actually behind the "No Taxation even with Representation" banner, but they never got a chance to pull that one out.

Actually, it stands for 13 colonies and 50 states. Hell, the flag is an expose (an apostrophe grave belongs there, I believe) on how divided America is; every little section is kept separate...

Six timezones just for the 50 states, plus our territories, which get seperate administration structures, a money regualtion system that divides the country into twelve regions, yep, we're fragmented. :D

Right, 'cause we'd have be worse off under British rule. I mean, look at Canada and Australia. How awful.

Let's not compare the sizes of manly deserts here, okay? Or the better process to political administration. I for one am proud that America was not started entirely as a prison system. Well, except for Georgia, which was a debtor's prison colony. And I suppose the number of exilees wasn't exactly within proportional representation. But you get my point.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Dailyshow_a.jpg



Happy Father's Day Folks



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Colbert_report.jpg

Yeah. So you're saying the Revolutionary War was fought for the sake of war?

When did I say that?

When did I say that?

Well, you said that the colours on the cloth represent what people died for through symbolism.

How do a bunch of colors on a cloth illustrate what people fought and died for?
Symbolism?

And then you stated that said colours represent a war.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't America separate from Great Britain in some war or such?

So, you said that people died for what the cloth symbolizes, which is a war, ergo, they died for the sake of a war.

Six timezones just for the 50 states, plus our territories, which get seperate administration structures, a money regualtion system that divides the country into twelve regions, yep, we're fragmented. :D


Hence federalism... the whole "states' rights" thing.

Hence federalism... the whole "states' rights" thing.

And Local Government!!! Let's not forget the importance of the wee lil' guys that provide our police brutality, our city council land grabs, the mayoral graft, capitalistic ward bosses with Grand Cayman Bank Accounts, and our ever important privately funded judiciary.

WOO-HOO Federalism!! Spreading corruption to areas farther than just the national politicos.

Yeah, but history clearly proved them wrong, remember. :)

It did no such thing. Being right doesn't mean being the last one to get sick of killing the other.

Well, you said that the colours on the cloth represent what people died for through symbolism.



And then you stated that said colours represent a war.



So, you said that people died for what the cloth symbolizes, which is a war, ergo, they died for the sake of a war.

They died in the war, genius. You asked how it symbolizes people who fought and died. Well, didn't people die in the revolutionary war?

Are you supposed to be Captain America's even more rabidly patriotic second cousin twice removed by marriage?

Don't make me re-post the epic Captain Americana comics, Kat.

Symbolism?

The problem with this whole thread is the inability of people to separate a symbol from what the symbol stands for. A symbol is just a means to convey an idea from one brain to another. Nothing more nothing less. Doing something to a symbol has no effect on that which is symbolized. If someone dies for a symbol they are a fool. I don't know of a soldier or other "hero" that has ever died for a flag or other symbol. They die for their nation and what ideals that nation stands for. In the US the ideal is personal freedom as recorded in the Bill of Rights (another symbol). The most patriotic person defends those rights. The least patriotic person will argue that symbols such as a flag are more important than the ideals that the flag conveys. It's not the person covered head to toe, or otherwise exhibiting symbols it's the person that understands the meaning of symbols and lives up the the ideals.

The American Flag is no ifferent from any other flag, and a flag is no different from any other piece of cloth. Therefore, people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it.

Well I wouldn't want anyone strangled... Or use it to troll forums....

Well I wouldn't want anyone strangled... Or use it to troll forums....

Gah, I had a witty response written down before I saw the white text.

...DAMN YOU WHITE TEEEEEXT!

The problem with this whole thread is the inability of people to separate a symbol from what the symbol stands for. A symbol is just a means to convey an idea from one brain to another. Nothing more nothing less. Doing something to a symbol has no effect on that which is symbolized. If someone dies for a symbol they are a fool. I don't know of a soldier or other "hero" that has ever died for a flag or other symbol. They die for their nation and what ideals that nation stands for. In the US the ideal is personal freedom as recorded in the Bill of Rights (another symbol). The most patriotic person defends those rights. The least patriotic person will argue that symbols such as a flag are more important than the ideals that the flag conveys. It's not the person covered head to toe, or otherwise exhibiting symbols it's the person that understands the meaning of symbols and lives up the the ideals.

I don't disagree with that; I just find it frustrating that people lack the insight that the "piece of cloth with pretty colors" is revered because of its symbolism.

I'm not sure what you're going on about here, but if you're proposing that it be a requirement to be a citizen to love the country, that is futile and - short of massively Orwellian measures, unverifiable (probably even then, and if you're willing to take the issue to that degree, you may feel more at home in totalitarian regimes who do *try* to make it a requirement).

There are much better ways to use mass surveilance than to try to stop people destroying a flag. Looking out for Goldstein for instance ;) .

I always figured the best way to protect the flag is to protect what it stands for. Anything else, and you just feed the argument that many protesters already have that the government and administration the United States has little more than hypocracy to offer regarding the rights they are supposed to protect and guarantee.

Could you protect it by having 'destroy a flag day'? That would be fun.

Steppenwolf - Monster Lyrics


Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog

And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

Gah, I had a witty response written down before I saw the white text.

...DAMN YOU WHITE TEEEEEXT!

*Waves hand* There is no white text. Now what was that witty response?

*Waves hand* There is no white text. Now what was that witty response?

But they'd make great tinder for my molotov cocktails.

Then their actions will be that much more treasonous; it disgusts me that such people may betray their country after residing within it and enjoying the benefits it has to offer for decades. It's one thing for an immigrant unaccustomed to our modern, freedom-loving way of life to show disrespect towards our flag; however, it is quite another thing for someone who was born and bred in this country to commit so vile a deed.

Way to show how much freedom we have ... by trying to make it a deportable crime to burn a piece of cloth

Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,
Great Russia has welded forever to stand.
Created in struggle by will of the people,
United and mighty, our Soviet land!

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.
O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,
To Communism's triumph lead us on!

Through tempests the sunrays of freedom have cheered us,
Along the new path where great Lenin did lead.
To a righteous cause he raised up the peoples,
Inspired them to labour and valourous deed.

In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,
We see the future of our dear land.
And to her fluttering scarlet banner,
Selflessly true we always shall stand!


That's right, feel that patriotism!

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars.

:eek: Triumph of the upper classes! Since the rich can afford more flags, they recieve larger tax cuts! Where will the injustice end?

P.S. I ignored the last part of your paragraph, to enhance this post. I'm not really all that sorry about it.

-snip-

It's a shame more people such as yourself don't think that way.

Our society has been in decline ever since the Greatest Generation.

That's right, feel that patriotism!

The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here

It waved above our infant might
When all ahead seemed dark as night
It witnessed many a deed and vow
We must not change its colour now

It well recalls the triumphs past
It gives the hope of peace at last
The banner bright, the symbol plain
Of human right and human gain

It suits today the meek and base
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place
To cringe beneath the rich man's frown
And haul that sacred emblem down

With heads uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim
This song shall be our parting hymn

That's pretty patriotic, too…

Sorry, F&G. Non-American patriotism is still patriotism.

As the fabric of the flag is destroyed by the blistering inferno, so too is the fabric of our society being rent apart every time a flag is burned. This issue has a most profound impact on our beloved country, for there are those who seek to defile that which is most sacred to us; if unchecked, they may corrupt the minds of our children, increase social tension, dissipate the nascent feeling of oneness among Americans, etc. Their atrocious behavior must be focused on.

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

Because he's a Muslim liberal communist.

You have to hand it to F&G, he starts the bestest of threads - this is a classic, I'd argue on his side just for kicks if I thought he needed the help

Internationalism > Nationalism

Why do you hate freedom?

Thats it! F.a.G is a terrorist!

this is really the most idiotic topic I've read in a while
thank you for making me happy

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage...

YOUR heritage. Not MINE. WE aren't all americans, you know. The bloody internet isn't USA territory.

Troll.

Hahahaha

You say desecrating the US flag is mutilating America itself. WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES IN AMERICA!

ON a Scottish flag, not WITH a Scottish person ON a flag. :p

Awww, I wanted to do both....

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

Fuck nationalism. People in one country are not inherently better than anyone in any country.

Once the penguins overthrow the shackals of the oppressive lonely scientists in Antartica we will know of an inherently better country.

All praise our Spheniscidae masters!

some people it would seem (refering to the "o.p.") define "freedom" rather straingely.

=^^=
.../\...

Ahh yes, the ever popular conservative hot button b/s issue.

Let's review a few things.

In the Bible, God proscribes against worshipping false idols or Gods other than him. Flag worship is idolatry and punishable by death by stoning.

So F&G is an Idolater.

~S

That's a fair bit of stereotyping you have going on there...


>.<

Flagburning: fun for all the family.

The Supreme Court is composed of fallible (and possibly senile) individuals. They, in their activism or idiocy, may distort the message of the Constitution. I trust in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, not political cronies appointed to the bench (Harriet Miers, for example [and yes, I know she was rejected by the Senate, but others were confirmed]).
The wisdom of the founding fathers appointed the Supreme Court as the arbiter of what the Constitution says, or did you forget that point?

In any case, let us see what a founding father has to say on the subject of freedom of speech that is not actual spoken speech: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man... Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech, a terrible thing to public traitors." -Benjamin Franklin on censoring the press.

It would seem that at least one founding father, probably the wisest one, felt that freedom of speech didn't have to be limited to just the spoken word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States

Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Flag_burning.jpg

Burn baby burn,... oh yeah, I'm an iconoclast.

I am not a homosexual and disapprove of being referred to as "Fag." If your intent is to refer to me using a derogatory term, that is flaming. If you wish to use an abbreviation of my name, then use capital letters to denote it. Also consider calling me "F&G" or "F.A.G."

This has nothing to do with homsexuality, I'm just too lazy to hold down shift. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should have chosen a different name, one that not shorten to a word that offends you.

...not again...

I bet Freedom is a closet homosexual.

I bet Freedom is a closet homosexual.

how so?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529105

I didn't say all of them were. I merely said that he was.Which isn't racist.

So Freedom dislikes the burning of a piece of symbolic cloth, but likes the literal burning of the Constitution.

So Freedom dislikes the burning of a piece of symbolic cloth, but likes the literal burning of the Constitution.

Nah, hes laughing really. He probably doesn't give a fuck, he just wants to troll and piss people off.

Nah, hes laughing really. He probably doesn't give a fuck, he just wants to troll and piss people off.

The Morrigan sidetrack was fun though. :D

But the fucking Constitution says you should respect them. Do you not care about the Constitution? Nothing is a more important symbol of what America should be than the damn thing!

No F.A.G. cares for nothing which doesn't fit his agenda. He will deny the rights of human beings and the branches of our government to support his inane arguments. The fact remains that the founders created three branches of government to balance power. FAG cannot write off one just because you feel like it and it fits your needs. You have been pawned in this thread on many occasions and your only response is "because I want it that way." The framers of the constitution created the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality and you cannot deny them their right because their rulings PROVE you wrong. So end the strawman shit and realize you have been defeated as you most commonly are FAG.

So Freedom dislikes the burning of a piece of symbolic cloth, but likes the literal burning of the Constitution.

QFT

Bah, I refuse to read through a 13 page flag burning thread. If FAG is really so offended about people burning the American flag than he can go start his own country where he can make whatever laws he wishes and oppress people all he wishes. In the name of "freedom" of course.

Now now he hates being called FAG and will report anyone who does so as flaming him.


Flaming FAG.

:eek:

Bah, I refuse to read through a 13 page flag burning thread. If FAG is really so offended about people burning the American flag than he can go start his own country where he can make whatever laws he wishes and oppress people all he wishes. In the name of "freedom" of course.

Bah, I refuse to read through a 13 page flag burning thread. If FAG is really so offended about people burning the American flag than he can go start his own country where he can make whatever laws he wishes and oppress people all he wishes. In the name of "freedom" of course.

Well, I just did... Could've saved a loooot of time... :(

The moment that burning the American flag is outlawed is the moment when it must be burned.

Which isn't racist.

Yes, it is. He's advocating "reverse reverse racism" to fix the problems caused by "reverse racism". Both of those are racist. That's why the word "racism" is involved.

I am not a homosexual and disapprove of being referred to as "Fag." If your intent is to refer to me using a derogatory term, that is flaming. If you wish to use an abbreviation of my name, then use capital letters to denote it. Also consider calling me "F&G" or "F.A.G."

What about I refer to you as The Person That Makes Contradictory Statements About Things? You DO have a record of wanting to curb freedom to protect freedom, of wanting to apply racist policies against what you see as racism, and on it goes. So...

Oh, and, for that matter:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12716157&postcount=12

To clarify; if people take offense at the use of "FAG" as an acronym for "FreedomAndGlory", they are idiots. Now there are a lot of idiots in this world, but if they complain about this they will not have a case. You may use the acronym "FAG" for "FreedomAndGlory". If you're worried about it, you can use "F.A.G." or "F&G" or "F'n'G" or something.

Since I still have some faint hope in the rationality of humanity, I do not believe that this will be a problem.

~ Tsarmageddon

But do report whoever you wish.

Now now he hates being called FAG and will report anyone who does so as flaming him.


Flaming FAG.

:eek:

Bah, I am simply using the acronym of his name, it isn't my fault that it turns into a word he may not want to be associated with. He can go right ahead. Perhaps he could instead respond to the contradiction of loving freedom and at the same time wanting to ban acts of free speech?

I am not a homosexual and disapprove of being referred to as "Fag." If your intent is to refer to me using a derogatory term, that is flaming. If you wish to use an abbreviation of my name, then use capital letters to denote it. Also consider calling me "F&G" or "F.A.G."

And it depends on where you're from. As it has been GENEROUSLY pointed out here, many of us are not American, myself included. So, we don't ascribe to your pre-determined meaning of words.

"Fag", while referring to a person of homosexual inclination in North America, over in Britain refers to a cigarette. So, you ask for a carton of fags when you're looking for that quick nicotine fix overseas.

*pictures a small box of flaming homos* Teehee

We can call you whatever we want (short of flaming of course) because we know how much you support freedom of speech (after all, text is a form of the spoken word, which you seem to support).

So, if I call you "Fag" without writing it in acronym form, I'm still calling you by your name because if I had actually spoken it, I wouldn't have to capitalise it because spoken word doesn't rely on pesky things like punctuation and upper and lower case.

Bah, I am simply using the acronym of his name, it isn't my fault that it turns into a word he may not want to be associated with. He can go right ahead. Perhaps he could instead respond to the contradiction of loving freedom and at the same time wanting to ban acts of free speech?

MTAE just picked that name so he could whine to the mods when people invariably referred to him as FAG, it's a transparent maneuver. He used to be such an amusing troll, now he's getting boring.

FAG certainly likes his flags.
Although we don't like to nag,
NSG would like the FAG to pack his bags.
Cos we wouldn't want to have to gag the FAG :p

This concludes today's lesson in awful rhymage

MTAE just picked that name so he could whine to the mods when people invariably referred to him as FAG, it's a transparent maneuver. He used to be such an amusing troll, now he's getting boring.

It's his fault for picking a gay name. :)

It's his fault for picking a gay name. :)

Maybe his next one will be called the Great Atheist Yodelers.

Maybe his next one will be called the Great Atheist Yodelers.

Or Sensitive Orwellian Nostrums On Free Articles Beyond Intimate Technical Casual Hits. Y'know, when he REALLY wants to get people to give him fodder to complain. :p

Maybe his next one will be called the Great Atheist Yodelers.

This line of thought can lead to no good. :p

Maybe his next one will be called the Great Atheist Yodelers.

Or "Society Of Divine Occidental Male Yuppies"

Or Sensitive Orwellian Nostrums On Free Articles Beyond Intimate Technical Casual Hits. Y'know, when he REALLY wants to get people to give him fodder to complain. :p

Sleek Easy Little Freeman Tight Or Utilization Cuckoo Hell Evil Remora.

Or Freudian Apparatus Playing Poker Evilly Rapidly.

Sleek Easy Little Freeman Tight Or Utilization Cuckoo Hell Evil Remora.

Or Freudian Apparatus Playing Poker Evilly Rapidly.

Then there's the ever classical Impossible Donuts In Other Tapestries. :p

This line of thought can lead to no good. :p

It's already leading to no good. :p

It's already leading to no good. :p

Being no good sure is fun though. :D

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Just as every single national flag is...

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

You're supposed to get rid of old flags by BURNING them... It's called "retiring" the flag...

Allowed to leave you say? I'm allowed to leave anytime I want to anyways...

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Perhaps you may realize now how many people will display flags just for money, not for country.

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

Sooner or later those flags will have to burn...
We're trying to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not increase it.

While I don't disagree, the Supreme Court isn't exactly infallable. :p

but they are the rule of law no matter what people wish it to be. The framers of the Constitution intended for there to be three interlinking branches of government with oversight. Therefor, F&G's argument is pure Jingoism and ethnocentric idiocy.

but they are the rule of law no matter what people wish it to be. The framers of the Constitution intended for there to be three interlinking branches of government with oversight. Therefor, F&G's argument is pure Jingoism and ethnocentric idiocy.

Oo! He could be Jingoistic Ethnocentric Radical Kappa Overseeing Freedom Failure!

Perhaps you may realize now how many people will display flags just for money, not for country.

Well in this case I would guess that the person wouldn't be a true patriotic American and should allow him/herself to be deported or some such nonsense. :rolleyes:

Then their actions will be that much more treasonous; it disgusts me that such people may betray their country after residing within it and enjoying the benefits it has to offer for decades. It's one thing for an immigrant unaccustomed to our modern, freedom-loving way of life to show disrespect towards our flag; however, it is quite another thing for someone who was born and bred in this country to commit so vile a deed.

Hang on a second FreedomAndGlory. You just mentioned that your country loves freedom yet you are advocating harsh punishments for people who choose to do what they want? What the fuck is free about that? Give yersel peace! Freedom to do exactly what you are told. Why how swell!?!?!?!

"One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
Ace! Can I get some?

This has nothing to do with homsexuality, I'm just too lazy to hold down shift. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should have chosen a different name, one that not shorten to a word that offends you.


Swilatia, I almost never agree with you, but this time I gotta shake your hand! :)

What do you think it stands for: meekly pandering to revoltingly immoral individuals? Is that why we fought the Revolutionary War? Do you believe it stands for allowing traitorous fiends to desecrate what we hold dear? Does it stand for timidly submitting to the will of such criminals? No! This nation was founded based on the strength of heroic men who refused to allow their country to be wrenched apart by the maleficent English; we should not now surrender to another breed of maleficent foe who threatens the same horrendous outcome.

*Sigh*

I really don't like giving Revolutionary War lectures, but you leave me no other option.

1)What did we do that was revoltingly immoral. Maybe not fair. But I wouldn't go so far as "revolting" without justification.

2)Our government were criminals? Have a look at your allies from the same period: France. Eek.

3)I'm reasonably sure that the Revolutionary troops defaced British symbols.

4)Not all, perhaps not many of you fought for America. George Washington had problems getting you to swear allegiance to anything other than states, tax cuts, and free native land, taken by force.

5)Note that the above list doesn't include preserving your national unity. You didn't have one back then. In fact, it's rather dumb to argue that we were carving up a country, since you were rebelling against our recognised government over the thirteen colonies.

6) I'm Scottish, and one major Revolution general was a Newfoundlander. Can I get me a "British"?

I'm not adressing the original point because so many others have expressed my opinion very eloquently. See the Voltaire quote.

Can I be a wee bit naughty and ask a question about the constitution.
If it is such an incredible and wonderful thing brought about by people so stupendous as to make burning the flag a crime. Why did they have to add the bit about freedom of speech later on? Did they just happen to forget the first time?
:sniper:

Why do you do this?
This post is the 213th in the thread. I think that answers the question.

The framers of the Constitution intended for there to be three interlinking branches of government with oversight.

As I previously stated, the did not allow for the Supreme Court to pervert the intent of the Constitution. Speech should be narrowly construed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be; perhaps it can extend to encompass all forms of expressing an idea, be it via sign language, writing, or talking. However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted as condoning purely physical acts of vandalism. If the Supreme Court flaunts the will of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., it is a treacherous entity whose verdicts must be resisted. As Jefferson said, a revolution now and then is a good thing to keep a government in check; he foresaw that power-hungry demagogues such as Ginsburg might try to usurp control of the federal government from our elected officials.

As I previously stated, the did not allow for the Supreme Court to pervert the intent of the Constitution. Speech should be narrowly construed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be; perhaps it can extend to encompass all forms of expressing an idea, be it via sign language, writing, or talking. However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted as condoning purely physical acts of vandalism. If the Supreme Court flaunts the will of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., it is a treacherous entity whose verdicts must be resisted. As Jefferson said, a revolution now and then is a good thing to keep a government in check; he foresaw that power-hungry demagogues such as Ginsburg might try to usurp control of the federal government from our elected officials.

I would assume anyone who burns the flag would have bought it themselves. Is destroying your own property vandalism now?

Swilatia, I almost never agree with you, but this time I gotta shake your hand! :)

Same here. Made me laugh. :p

As I previously stated, the did not allow for the Supreme Court to pervert the intent of the Constitution. Speech should be narrowly construed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be; perhaps it can extend to encompass all forms of expressing an idea, be it via sign language, writing, or talking. However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted as condoning purely physical acts of vandalism. If the Supreme Court flaunts the will of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., it is a treacherous entity whose verdicts must be resisted. As Jefferson said, a revolution now and then is a good thing to keep a government in check; he foresaw that power-hungry demagogues such as Ginsburg might try to usurp control of the federal government from our elected officials.

How is it vandalism when it's your property?

You bought the flag and then one you owned it, you burnt it. How can you be charged with vandalism when it's something you bought?

You may have a valid argument if the person went onto someone else's property and desecrated the flag, but not if the person bought it then destroyed it.

Let's say in addition to the flag, you also bought a shirt (a nice plain non-descript white shirt) and you burnt the shirt as well. Wouldn't that be an act of vandalism if burning the flag is?

As I previously stated, the did not allow for the Supreme Court to pervert the intent of the Constitution. Speech should be narrowly construed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be; perhaps it can extend to encompass all forms of expressing an idea, be it via sign language, writing, or talking. However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted as condoning purely physical acts of vandalism. If the Supreme Court flaunts the will of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., it is a treacherous entity whose verdicts must be resisted. As Jefferson said, a revolution now and then is a good thing to keep a government in check; he foresaw that power-hungry demagogues such as Ginsburg might try to usurp control of the federal government from our elected officials.

This is all your opinion which accounts for....jack. They did allow for equal power to be shared amongst the branches of government. Just because you don't like what they have said from the 1930's on doesn't mean they are wrong. You are the only one who feels they are treacherous, the rest of us support the rule of law. In other words, the decision is not yours to make it is theirs. And that's exactly how the framers wanted it.

As I previously stated, the did not allow for the Supreme Court to pervert the intent of the Constitution. Speech should be narrowly construed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be; perhaps it can extend to encompass all forms of expressing an idea, be it via sign language, writing, or talking. However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted as condoning purely physical acts of vandalism.

Idolater! Flag worshipper! Heathen!

Ohh, God's going to give you such a smack!

Burning the flag is protected protest speech, it's reprehensible and I don't like it, but it's protected. To criminalize flag burning is just one step more towards regulating free speech and expression. The Secret Service already disallows peaceful protesters from gathering near the President where he can see the signs and be confronted by his constituents who are demanding redress for grievances.

As for you, you let your politics overshadow your common sense. How many flag burnings of note have there been lately? Oh, my heavens let's all go out and barbecue a flag.

In my time in service, I always knew there were going to be people who think military service is (fill in epithet here), did I demand those people be silenced? NO, because I was fighting for their right to speak their mind. Burning the flag is just an extension of that argument, and while I might not like it, the SYMBOL of this nation is not tarnished because someone burns a single flag, or even multiple flags.

It WOULD be tarnished if yahoos like you are allowed to restrict American's rights to free speech and expression, up to an including the burning of a flag in protest.

Suck it up, big boy. It's a piece of cloth, that embodies IDEAS. The ideas and ideals are more important than the physical substitute.

~S

As I previously stated, the did not allow for the Supreme Court to pervert the intent of the Constitution. Speech should be narrowly construed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be; perhaps it can extend to encompass all forms of expressing an idea, be it via sign language, writing, or talking. However, under no circumstances should it be interpreted as condoning purely physical acts of vandalism. If the Supreme Court flaunts the will of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., it is a treacherous entity whose verdicts must be resisted. As Jefferson said, a revolution now and then is a good thing to keep a government in check; he foresaw that power-hungry demagogues such as Ginsburg might try to usurp control of the federal government from our elected officials.

That's why there's more than one justice as well. Are you telling me multiple courts are liberal, America hating, terrists? Your opinion matter far less than the USSC and the Framers of the Constitution. That's why they sit on the high bench and you sit on your high horse.

Let's say in addition to the flag, you also bought a shirt (a nice plain non-descript white shirt) and you burnt the shirt as well. Wouldn't that be an act of vandalism if burning the flag is?

Good call.

And, of course, how about a shirt with the Stars and Stripes on it?
Or if someone paints the Stars and Stripes on their car, does it become a terrible crime to have that car scrapped?
If you have the Stars and Stripes tattooed on you, should it then be illegal to have tattoo removal treatment?
Suppose it's an older version of the Stars and Stripes, with less stars, does the law still apply?
Suppose the design has been very very subtly altered so that it is not actually the Stars and Stripes, but looks a lot like it?
How will the people clearing up after a big patriotic rally dispose of all the leftover flags? Surely throwing them in the bin can't be alright?

Good call.

And, of course, how about a shirt with the Stars and Stripes on it?
Or if someone paints the Stars and Stripes on their car, does it become a terrible crime to have that car scrapped?
If you have the Stars and Stripes tattooed on you, should it then be illegal to have tattoo removal treatment?
Suppose it's an older version of the Stars and Stripes, with less stars, does the law still apply?
Suppose the design has been very very subtly altered so that it is not actually the Stars and Stripes, but looks a lot like it?
How will the people clearing up after a big patriotic rally dispose of all the leftover flags? Surely throwing them in the bin can't be alright?

The flag isn't supposed to touch the ground.

So, is it a crime to drop one of those miniature flags on the ground? It may be made of paper and cardboard, but is it still not a flag?

Idolater! Flag worshipper! Heathen!

Ohh, God's going to give you such a smack!

Burning the flag is protected protest speech, it's reprehensible and I don't like it, but it's protected. To criminalize flag burning is just one step more towards regulating free speech and expression. The Secret Service already disallows peaceful protesters from gathering near the President where he can see the signs and be confronted by his constituents who are demanding redress for grievances.

As for you, you let your politics overshadow your common sense. How many flag burnings of note have there been lately? Oh, my heavens let's all go out and barbecue a flag.

In my time in service, I always knew there were going to be people who think military service is (fill in epithet here), did I demand those people be silenced? NO, because I was fighting for their right to speak their mind. Burning the flag is just an extension of that argument, and while I might not like it, the SYMBOL of this nation is not tarnished because someone burns a single flag, or even multiple flags.

It WOULD be tarnished if yahoos like you are allowed to restrict American's rights to free speech and expression, up to an including the burning of a flag in protest.

Suck it up, big boy. It's a piece of cloth, that embodies IDEAS. The ideas and ideals are more important than the physical substitute.

~S

Once again, I am impressed with your insight and clear intelligence. It is refreshing to see someone who understands what it really means to be an American. I tip my hat to you, sir.

The flag isn't supposed to touch the ground.

So, is it a crime to drop one of those miniature flags on the ground? It may be made of paper and cardboard, but is it still not a flag?

Absolutely. Deport the lot of them - turning up to a patriotic parade and not disposing of the sacred flag in a manner which is acceptable to F&G.

You know, I have a theory that posters like him are not American at all, but are actually part of a plot to make the world think that the US is a nation of crybabies.

You know, I have a theory that posters like him are not American at all, but are actually part of a plot to make the world think that the US is a nation of crybabies.

I was thinking more that they are trying to make the US out to be a nation of assholes. But crybabies can work as well.

The flag isn't supposed to touch the ground.

So, is it a crime to drop one of those miniature flags on the ground? It may be made of paper and cardboard, but is it still not a flag?
And god forbid anyone have an unfortunate accident in their patriotic underpants!

And god forbid anyone have an unfortunate accident in their patriotic underpants!

Or if that patriotic hat gets blown off into traffic... :)

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

The flag is just a fabric. A piece of cloth. If the founding fathers didn't see a need to make an official flag, or make laws regarding it, then obviously they realized that flag worship isn't necessary to having a nation. Get over your "I'm the Neo Con dream boy" mindset. It doesn't do you any favours.

Once again, I am impressed with your insight and clear intelligence. It is refreshing to see someone who understands what it really means to be an American. I tip my hat to you, sir.

Thank you. I am so sick of these drones who dare to speak out on a subject that they have no perspective on. This guy is a knee jerk idiot and the fact we spent 15 pages on this subject is a sad reflection upon society.

Face it, this guy is like the Beastie Boys blow up penis they used to bring to concerts. If you ignore it (him), it becomes a non-issue. Laugh at him, he lives in a small, sorry little world where his fear overmasters any sense of courage, where his insecurities overshadow his ability to participate in the give and take that social congress demands.

Feh. Consider the bloody source.

~S

*OP*
Your flag is rubbish.

Get a design team in (preferably not the one who did the London 2012 Olympics logo) and get a new one.

If you want it to be awesome for The Kidz, add Kid Rock attacking some topless Iraqi women with a flamethrower or something. Yes.

If you want it to be something to be proud of, at least make it not completely tacky ffs. Have it something cool. That you'd want to see up in a pub. I dunno. Like a big band of dark blue with a white stripe through the middle or something.

You could also change the flag every 6 months to create massive revenues, in a similar way to premiership football (err 'soccer') teams in Europe - want to be patriotic?

Give $30 to Uncle Sam every 6 months for the new flag!

Winnar.

Yes. Had you bother to look the word up in a dictionary, you would have discovered that vandalism is defined as the "willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."
*blows nose on tissue paper*

Argh! 30 hours' community service coming my way!

I would assume anyone who burns the flag would have bought it themselves. Is destroying your own property vandalism now?

Yes. Had you bother to look the word up in a dictionary, you would have discovered that vandalism is defined as the "willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."

Yes. Had you bother to look the word up in a dictionary, you would have discovered that vandalism is defined as the "willful or malicious destruction of public or private property."

As in someone else's property. If it is yours you can do whatever the hell you want with it. I doubt that when they wrote out the definition they would have thought someone would think it would be a crime to destroy what you own. It is ridiculous, you must be getting desperate to excuse punishing someone for burning a piece of cloth.

They did allow for equal power to be shared amongst the branches of government.

No, they allowed for distinct and separate ends to be served by each branch of government. For example, the Supreme Court cannot impose a tax upon the citizenry. Similarly, it has no right to alter the Constitution or otherwise distort its meaning. All branches of government must operate within the framework of the Constitution and may not recklessly violate its mandates because they disagree with it. As I previously stated, the only way the Constitution may be changed is via unanimous approval among the states or a super-majority among the people. The Supreme Court does not fit into that picture.

Zilam, in fact the founding fathers did set the parameters for the flag. And there have been updates to it until the final design was set in place at about 1840.

The initial order was the same premise as today, but rather than the design currently in the blue square, it was more ambiguous. It said stars representing the states in a constellation. That is why some of the older flags (predating 1840) have the stars in a star shape (most common) or in other geometric shapes. That was the only part of the flag not strictly mandated by the founding fathers. The reason why the stars are in the shape they are today is because 50 stars don’t really have too many geometric options.

PBS just recently had a show on the progression of the United States flag, it was well done (I believe the director was the same guy who made that Civil War documentary, which was excellent as well).

And another, law aspect towards the flag would be burning the flag would have been made illegal, not because of desecration, but rather burning the flag can be seen as inciting violence. It polarizes a group, and as seen in the past, can lead to a fight between the two groups. Inciting violence, is a legitimate crime, in most countries and that was the precedant in the late 70s, 80s and 90s with regards to ammendments to banning flag burning. Not to undermind free speech, because inciting violence has been deemed, by precendent, as being a breech of the Free Speech clause.

As in someone else's property. If it is yours you can do whatever the hell you want with it. I doubt that when they wrote out the definition they would have thought someone would think it would be a crime to destroy what you own.

I never claimed that the act was criminal; in fact, flag burning is currently a legally protected activity. Perhaps it may be morally repugnant, but no one can be punished for engaging in such a despicable ritual. Nonetheless, it is vandalism. Vandalism is merely the act of degrading a good, regardless of who owns it; the act remains the same whether the item is destroyed by a hoodlum or its owner.

I never claimed that the act was criminal; in fact, flag burning is currently a legally protected activity. Perhaps it may be morally repugnant, but no one can be punished for engaging in such a despicable ritual.

Thankyou. No need to say anything else. It really doesn't matter if you find it morally repugnant or not, as long as you support it not being a crime, there is nothing else to debate.

The flag's SUPPOSED to be burned if you need to dispose of it.


Correct!! The proper way to dispose of an old flag is not to throw it away or rip it is to be properly burned.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

PS: It has been established as a Consitutional right for you to be able to burn a flag whether it be a proper ending of war torn(whetered,just plain old,etc.) flag or the (horrible) act of burning it out of hatred.

I never claimed that the act was criminal; in fact, flag burning is currently a legally protected activity. Perhaps it may be morally repugnant, but no one can be punished for engaging in such a despicable ritual. Nonetheless, it is vandalism. Vandalism is merely the act of degrading a good, regardless of who owns it; the act remains the same whether the item is destroyed by a hoodlum or its owner.

WordNet defines Vandalism as:

willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others

I never claimed that the act was criminal; in fact, flag burning is currently a legally protected activity. Perhaps it may be morally repugnant, but no one can be punished for engaging in such a despicable ritual. Nonetheless, it is vandalism. Vandalism is merely the act of degrading a good, regardless of who owns it; the act remains the same whether the item is destroyed by a hoodlum or its owner.

But you WANT it to be criminal. That is what matters here. You said in your OP that deportation would be an answer for those who "hate" the country so much that they need to burn the flag. I really don't care what the exact definition may turn out to be, one can destroy their own property should they so choose, flags included.

Why do you do this?

A better question: Why don't the mods get rid of transparent trolls and vandals like this.

Correct!! The proper way to dispose of an old flag is not to throw it away or rip it is to be properly burned.

I see it as more disrespectful to just let a flag sit in a closet until it fades into nothing than to retire it in a fire.

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage: it illustrates the values for which our forefathers fought and died, the glorious ideals of freedom and liberty, and stands for everything that makes America great. It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul; the law should reflect this. Below, I will very briefly outline what I feel the law needs to take into account.

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself and belies a deep loathing of this proud nation. Thus, deportation seems to be a punishment that fits such a heinous crime; those who revile the US to such a degree as to defile the nation's flag should be allowed to leave.

Furthermore, overtly displaying the flag conveys a love of America and its principles. It strengthens America by weaving the disparate elements of our diverse society together under one common emblem: the Stars and Stripes. Such patriotism needs to be rewarded; although there are many vehicles for doing so, I feel that tax breaks are the best option. For every flag a responsible citizen displays, he/she should be entitled to a tax cut of $100 dollars (for up to 5 flags).

Such a plan would reinvigorate society by promoting cooperation and instilling a sense of unity and belonging amongst our youth. Our children will be imbued with the notion that we are all the same; that we are all Americans, and increased toleration will inevitable follow. And when one walks down the street, with flags festooned as far as the eye can see, a sense of pride will well up in one's bosom, and their devotion to America will blossom.

Errrr...the founding fathers didn't actually stand for most of the things that modern liberal democracies stand for. Freedom and Liberty were not chief amongst the aims of men like Washington. It was primarily a facade to garner support for secession. For instance, the 'no taxation without representation' protest was a rallying cry, though what most colonists didn't know is that the people of the Home Isles paid six times as much as them and didn't have the freedom of the New World. Fortunately, the USA has, like every other liberal democracy, come to truly value Freedom of Speech and Liberty. This is admirable, but as others have said, it is more offensive to violate the principles the flag stands for than it is to physically violate it. You claim the material reminds of the immaterial, the immaterial does not need such support because it is immaterial. Its value is not measured in material terms. Your dedication to your country is admirable, but on this point you're missing the paradox of punishment for flag burning. :p

As I previously stated, the only way the Constitution may be changed is via unanimous approval among the states or a super-majority among the people.

Except, of course, you're dead wrong.

which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Amendments may be proposed by a supermajority in Congress (one half of which does not represent the people as the people, but as their states) or 2/3 of the states. However, the only way to ratify is through the Legislatures of the individual states or by conventions therein. Never are "the people" consulted in some bizarre national election you must have dreamt up.

Next time, do a little research before you go making wild claims like that.

We in America, have the constitutional right to protest, too speak our minds on issues we agree or disagree on. (Though that right is now eroding under excuses of fighting the "War on Terror.")

The desicration of our flag is perhaps the strongest most primal form of screaming your belief that something is wrong in our nation, or in our polices.

It is protected speach. To ban it leads to other bans, all in the pretense of our national better good.

I am a proud American. I have served my flag. I get an almost undiscribable feeling of sickness too see it mistreated. I also, believe in our Constitution. As much as I abhor seeing it treated so, It must be allowed.

...one can destroy their own property should they so choose, flags included.

Legally, yes. However, such actions should be prohibited if the destruction negatively impacts society at large by exposing susceptible children to such malicious opinions. It's equivalent to overtly broadcasting pornography -- although it can be construed as "free speech," it nonetheless corrupts our youth.

I accept that I was incorrect on several minute technicalities. My point was that the Supreme Court lacks the power to alter the Constitution; your posts supports this statement of fact.

Does the constitution attach any importance to the flag?

Except, of course, you're dead wrong...

I accept that I was incorrect on several minute technicalities. My point was that the Supreme Court lacks the power to alter the Constitution; your posts supports this statement of fact.

I'm pretty sure this is all a joke, but...

Do you know when the last public flag-burning was? 1989 (see 1989. (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagburning/overview.aspx)) That's 18 years ago! No one burns flags in public, and you sound really silly by making flag-burners into villains when they don't even exist.

Speaking of silly, I'm almost positive you're joking about the whole issue. I mean, come on, tax breaks for hanging flags on your car? That's hilarious! This would seriously make a great SNL skit. I'd hate to be the flag-counter for the government, but think of the jobs it would create! The best part is, creating more government jobs increases taxes, effectively cancelling out any possible tax break a person might receive for hanging 5 flags.

Come on, people. 5 flags is ridiculous--that's why it's all a joke!

Oh, Freedom and Glory, you card!

Legally, yes. However, such actions should be prohibited if the destruction negatively impacts society at large by exposing susceptible children to such malicious opinions. It's equivalent to overtly broadcasting pornography -- although it can be construed as "free speech," it nonetheless corrupts our youth.

How is their actions and opinions malicious to children? Is it just that you don't care for their opinions and are trying to silence them by bringing up the "think of the children" stupidity? It is like saying that kids being around homosexuals will turn them gay. Will being around flag burners make them unpatriotic? Liberal? What?