NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Ummm...doubt that...

Now, I'm a proud american, love this country with all my heart, respect the flag and all...but freedom of speech is just so much more important...

Will being around flag burners make them unpatriotic? Liberal? What?

It may make them amputees depending on how clumsy the flag burners are. :D

It may make them amputees depending on how clumsy the flag burners are. :D

Well no need to bring up practical dangers, I'm trying to make a point here! :p

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.

It's just a shame that the U.S. Constitution ruled burning the flag protected speech, then.

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.
Well, considering the fact that flag burning has been legal ever since the USA existed, if it was such an evil influence, one would have thought there would be, you know, 200 years worth of evil Muslim commie Chinese liberal unchristian kids, evidence that what you're right?

I'm trying to make a point here! :p

Neeners neeners neeners! I-I won't leeet yooou!

:p

I'm childish tonight.

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.

The idiocy makes my eyes burn and baby Jesus cry.

It's a flag. Nothing more.

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.

Man, our youth must be some real sissies if seeing a breast on television or seeing an american flag being burned corrupts them.

Although constant exposure to malicious opinions can certainly damage a child's outlook on life, and therefore I hope your kids are smart enough to see through your hateful rantings.

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.

Minor technicalities? The fact that you can think there is such a thing makes me question how much you actually care about the document. Of course, I questioned it anyway due to your view on flag burning.

You're just as bad as the "activist judges" you despise. You want to interpret the Constitution to promote your own social agenda. If you actually cared about freedom and liberty you'd allow people to make up their own minds on things, rather than have the government dicatate what is or is not moral.

If respect towards the flag has to be forced by legislation, is it really respect or is it fear?

Anyway, to quote Hamilton

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Well, considering the fact that flag burning has been legal ever since the USA existed, if it was such an evil influence, one would have thought there would be, you know, 200 years worth of evil Muslim commie Chinese liberal unchristian kids, evidence that what you're right?

Although the legal status of flag burning remained constant throughout the nation's history, the prevalence of such an action was significantly less in the past. The issue only began to take on additional importance once it became a common pastime among certain elements of our society. My feathers would not be in a tizzy unless I felt that, in these modern times, our youth began questioning and rejecting traditional American values. All around us crime is skyrocketing, immorality is soaring, laziness is pervasive, immorality is smothering us with its abhorrent tentacles, and society is being rent apart by these malicious forces.

The common denominator is a lack of motivation, a lack of the drive necessary to do what one can for one's country. I don't blame liberals for this, mind you; it was JFK who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." One component of the dilemma is flag burning, which contributes to the feeling that the US is irrelevant: that it is no more than arbitrary lines drawn on a map and represents nothing. Children take for granted what our ancestors fought and died for, and, even worse, ignore the sacrifices that our forefathers made. This neglect is partially due to anti-American activities such as flag burning. However, you completely omit the second part of my suggestion, which details a positive plan to take in order to rectify the problem.

Oi, F.A.G., if freedom of speech is only limited to the strict definition of speech, does that mean newspapers aren't protected speech?

Although the legal status of flag burning remained constant throughout the nation's history, the prevalence of such an action was significantly less in the past. The issue only began to take on additional importance once it became a common pastime among certain elements of our society. My feathers would not be in a tizzy unless I felt that, in these modern times, our youth began questioning and rejecting traditional American values. All around us crime is skyrocketing, immorality is soaring, laziness is pervasive, immorality is smothering us with its abhorrent tentacles, and society is being rent apart by these malicious forces.

The common denominator is a lack of motivation, a lack of the drive necessary to do what one can for one's country. I don't blame liberals for this, mind you; it was JFK who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." One component of the dilemma is flag burning, which contributes to the feeling that the US is irrelevant: that it is no more than arbitrary lines drawn on a map and represents nothing. Children take for granted what our ancestors fought and died for, and, even worse, ignore the sacrifices that our forefathers made. This neglect is partially due to anti-American activities such as flag burning. However, you completely omit the second part of my suggestion, which details a positive plan to take in order to rectify the problem.

There is no problem.

Oi, F.A.G., if freedom of speech is only limited to the strict definition of speech, does that mean newspapers aren't protected speech?

No, it is not. However, if you had read the first amendment to the Constitution, you would have discovered that it protects both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, which encompasses newspapers and other forms of non-verbal media.

There is no problem.

I suppose there's no spoon, either.

Although the legal status of flag burning remained constant throughout the nation's history, the prevalence of such an action was significantly less in the past. The issue only began to take on additional importance once it became a common pastime among certain elements of our society. My feathers would not be in a tizzy unless I felt that, in these modern times, our youth began questioning and rejecting traditional American values. All around us crime is skyrocketing, immorality is soaring, laziness is pervasive, immorality is smothering us with its abhorrent tentacles, and society is being rent apart by these malicious forces.
Crime is sky rocketing eh? Last time I checked violent crime and youth related crime were at all time lows. My how terrible.

The common denominator is a lack of motivation, a lack of the drive necessary to do what one can for one's country. I don't blame liberals for this, mind you; it was JFK who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." One component of the dilemma is flag burning, which contributes to the feeling that the US is irrelevant: that it is no more than arbitrary lines drawn on a map and represents nothing. Children take for granted what our ancestors fought and died for, and, even worse, ignore the sacrifices that our forefathers made. This neglect is partially due to anti-American activities such as flag burning. However, you completely omit the second part of my suggestion, which details a positive plan to take in order to rectify the problem.

Didn't their ancestors do whatever it is they did to protect the rights of Americans?

Rights like the freedom of speech?

No, it is not. However, if you had read the first amendment to the Constitution, you would have discovered that it protects both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, which encompasses newspapers and other forms of non-verbal media.

No. By press the founding fathers meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouser_press).

My feathers would not be in a tizzy unless I felt that, in these modern times, our youth began questioning and rejecting traditional American values. All around us crime is skyrocketing, immorality is soaring, laziness is pervasive, immorality is smothering us with its abhorrent tentacles, and society is being rent apart by these malicious forces.

Do you really think that you can erase crime, immorality, laziness, and tentacles through sleight-of-hand legislation? Do you really think that flag burning causes crime, or that legislation against flag burning will reduce it?

Also, the fact that you have "Freedom" in your name is questionable, since in this thread you are directly suggesting that people should not even be free to make their own decisions about the value of something as simple as a piece of cloth.

It's interesting to see the wide range of emotions a piece of cloth, patterned in a certain way, can invoke.

Take this for instance.

A white piece of cloth, patterned with a cross of red, to most in England would be a sign of patriotism. ANd yet, the overwhelming thought among those in government who see this pattern is "xenophobe".

I wish the English politicians (and it is, almost to a man, just the English - the Northern Irish have their own flag issues though...) would take the stance of the Americans in their deference to a national symbol.

We're not all skinhead racists you know.

- KI

No, it is not. However, if you had read the first amendment to the Constitution, you would have discovered that it protects both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, which encompasses newspapers and other forms of non-verbal media.

Okay. So it allows for freedom of the press. But if we are to apply the same strict style of definitions to press as you did to speech, it means only newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and the like which are created by printing. So what about the internet and other electronic media? What about painted banners and signs?

Okay. So it allows for freedom of the press. But if we are to apply the same strict style of definitions to press as you did to speech, it means only newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and the like which are created by printing. So what about the internet and other electronic media? What about painted banners and signs?

Ahem
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12785259

No. By press the founding fathers meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouser_press).

That is an interesting interpretation; however, electrical appliances did not exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution, thus negating your thesis.

That is an interesting interpretation; however, electrical appliances did not exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution, thus negating your thesis.

Not at all. Trouser presses were not always electrical. When the constitution was written they were essentially very large irons. The founding fathers loved how warm it made their pants.

I suppose there's no spoon, either.

Not the bent one in the movie it is all cgi and effects sort of like your OP ... all smoke and mirrors no substance worth considering

But if we are to apply the same strict style of definitions...as you did to speech...

I did not apply a strict definition of "speech," however. In fact, I copied and pasted every single definition of speech provided at this web-site (http://www.thefreedictionary.com).

Not at all. Trouser presses were not always electrical. When the constitution was written they were essentially very large irons. The founding fathers loved how warm it made their pants.

Do you have evidence to substantiate this viewpoint? Can you cite an example of a trouser press existing in the 18th century?

Do you have evidence to substantiate this viewpoint? Can you cite an example of a trouser press existing in the 18th century?

Will it make any difference? You waved away evidence that contradicted you previously.


And a point is made :)


Also, do you have evidence to substantiate your viewpoint that flag burning and other anti-american activities are the cause of immorality and crime?

Hey look, another point.

Somehow, I think the freedom of speech should've been squelched... so I don't have to read/listen to anything from anyone I didn't like or disagree with.

Heh,... irony is so dead.

Somehow, I think the freedom of speech should've been squelched... so I don't have to read/listen to anything from anyone I didn't like or disagree with.

Heh,... irony is so dead.

That's because I took it out back and shot it between the eyes Old Yeller style. :)

Also, do you have evidence to substantiate your viewpoint that flag burning and other anti-american activities are the cause of immorality and crime?

Common sense is my friend; logic is my aide. I will present my argument in a different form.


A lack of attachment to one's nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.
If more individuals seek to better a nation, the nation will benefit.
Subjecting individuals to constant reminders that they "belong" to a nation will cause them to feel more attached to that nation.
Proudly displayed flags are one possible vehicle for achieving this end.
Ergo, the nation will benefit if Old Glory is more overtly displayed throughout the US.

Common sense is my friend; logic is my aide. I will present my argument in a different form.


A lack of attachment to one's nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.
If more individuals seek to better a nation, the nation will benefit.
Subjecting individuals to constant reminders that they "belong" to a nation will cause them to feel more attached to that nation.
Proudly displayed flags are one possible vehicle for achieving this end.
Ergo, the nation will benefit if Old Glory is more overtly displayed throughout the US.


"Subjecting individuals to constant reminders that they 'belong' to a nation" will not create attachment to said nation. It'll make them want to bomb the hell out of the idiot leader that decided to put flags everywhere.

Common sense is my friend; logic is my aide. I will present my argument in a different form.


A lack of attachment to one's nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.
If more individuals seek to better a nation, the nation will benefit.
Subjecting individuals to constant reminders that they "belong" to a nation will cause them to feel more attached to that nation.
Proudly displayed flags are one possible vehicle for achieving this end.
Ergo, the nation will benefit if Old Glory is more overtly displayed throughout the US.


That doesn't address your view that flag burning and other anti-american activities has caused crime to skyrocket. Is crime even skyrocketing in your country?

Also, that is neither sensible nor logical. What is your basis for for believing that seeing the flag of a nation will make a person feel more attached to that nation? Would that mean that I could, hypothetically, make you feel attached to China by sitting you in front of the Chinese flag?

http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/0A6700F9-1868-4055-8CC1-DDA169646D20/0/china_flag.jpg

Common sense is my friend; logic is my aide. I will present my argument in a different form.


A lack of attachment to one's nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.
If more individuals seek to better a nation, the nation will benefit.
Subjecting individuals to constant reminders that they "belong" to a nation will cause them to feel more attached to that nation.
Proudly displayed flags are one possible vehicle for achieving this end.
Ergo, the nation will benefit if Old Glory is more overtly displayed throughout the US.




Forced pseudo-devotion to a nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.
A means of protest, such as flag-burning, is a way to better a nation by eliminating its imperfections.
Proudly being the yes-man of one's nation or government will NOT help it.
Ergo, the nation will NOT benefit by eliminating dissenting voices; instead it will stagnate and become worse freely with no fear of reprisal or dissent by its people.


You did teach me a new command here.

http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/0A6700F9-1868-4055-8CC1-DDA169646D20/0/china_flag.jpg

*Orders some kung pao.* :D

Common sense is my friend; logic is my aide. I will present my argument in a different form.


A lack of attachment to one's nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.
If more individuals seek to better a nation, the nation will benefit.
Subjecting individuals to constant reminders that they "belong" to a nation will cause them to feel more attached to that nation.
Proudly displayed flags are one possible vehicle for achieving this end.
Ergo, the nation will benefit if Old Glory is more overtly displayed throughout the US.


Bullshit

I thought the conclusion was self-evident, but perhaps not. If people are reluctant to better their nation, they will be more likely to do the opposite (ie, turn to crime).



I suppose a test can be conducted, but the research is fairly solid for similar instances. For example, subjecting people to a constant barrage of advertisements for a particular product will make them more prone to purchase that product. Minority children raised in an all-white culture feel that they are members of that culture regardless of their skin color. The theory is well-documented and spans a diverse range of topics; there is no reason to believe that it may not also apply to flags.
Oh thank god, with your views on what research applies, that you will never be qualified in the world of stats or science

I would hate to see the flawed projects you would come up with if you were

That doesn't address your view that flag burning and other anti-american activities has caused crime to skyrocket.

I thought the conclusion was self-evident, but perhaps not. If people are reluctant to better their nation, they will be more likely to do the opposite (ie, turn to crime).

What is your basis for for believing that seeing the flag of a nation will make a person feel more attached to that nation?

I suppose a test can be conducted, but the research is fairly solid for similar instances. For example, subjecting people to a constant barrage of advertisements for a particular product will make them more prone to purchase that product. Minority children raised in an all-white culture feel that they are members of that culture regardless of their skin color. The theory is well-documented and spans a diverse range of topics; there is no reason to believe that it may not also apply to flags.

That's because I took it out back and shot it between the eyes Old Yeller style. :)

You jerk! I liked Irony. :(

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.
1. Buring a flag is an act of political protest, something embodied within the 1st Amendment (as has been pointed out to you repeatedly).

2. If you're going to talk about the amendment process, get it right so you don't look like even MORE of an idiot.

Forced pseudo-devotion to a nation decreases one's drive to better that nation.

There is no element of coercion involved in my plan. I do not feel that anybody should be forced to love his/her country or face dire consequences otherwise. Thus, the word "forced" makes no sense in this context.

A means of protest, such as flag-burning, is a way to better a nation by eliminating its imperfections.

Certain methods of protest address valid points and offer suggestions on how to tackle critical issues; flag-burning is simply a method by which anti-American hatred can be vented. It is not constructive in that it does not posit a thesis for what can be done to improve the nation nor does it in any way "eliminate" the nation's "imperfections."

Proudly being the yes-man of one's nation or government will NOT help it.

No; we should keep a watchful eye on government and seek to hold it accountable to the will of the people. I agree with you here.

Ergo, the nation will NOT benefit by eliminating dissenting voices; instead it will stagnate and become worse freely with no fear of reprisal or dissent by its people.

Your conclusion is invalid because several of your previous arguments were fallacious. Nonetheless, I can tell you that I do not seek to eliminate dissenting voices because I believe that free speech is essential to the welfare of a nation.

I thought the conclusion was self-evident, but perhaps not. If people are reluctant to better their nation, they will be more likely to do the opposite (ie, turn to crime).
So when are you expecting crime to skyrocket?

And has it occurred to you that if they don't want to better their nation they could emigrate?



I suppose a test can be conducted, but the research is fairly solid for similar instances. For example, subjecting people to a constant barrage of advertisements for a particular product will make them more prone to purchase that product. Minority children raised in an all-white culture feel that they are members of that culture regardless of their skin color. The theory is well-documented and spans a diverse range of topics; there is no reason to believe that it may not also apply to flags.

Advertisements are designed to make one want to but the product or service they advertise, they usually overtly espouse the virtues of that product/service. Flags simply represent countries. What a person thinks about that country will not be changed by seeing that flag.

So if a person loved America, they would be reminded of that when they saw an American flag. If a person hated America, they would be reminded of that when they saw and American flag. Proudly displaying Old Glory would simply make matters worse, at least from your point of view. In fact, you should take down any flags you might be flying, lest you remind anti-Americans of their hate for America.

Maybe it's the fact that children, especially young children, don't see skin colour as a reason for exclusion. The idea of race is learned.

And has it occurred to you that if they don't want to better their nation they could emigrate?

Emigration is a less viable option. For starters, it is expensive and difficult to adjust to a foreign nation. Also, those who turn to crime generally do so because they lack the funds to support themselves adequately and thus would be unable to emigrate.

Advertisements are designed to make one want to but the product or service they advertise, they usually overtly espouse the virtues of that product/service.

Do you watch the same commercials I watch? They are mostly composed of comely women standing next to a particular product and appearing to enjoy it.

Ergo, the nation will benefit if Old Glory is more overtly displayed throughout the US.
The US already goes overboard in display of the flag. You literally cannot go anywhere that isn't the wilderness without seeing one. They are on just about every place of business and displayed on cars and houses. How many more do you want?

Emigration is a less viable option. For starters, it is expensive and difficult to adjust to a foreign nation. Also, those who turn to crime generally do so because they lack the funds to support themselves adequately and thus would be unable to emigrate.
Ah, true.

So you're saying people turn to crime not because they don't want to better their country, but because they can't support themselves any other way? Huzzah for self-contradiction, eh?



Do you watch the same commercials I watch? They are mostly composed of comely women standing next to a particular product and appearing to enjoy it.

Well, sex sells. Or so someone keeps telling the advertising company. But this doesn't address my point that seeing a flag won't change your feelings about the country it represents.

1. Buring a flag is an act of political protest, something embodied within the 1st Amendment (as has been pointed out to you repeatedly).

And as I repeatedly pointed out, the first amendment to the Constitution only condones free speech; burning an item is not a manner of speech and therefore not protected.

The US already goes overboard in display of the flag.

Actually, only one out of every three residences in my neighborhood prominently displays the flag; this ratio can be improved upon. I am certain that the problem is more pervasive in other areas of the country.

And as I repeatedly pointed out, the first amendment to the Constitution only condones free speech; burning an item is not a manner of speech and therefore not protected.

We've been through this, though you seem to have ignored it: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12782015&postcount=62

The Supreme Court has declared flag burning to be constitutionally protected and laws punishing flag burning to be unconstitutional.

Oh, I thought the thread title was 'American Fag'. Never mind.

And as I repeatedly pointed out, the first amendment to the Constitution only condones free speech; burning an item is not a manner of speech and therefore not protected.

As we have previously pointed out, the guarantee of freedom of speech has been ruled to extend to various other forms of expression. Quit your desperate tirades while your only EXTREMELY behind.

The Supreme Court has declared flag burning to be constitutionally protected and laws punishing flag burning to be unconstitutional.

We've been through this before. I don't want to reiterate my previous posts, but to sum up: the Supreme Court justices are fallible and have perverted the intent of the Constitution.

So you're saying people turn to crime not because they don't want to better their country, but because they can't support themselves any other way? Huzzah for self-contradiction, eh?

No, there are other ways of supporting oneself other than turning to crime. However, crime is the easier option if you feel no attachment to your country. On the other hand, if you are devoted to your country, you would never even consider heading down such a dismal and immoral path but rather persevere, buckle down, and find yourself a job.

But this doesn't address my point that seeing a flag won't change your feelings about the country it represents.

The concept that you belong to the nation will be reinforced in a manner akin to repeating "I am an American" over and over. Although the results may not be overt, as the exercise may seem as an exercise in futility to some, the sense of belonging, even if only subliminal, will help in developing society in the long-run.

We've been through this before. I don't want to reiterate my previous posts, but to sum up: the Supreme Court justices are fallible and have perverted the intent of the Constitution.
And by what method did you summon the spirits of the founding fathers so you could ask them what the intent of the constitution was?
No, there are other ways of supporting oneself other than turning to crime.
I never suggested otherwise
However, crime is the easier option if you feel no attachment to your country. On the other hand, if you are devoted to your country, you would never even consider heading down such a dismal and immoral path but rather persevere, buckle down, and find yourself a job.
Yes, no true American would ever do anything wrong or immoral. :rolleyes:


The concept that you belong to the nation will be reinforced in a manner akin to repeating "I am an American" over and over.
So you're going to try and piss off anti-Americans by reminding them that they're a part of the country they so despise? And you think this is a good idea?
Although the results may not be overt, as the exercise may seem as an exercise in futility to some, the sense of belonging, even if only subliminal, will help in developing society in the long-run.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be all too pleased with feeling like I belonged in something I hated.

The concept that you belong to the nation will be reinforced in a manner akin to repeating "I am an American" over and over.

Did any one get a SERIOUS brainwashing vibe from the concept of repeating "I am an American" over and over?

Did any one get a SERIOUS brainwashing vibe from the concept of repeating "I am an American" over and over?

I thought that was the point of the whole "put up more flags" thing, to brainwash people into blindly agreeing with everything the government says.

And by what method did you summon the spirits of the founding fathers so you could ask them what the intent of the constitution was?

I simply read the Constitution (or, more aptly, the Bill of Rights) and saw that they used the word speech; the intent is as clear as day. However, the Supreme Court justices took it upon themselves to extend the definition of "speech" to encompass actions which by no means can be construed as "speech," thus perverting the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Yes, no true American would ever do anything wrong or immoral.

Exactly; I'm glad that we can finally agree on something.

So you're going to try and piss off anti-Americans by reminding them that they're a part of the country they so despise? And you think this is a good idea?

Hopefully, that anti-American sentiment can be nipped in the bud prior to having a chance to blossom. As long as our children are exposed to pro-American symbols, such as the flag, they will be less prone to developing anti-American sentiments later in life, and the whole problem can thus be averted.

Freedom, your confusing 'America' with your own twisted ideologies and acting as if they are one and the same.

No, there are other ways of supporting oneself other than turning to crime. However, crime is the easier option if you feel no attachment to your country. On the other hand, if you are devoted to your country, you would never even consider heading down such a dismal and immoral path but rather persevere, buckle down, and find yourself a job.

And I suppose the Nazis (who were quite devoted to Germany) were never amoral.

We've been through this before. I don't want to reiterate my previous posts, but to sum up: the Supreme Court justices are fallible and have perverted the intent of the Constitution.

Brilliant, you disagree with the interpretation SCOTUS provides and that gives you enough authority to implement an unconstitutional law?

Sorry, not buying it.

And I suppose the Nazis (who were quite devoted to Germany) were never amoral.

Devout Nazis rarely engaged in immoral acts against their own countrymen (with the obvious exception of certain groups which were deemed un-German). Thus, with respect to Germany, they were model citizens.

Sorry, not buying it.

Would it help if I put it on sale?

And as I repeatedly pointed out, the first amendment to the Constitution only condones free speech; burning an item is not a manner of speech and therefore not protected.

So... now I can't burn firewood? Firewood is an item.

Now, answer me this: if I buy a shirt... let's say from Nike and then I go to a protest that is against the use of Nike's sweat shop in overseas nations that have lax labour laws and burn said shirt, is that not the same as burning a flag? In both cases, I would be owning the item that I am burning; I purchased the item of my own accord.

I may not be using words but actions are an expression as well; unspoken speech. Just as non-verbal cues are used in communication, the use of unspoken actions is an expression of how one feels and that is covered by freedom of expression because expression is not limited to just the spoken word, expression in shown in our faces and through our body language.

By your logic then, any non-verbal expression is NOT protected by the first amendment.

I simply read the Constitution (or, more aptly, the Bill of Rights) and saw that they used the word speech; the intent is as clear as day. However, the Supreme Court justices took it upon themselves to extend the definition of "speech" to encompass actions which by no means can be construed as "speech," thus perverting the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Yes, the text reads "abridging the freedom of speech". To abridge means to shorten or condense. Therefore the founding fathers believed that freedom of speech was something physical that could be shortened, and were clearly mad men. Any sane individual knows that abstract concepts like freedom have no physical substance. You should consider having your constitution rewritten by people without such serious mental health problems.


Exactly; I'm glad that we can finally agree on something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Congrats on using a very popular informal fallacy.



Hopefully, that anti-American sentiment can be nipped in the bud prior to having a chance to blossom. As long as our children are exposed to pro-American symbols, such as the flag, they will be less prone to developing anti-American sentiments later in life, and the whole problem can thus be averted.

So, anti-Americanism isn't a problem currently? But weren't you saying earlier that flag burning is a common activity now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CXEk4wIVY
God Bless America:rolleyes:

Would it help if I put it on sale?

You'd make a horrible salesman.

Now, answer me this: if I buy a shirt... let's say from Nike and then I go to a protest that is against the use of Nike's sweat shop in overseas nations that have lax labour laws and burn said shirt, is that not the same as burning a flag?

That depends. Does the shirt have the American flag emblazoned upon it? If so, how prominently is the American flag displayed on the shirt? Intent also plays a large role, here: are you known for destroying items with an American flag imprinted upon them? Also, note that the American flag is a special instance of private property and I consider it detached from other items which have no bearing on patriotism.

ehh, your trolling was better off when you were MTAE, since then you've gone horribly stale.

Run out of material?

You'd make a horrible salesman.

He'd be a great salesman. Everybody would buy something to get him to go away.

I am neither a troll nor have ever been MTaE.

Yeah, I'd believe you, except for one tiny problem. You're a liar.

Yes, the text reads "abridging the freedom of speech". To abridge means to shorten or condense.

Yes, the word "abridge" is synonymous with "curtail." The two need not refer to purely physical items. For example, I cannot "abridge" a piece of fire-wood by cutting it in two; however, I can "abridge" your rights by restricting or otherwise reducing them. Indeed, in a purely literal sense, a person is entitled to a set of rights. By abridging those rights, elements are removed from the set and it is thereby shortened or condensed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Congrats on using a very popular informal fallacy.

Agreeing with you is a common fallacy? :eek: :)

So, anti-Americanism isn't a problem currently? But weren't you saying earlier that flag burning is a common activity now?

Anti-Americanism is a problem currently. Should my proposal be adopted, it will cease to be a significant problem in the future.

I am neither a troll nor have ever been MTaE.

Common sense says otherwise

Apparently it is what you base most of your "arguments" on it should be more then enough to convince you here.

Devout Nazis rarely engaged in immoral acts against their own countrymen (with the obvious exception of certain groups which were deemed un-German). Thus, with respect to Germany, they were model citizens.

Am I the only one surprised enough to comment on F&G saying the genocidal Nazis were good and upstanding German citizens?

ehh, your trolling was better off when you were MTAE, since then you've gone horribly stale.

Run out of material?

I am neither a troll nor have ever been MTaE.

That depends. Does the shirt have the American flag emblazoned upon it? If so, how prominently is the American flag displayed on the shirt? Intent also plays a large role, here: are you known for destroying items with an American flag imprinted upon them? Also, note that the American flag is a special instance of private property and I consider it detached from other items which have no bearing on patriotism.
Simply because a shirt has a flag on it, does not make it a flag.

And explain "special instance", what makes it more special than say... a Canadian flag?

If you think this way about the flag, you're likely insecure about your nation otherwise, why would you have to defend the flag from flag burners? If you have it, it means there is a source of shame you want to hide. Why should it matter if people burn it? Just because the symbol is being destroyed doesn't mean the ideology behind it is.

Hmmm...

Perhaps we should establish the definition of "flag" before we continue? After all, we it was pointed out by me earlier, fag doesn't necessarily mean "gay", as in Britain it's slang for "cigarette".

–noun
1. a piece of cloth, varying in size, shape, color, and design, usually attached at one edge to a staff or cord, and used as the symbol of a nation, state, or organization, as a means of signaling, etc.; ensign; standard; banner; pennant.
2. Ornithology. the tuft of long feathers on the legs of falcons and most hawks; the lengthened feathers on the crus or tibia.
3. Hunting. the tail of a deer or of a setter dog.
4. Journalism.
a. the nameplate of a newspaper.
b. masthead (def. 1).
c. the name of a newspaper as printed on the editorial page.
5. a tab or tag attached to a page, file card, etc., to mark it for attention.
6. Music. hook (def. 12a).
7. Movies, Television. a small gobo.
8. Usually, flags. the ends of the bristles of a brush, esp. a paintbrush, when split.
9. Computers. a symbol, value, or other means of identifying data of interest, or of informing later parts of a program what conditions earlier parts have encountered.
–verb (used with object)
10. to place a flag or flags over or on; decorate with flags.
11. to signal or warn (a person, automobile, etc.) with or as if with a flag (sometimes fol. by down): to flag a taxi; to flag down a passing car.
12. to communicate (information) by or as if by a flag.
13. to decoy, as game, by waving a flag or the like to excite attention or curiosity.
14. to mark (a page in a book, file card, etc.) for attention, as by attaching protruding tabs.
15. (of a brush) to split the ends of the bristles.
—Idiom
16. strike the flag,
a. to relinquish command, as of a ship.
b. to submit or surrender: His financial situation is growing worse, but he's not ready to strike the flag.
Also, strike one's flag.

So... if I burned the tuft of long feathers on a falcon, would I be guilty of flag burning? What about the head feathers?

Yes, the word "abridge" is synonymous with "curtail." The two need not refer to purely physical items. For example, I cannot "abridge" a piece of fire-wood by cutting it in two; however, I can "abridge" your rights by restricting or otherwise reducing them. Indeed, in a purely literal sense, a person is entitled to a set of rights. By abridging those rights, elements are removed from the set and it is thereby shortened or condensed.
I'm not even sure why I'm trying. If you won't listen to the highest court in your country then you obviously won't listen to us.




Agreeing with you is a common fallacy? :eek: :)
No, claiming no true X would do Y is a common fallacy, where X is something vaguely defined. An American is simply someone who was born in America, or whose parents were American or has otherwise gained American citizenship. There's nothing there that precludes a true American from being a bad person.


Anti-Americanism is a problem currently. Should my proposal be adopted, it will cease to be a significant problem in the future.

I wouldn't think so. An increase in overt patriotism will only incense anti-Americans. They'll be working against America and gaining support while your generation of flag inspired patriots are still learning to talk.

And as I repeatedly pointed out, the first amendment to the Constitution only condones free speech; burning an item is not a manner of speech and therefore not protected.
And as I have already pointed out, Ben Franklin and the other founding fathers disagree with you. You have a habit of ignoring that which you don't want to hear, typical.

Actually, only one out of every three residences in my neighborhood prominently displays the flag; this ratio can be improved upon. I am certain that the problem is more pervasive in other areas of the country.
So you want every house to display the flag?

Ideally, each house would display several flags.

Why waste the money? space? and desecrate the beauty of your yard?

Red and blue and white really is rather tacky combination

And as I have already pointed out, Ben Franklin and the other founding fathers disagree with you.

Do you have any textual evidence dating back to that time period to substantiate your assertions? Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

So you want every house to display the flag?

Ideally, each house would display several flags.

Do you have any textual evidence dating back to that time period to substantiate your assertions? Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

Oh kind of like the evidence to show it actually will have any effect displaying flags

Oh yeah right you just bsed your way through that

Ideally, each house would display several flags.

How nauseatingly unpatriotic. You'd be devaluing the symbolism of the flag if you did that; by flooding the senses, you desensitise those around it because it becomes background noise. It comes as common place as a lamp post.

Do you have any textual evidence dating back to that time period to substantiate your assertions? Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.
You apparently missed this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12783170&postcount=174

I have to agree that is some ways the flag idea is ok, but that stuff about tax cuts for people who have more money is ludicrous, the state should pay for the full cost of the flag, and any monetary incentive to do so should be progressive and relate directly to the per annum income of the individual/family and their capital worth, etc etc.

Ideally, each house would display several flags.
Congratulations, you have made America in the image of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Nice. Anything you wish to do?

I have to agree that is some ways the flag idea is ok, but that stuff about tax cuts for people who have more money is ludicrous, the state should pay for the full cost of the flag, and any monetary incentive to do so should be progressive and relate directly to the per annum income of the individual/family and their capital worth, etc etc.

No the entire idea is ludicrous not just that part

You apparently missed this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12783170&postcount=174

I did not "miss it"; rather, it was utterly irrelevant. Must I really say it again?!

Freedom of thought =/= freedom of burning a flag.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom of burning a flag.

I did not "miss it"; rather, it was utterly irrelevant. Must I really say it again?!

Freedom of thought =/= freedom of burning a flag.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom of burning a flag.

Actually, freedom of thought can be freedom of burning a flag if you imagine yourself burning a flag.

I did not "miss it"; rather, it was utterly irrelevant. Must I really say it again?!

Freedom of thought =/= freedom of burning a flag.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom of burning a flag.

Not according to the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v_Johnson).

Not according to the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v_Johnson).

You're kidding, right? Did you miss my last 10 posts regarding the Supreme Court and its perversions of the Constitution?

I did not "miss it"; rather, it was utterly irrelevant. Must I really say it again?!

Freedom of thought =/= freedom of burning a flag.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom of burning a flag.

Ah, but it is not a simple as that.

Flag burning is often not a sign of delinquency, but a sign of protest. When was the last time flag burning was a major issue in the US?

The Vietnam War.

Now, with the ongoing maelstrom of public polarisation that is the war in Iraq, it is not surprising that many people are turning to defacement of that famous symbol of American pride, patriotism, and might.

The issue here is not to make a rash decision based on current trends. God only knows New Labour have done that far too often...

You're kidding, right? Did you miss my last 10 posts regarding the Supreme Court and its perversions of the Constitution?

Fine. Give me a link to them so I can properly debate you, then.

Ah, but it is not a simple as that.

Flag burning is often not a sign of delinquency, but a sign of protest. When was the last time flag burning was a major issue in the US?

The Vietnam War.

Now, with the ongoing maelstrom of public polarisation that is the war in Iraq, it is not surprising that many people are turning to defacement of that famous symbol of American pride, patriotism, and might.

The issue here is not to make a rash decision based on current trends. God only knows New Labour have done that far too often...

How about... uh, now? 1989? Texas v. Johnson?

I did not "miss it"; rather, it was utterly irrelevant. Must I really say it again?!

Freedom of thought =/= freedom of burning a flag.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom of burning a flag.
You MUST be slow today. Ok, I'll take you through this step-by-step.

Ben Franklin noted that freedom of thought and freedom of speech are paramount for liberty. He used this to condem censorship of the press. Ergo, Freedom of speech =/= vocal utterences only according to at least one founding father.

Buring a flag is a political action of protest. The first amendment addresses that too.

Therefor buring a flag is political speech and protected. Just about YOU don't like it does not make it so.

Or tell ya what, since you seem so damn sure you know the will of the founding fathers (funny as you had the amendment process wrong) why don't YOU show proof that they ment vocal speech only?

Oh, and to add on: The orginal amendment as proposed by Madison was "''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." so it would seem that 'speech' does not emcompass only vocal words.

Note: I am English, and therefore looking at this with a more detached perspective, a (relative) NPOV.

Quoting individual cases is going to go right over my head I'm afraid.

Note: I am English, and therefore looking at this with a more detached perspective, a (relative) NPOV.

Quoting individual cases is going to go right over my head I'm afraid.

Meh. I knew there was a recent case, just not the name of it, so... yeah. I'm not going to blow your head off just for that.

Where's our puppet detector?

You're kidding, right? Did you miss my last 10 posts regarding the Supreme Court and its perversions of the Constitution?

Liberal judges!?!

Ther takin yer jerbs!

I'm in ur courtz...

Prving ur lawz!

Liberal judges!?!

Ther takin yer jerbs!

I did not "miss it"; rather, it was utterly irrelevant. Must I really say it again?!

Freedom of thought =/= freedom of burning a flag.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom of burning a flag.

So, then, you're for letting KKK members walk the streets of New York and blast out their message all over the city?

I mean, that's state-protected speech.

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

Knock it off.

Meh. I knew there was a recent case, just not the name of it, so... yeah. I'm not going to blow your head off just for that.

Where's our puppet detector?

I'm going to guess...Montego Bay? Or was that Guantanamo Bay?

I forget now. :)

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.

Or maybe, you should respect his wishes instead of flamebaiting him.

You're kidding, right? Did you miss my last 10 posts regarding the Supreme Court and its perversions of the Constitution?

Nope you were just as wrong in all of them

For a good run down on Freedom of Speech in the United States, I suggest going here: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/speech.htm

It's actually rather good and really backs up its statements (Of course I am sure FAG will ignore it or write it off as activist judges/Politicans).

I especially like this quote:
As I stepped out of the aircraft [after being released from captivity in Vietnam], I looked up and saw the flag. I caught my breath, then, as tears filled my eyes, I saluted it. I never loved my country more than at that moment. . . . I cannot compromise on freedom. It hurts to see the flag burned, but I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. . . .

I remember one interrogation [by the North Vietnamese] where I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. "There," the officer said. "People in your country protest against your cause. That proves that you are wrong."

"No," I said. "That proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us." The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist on the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag against him. . . .

We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread freedom. . . . Don't be afraid of freedom, it is the best weapon we have.- James H. Warner (POW, Vietnam), letter to Washington Post, 11 July 1989

I simply read the Constitution (or, more aptly, the Bill of Rights) and saw that they used the word speech; the intent is as clear as day. However, the Supreme Court justices took it upon themselves to extend the definition of "speech" to encompass actions which by no means can be construed as "speech," thus perverting the original intent of the Founding Fathers.



You're showing a certain amount of ignorance as to what speech means. Speech is encoding an idea in a symbol so that another may use that symbol to decode that idea so that the idea is transfered from one mind to another.

By only using oral communication under the symbol "speech" you are missing 99% of the communication you receive each day. Virtually everything around you is communicating with you. Many of those things are being transmitted by others. Anytime there is that transmission between two people you have "speech". Remember the founders were very well educated especially in the realm of Greek thought. What I am trying to explain through these symbols is directly from Aristotle. The founders were very familiar with this thought. They based their very government on Greek and Roman thought.

By saying only oral communication is "speech", you would also have to argue that "press" is only printed material. Under that theory, radio, television, internet, are not protected. The founders realized that technology would advance. They were very strongly involved in science and philosophy.

Or maybe, you should respect his wishes instead of flamebaiting him.

I think F&G already said that he's OK with being called FAG as long as it's not "the FAG" or "a FAG" - in short, as long as it's not balantly meant to insult.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12785458&postcount=10

I don't care either way, I use F&G to avoid this kind of (very silly) issue, but just pointing that out.

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.

So the USSC doesn't rule on what is a constitutional right? And they have not found in direct opposition to your position on several occasions? If the answer is no to both then you win. Otherwise you're just trolling.

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.

They cannot alter it, but they must interpret it. And they have interpreted it in direct opposition to your position. You lose the thread yet again. You even ignore the statements you make in the OP later in your posts. Who are you? Tony Snow?

Buring a flag is a political action of protest. The first amendment addresses that too.

So is assassination; are you going to say that such an act is also legal?

why don't YOU show proof that they ment vocal speech only?

Because they used the word speech, which applies only to verbal utterances.

Oh, and to add on: The orginal amendment as proposed by Madison was "''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." so it would seem that 'speech' does not emcompass only vocal words.

Even with that broader definition, the burning of flags is not encompassed, but rather the freedom to transmit ideas through more than one medium.

They cannot alter it, but they must interpret it. And they have interpreted it in direct opposition to your position.

No, they have disregarded it and thus distorted its original intent. They have subtly "revised" the document to accommodate their activist desires.

And as I repeatedly pointed out, the first amendment to the Constitution only condones free speech; burning an item is not a manner of speech and therefore not protected.

and as I have pointed out before the USSC disagrees with you and THEY are the be all end all of constitutional law, not you.

No, they have disregarded it and thus distorted its original intent. They have subtly "revised" the document to accommodate their activist desires.

...

Should we join you in the wearing of tinfoil hats?

No, they have disregarded it and thus distorted its original intent. They have subtly "revised" the document to accommodate their activist desires.

They have misinterpreted it for over 200 years? Purely your opinion and speculation. The rule of law is better than you.

I'm wondering... by FaG's logic, would non-verbal expressions, such as the rolling of eyes not be protected? After all, it's not verbal...

So is assassination; are you going to say that such an act is also legal?
No, because that is covered under the state/federal laws for murder. Really, if you're going to try that tactic, pick something better because that was just pathetic.

Because they used the word speech, which applies only to verbal utterances.
Already shown otherwise. Stomping your feet and waving your arms like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum doesn't change that. Now either show differently or shut up.

Even with that broader definition, the burning of flags is not encompassed, but rather the freedom to transmit ideas through more than one medium.
Let's see. I burn a flag. I'm transmitting the idea that I don't like what the US stands for. Hmm... seems like a transmission of an idea through a different medium to me. Sorry, you just lost your own point.

No, they have disregarded it and thus distorted its original intent. They have subtly "revised" the document to accommodate their activist desires.

The rule of law wins, you lose. This is the problem with you Bushevicks, you call anything you don't like activist and think that makes you right. The USSC makes the opinions that count, you make opinions that amuse.

No, they have disregarded it and thus distorted its original intent. They have subtly "revised" the document to accommodate their activist desires.

I reiterate:

Brilliant, you disagree with the interpretation SCOTUS provides and that gives you enough authority to implement an unconstitutional law?

Sorry, not buying it.

No, they have disregarded it and thus distorted its original intent. They have subtly "revised" the document to accommodate their activist desires.
Show proof of such or again, shut up. It's put up or shut up time, because honestly we've had 20 some odd pages of you ranting about this without a single blessed source to show that said ranting has any scrap of backing beyond your childish "I want it this way and I want it now! So there!" statements.

We've gone out of our way to accomidate you with links, quotes, case studies, and a whole host of material showing that you don't have a bloody leg to stand on. So now either show said leg or quit because with each post you look even MORE foolish, hard to believe as that is.

So is assassination; are you going to say that such an act is also legal?


In the US assassination is not against the law. In some countries if you kill a leader the punishment is different than if you kill anyone else. That is not true in the US. If you kill a president the punishment is the same as if you kill Joe Sixpack (at least the way the law is written)

Didn't read the first 25 pages.. but how about we stop the flag waving for a bit and put more money in social welfare? :D

If the constitution is ever amended to ban desecration of the flag then I'll start desecrating the constitution. Maybe I'll wipe my ass with it. :upyours:

HEre's a better Idea, let the people in your country display whatever flag they want, just because somebody resides in that country, doesn't make them have to fly a certain piece of cloth. And I don't think that somebody dropping a flag really means that you need to be deported, but I'm a bit of a free thinker ;)

FAG, you still haven't answered my question, so I'll repeat it:

Why do you hate freedom?

Didn't read the first 25 pages.. but how about we stop the flag waving for a bit and put more money in social welfare? :D

Amen to that.

If the flag is so important to our existence then why isn't Lady Liberty holding it?

If we want to declare ourselves as the land of the free and that we have freedom of expression, then we have to have the ability to burn the flag in protest.

Our society has survived burning flags. If we enact laws, then we are all the weaker for it.

...

Should we join you in the wearing of tinfoil hats?

http://i12.tinypic.com/4tkns53.jpg

If the constitution is ever amended to ban desecration of the flag then I'll start desecrating the constitution. Maybe I'll wipe my ass with it. :upyours:
It's just a goddamn piece of paper! - George W. Someoneorother

Or maybe, you should respect his wishes instead of flamebaiting him.

Kat, isn't what F.A.G. doing flamebaiting itself?

Kat, isn't what F.A.G. doing flamebaiting itself?

I think he needs the heat to sustain himself.

I think he needs the heat to sustain himself.

I remember one person who put up stories regarding a popular show intending to get flamed. He got praised instead. His response was something along the lines of:

"Where are the flames! I need the fire to warm myself! So cold..."

If the flag is so important to our existence then why isn't Lady Liberty holding it?

If we want to declare ourselves as the land of the free and that we have freedom of expression, then we have to have the ability to burn the flag in protest.

Our society has survived burning flags. If we enact laws, then we are all the weaker for it.

He is among those who think you have to destroy freedom to save it. How they get their brains to come to such a conclusion would make an interesting scientific study.

I have some questions about this.

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.

How does it do that?

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.

How does it happen that a bit of cloth can be turned into a soul?


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.

By what logic is this so?


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).

Would this not just reward hypocrosy? What If I hated America, but took advantage of this rule for cold hard cash?


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.

Nope I don't belive it will work that way at all, what makes you certian that it will? Isn't it a little naive to think that all people can or will think the same way?

It is not simply a piece of cloth, but rather a small portion of America's soul;

Wait. The flag has a piece of my soul? I want it back, burn the flag to release my piece of soul! :eek:

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.

Well, I would think America being the world's coolest, richest, freest and most powerful nation, it has the coolest flag.

And yes, I think people who burn American flags are stupid.

But I think that the First Amendment guarantees their right to do it - yet one more argument for America being the best nation on Earth.




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

Actually, Kat, that's a myth. The Flag Act does not mandate burning.

And yes, I think people who burn American flags are stupid.
What about people who burn other flags?

What about people who burn other flags?

Depends on the flag, doesn't it?

Although the legal status of flag burning remained constant throughout the nation's history, the prevalence of such an action was significantly less in the past. The issue only began to take on additional importance once it became a common pastime among certain elements of our society. My feathers would not be in a tizzy unless I felt that, in these modern times, our youth began questioning and rejecting traditional American values. All around us crime is skyrocketing, immorality is soaring, laziness is pervasive, immorality is smothering us with its abhorrent tentacles, and society is being rent apart by these malicious forces.
Your argument seems to be, in between all the exaggeration and hyperbole, based on the assumption that there wasn't any 'immorality' when flag burning wasn't as common. I call bullshit. If you want to prove that a lack of flag burning in the 1840s did contribute to lower crime rates, I suggest you look bring some evidence to prove it. But you won't. You haven't brought back any evidence for anything else when asked. And until you do, I will refuse to - and I'm hardly alone here - believe a single word of these crackpot theories you say.

And for someone who seems to believe so much in freedom, you have an awful totalitarian streak.

The common denominator is a lack of motivation, a lack of the drive necessary to do what one can for one's country. I don't blame liberals for this, mind you; it was JFK who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." One component of the dilemma is flag burning, which contributes to the feeling that the US is irrelevant: that it is no more than arbitrary lines drawn on a map and represents nothing. Children take for granted what our ancestors fought and died for, and, even worse, ignore the sacrifices that our forefathers made. This neglect is partially due to anti-American activities such as flag burning.
Really, these tirades are getting boring, and repetitive. Until you can offer proof that flag burning is making people feel the USA is irrelevant, and that this is causing to make people feel lazy, which in turn causing people to turn to crime, question American values, authority, immorality, etc, and so on and so forth; I'll continue to think that it's unsubstantiated rubbish. In fact, it's not even rubbish, because rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Conspiracy theories like this have no redeeming value whatsoever.

However, you completely omit the second part of my suggestion, which details a positive plan to take in order to rectify the problem.
What, devalue the flag by watering it down further? If you attach a flag to every telegraph pole, it'll just become as valuable as a telegraph pole. You claim to revere your flag so much, but you seem quite prepared for it to become just another object that we mentally blank from our lives.

Well, I would think America being the world's coolest, richest, freest and most powerful nation, it has the coolest flag.



Only in your opinion of course

Only in your opinion of course

My opinion is as good as yours. :)

Of course I think my opinion is the best. :D


Me being the world's most awesome person and all that.:D:D:D:D

What, devalue the flag by watering it down further? If you attach a flag to every telegraph pole, it'll just become as valuable as a telegraph pole. You claim to revere your flag so much, but you seem quite prepared for it to become just another object that we mentally blank from our lives.

I should also point out that every flag requires two people to run it up the pole and two to take it down. That's a lot of wasted man power, twice a day. Well, unless it rains. To do otherwise is to disrespect the flag.

Actually, Kat, that's a myth. The Flag Act does not mandate burning.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+4USC8

The Flag Act doesn't, but the Flag Code does.

Depends on the flag, doesn't it?
Why should it depend on the flag? If you're against the burning of the American flag, you should be opposed to the burning of flags in general since they all contain a form of symbolism relevant to someone.

So, what makes the American flag so special? It's just a piece of cloth with a random assortment of stripes and stars. It means dick all to me. So, why should I care if it gets burnt?

Of course, I am in favour of freedom to be a jackass so I endorse flag burning, even if it is the Canadian flag, or the flight feathers on the legs of falcons*.

* refer to an earlier post in this thread if you're confused

For example, if I went to an anti-fascist demonstration, I would burn a Nazi swastika-ed flag.

Or if I went to a demonstration agaisnt the Chinese labor/death camps, I'd burn a chinese flag.

For example, if I went to an anti-fascist demonstration, I would burn a Nazi swastika-ed flag.

Or if I went to a demonstration agaisnt the Chinese labor/death camps, I'd burn a chinese flag.

How is that different than if I went to a demonstration against the current American government and burn an American flag? There is zero difference.

For example, if I went to an anti-fascist demonstration, I would burn a Nazi swastika-ed flag.

Or if I went to a demonstration agaisnt the Chinese labor/death camps, I'd burn a chinese flag.

And if people protest against the actions of the US they burn the appropriate flag.

How is that different than if I went to a demonstration against the current American government and burn an American flag? There is zero difference.

Here's the thing.

If you burn a nation's flag, then IMO the point is to demosntrate not just disagreeing with a particular policy, but the very values the nation is associated with.

Like, with North Korea it is juche (sp?). You burn the NK flag = you hate juche. (I do hate Juche).

I do happen to disagree with not just a particular Chinese policy, but with the very principles of the PRC.

Same with the US. Do you in fact disagree with a given Bush policy, or with the very principles behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?

If you hold free speach so dear then surely this includes the Freedom to Burn the Flag if you want to

Well, I would think America being the world's coolest, richest, freest and most powerful nation, it has the coolest flag.

And yes, I think people who burn American flags are stupid.

But I think that the First Amendment guarantees their right to do it - yet one more argument for America being the best nation on Earth.





Actually, Kat, that's a myth. The Flag Act does not mandate burning.

-Cool? The Americans I've met are about as stylish as my blind aunt.

-As with most things, Scandinavia kicks your ass at having money.

-Free? No. Why? Because Patriot act etc.

-Powerful...Yes.

I find the USA flag quite unattractive...Not because it's ugly, but because it stands for USA.

Same with the US. Do you in fact disagree with a given Bush policy, or with the very principles behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?
By burning the flag, you're saying you disagree the circumstances under which the flag is being flown. The flag is being flown over Gitmo, and I disagree with the existence of such a place.

I disagree with the general policies and the direction of the nation as well as the values it has taken in place of its older values that used to exist before 9/11.

Here's a question - would you rather someone burn an American flag outside of the US during a protest or would you rather they attack US troops or launch another 9/11 attack on US soil?

I think we both you'd rather someone simply burn the flag because no one gets hurt in the process.

You are a fascist moron..its just a piece of cloth..vive la france..:upyours:

:rolleyes:

I think that people who desecrate the flag are scum. That being said, I'd also lay down my life to protect their right to do so. Political expression is to be protected at almost any cost.

You are a fascist moron..its just a piece of cloth..vive la france..:upyours:

Orly?

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/muhammed.caricatures/burn.french.flag.jpg

I think that people who desecrate the flag are scum. That being said, I'd also lay down my life to protect their right to do so. Political expression is to be protected at almost any cost.

Scum, eh? I'd think those who go against what the flag is supposed to represent are scum myself, like certain people in our own government. But then thats just me.

Same with the US. Do you in fact disagree with a given Bush policy, or with the very principles behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?

The meaning of the American flag as a symbol goes well beyond the Constitution. There are many who see it as a symbol of repression and violence--and who is the government to say that this is not a legitimate viewpoint?

I think that people who desecrate the flag are scum. That being said, I'd also lay down my life to protect their right to do so. Political expression is to be protected at almost any cost.

Heh scum! Man thats harsh just for a bit of flag burning. The flag is only a symbol and only has what importance you decide to attatch to it.. Attach no importance, and you wonm't be insulted when somebody burns your stars abd stripes. Myself I just don't get it, want to burn the union flag? Go right ahead, it actualy makes no differance to my life.

We've been through this before. I don't want to reiterate my previous posts, but to sum up: the Supreme Court justices are fallible and have perverted the intent of the Constitution.

FnG, why are you so devoted to this worthless piece of paper? You never answered when I mentioned that the constitution was such a great document that they forgot to mention anything about free speech!
The American constitution is no more creditable than any other document laying out a contries values. Just that "American" values would appear to include oppressing others so "Americans" can live happily, the right to bring guns into schools, universities and shopping centres so you can kill countless defenceless citizens. Amazing, I pledge allegiance to all that nonsense on a daily basis? Nope, thank god I don't!!!!!

a flag is a flag, no more no less

you yanks need 2 relize this, and by saying that people in the usa should love it or leave your rejecting your true heritage, you are all from imagrents even natives, they first came from china, so by all means be patriotic about your nation but dnt see the flag as any thing more than a flag

also ur constituion came from the belifes of john looke a brit, and is based upon european modles and this is the same document that said that black people are only 5/8 human, is it that gd

a flag is a flag, no more no less

you yanks need 2 relize this, and by saying that people in the usa should love it or leave your rejecting your true heritage, you are all from imagrents even natives, they first came from china, so by all means be patriotic about your nation but dnt see the flag as any thing more than a flag

also ur constituion came from the belifes of john looke a brit, and is based upon european modles and this is the same document that said that black people are only 5/8 human, is it that gd

Is English your first language?

I think that people who desecrate the flag are scum.

Why?

That being said, I'd also lay down my life to protect their right to do so.

I wouldn't. Seems pretty pointless to die for flag-burning.

Am I the only one surprised enough to comment on F&G saying the genocidal Nazis were good and upstanding German citizens?

Not on this quote directly, but in a pervading theme in this thread. Germans who fought for Germany during WW2 were not necessarily Nazis.
Americans in Iraq are not all Republicans are they?

AMK

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.

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?

All national flags are buried or burned when they are retired.

Your argument seems to be...based on the assumption that there wasn't any 'immorality' when flag burning wasn't as common. I call bullshit.

That's not what I stated; I simply claimed that flag burning contributes to immorality. However, other factors also play a role.

Conspiracy theories like this have no redeeming value whatsoever.

The term "conspiracy theory" implies that a group of men were engaged in plotting a devious scheme. If you are referring to the fact that different judges interpret the Constitution in diverse ways to suit their own activist desires, that is a proven truth, not a theory.

If you attach a flag to every telegraph pole...

I hate to break it to you, but we stopped using telegraphs a long time ago.

That's not what I stated; I simply claimed that flag burning contributes to immorality. However, other factors also play a role.



The term "conspiracy theory" implies that a group of men were engaged in plotting a devious scheme. If you are referring to the fact that different judges interpret the Constitution in diverse ways to suit their own activist desires, that is a proven truth, not a theory.



I hate to break it to you, but we stopped using telegraphs a long time ago.

MTAE, you get a little worse at the troll routine every time you come back. I figured you'd of hit bottom as RC and that's why you vanished. Oh well, apparently not. Your contradictions have been shown and your continual side stepping of arguments against you is blatant.

And honestly flag burning? American flags are almost never burned in protest in this country. If you're going to troll on an issue atleast pick one that's semi-relevant.

That's not what I stated; I simply claimed that flag burning contributes to immorality. However, other factors also play a role.
If you want to play semantics, that's well and truly fine by me. But, I'll count it as a dodge until you can prove that flag burning 'contributes' to immorality, as you claimed.

The term "conspiracy theory" implies that a group of men were engaged in plotting a devious scheme. If you are referring to the fact that different judges interpret the Constitution in diverse ways to suit their own activist desires, that is a proven truth, not a theory.
Dodge #2. You implied that there was as near as damn it a conspiracy of flag burners to spread anti-Americanism. Yet again, you ignore that and go on a tirade about activist judges, instead of addressing the point I made. Which, I might add, you don't substantiate.

I hate to break it to you, but we stopped using telegraphs a long time ago.It's a dodge hat trick! Lamp posts. Bins. It doesn't take a PHD to know what I mean. It's still a term in use in the UK. Of course, I don't need to tell you that you've yet again ignored what I said and not even made the slightest attempt at a rebuttal. Oh well, one can live in hope...

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?

Yes, people did, surprisingly enough, die in a war.

Since the 'Mark Foley' is better than Rosa Parks thread he's gone stale and just gone into Mummy! I'm a neo-con! mode. Which is hardly as fun.

I thought the Rosa Parks is a filthy criminal bit was trollish gold. The Mark Foley thing was too far out to be taken seriously. At least in my opinion.

MTAE, you get a little worse at the troll routine every time you come back. I figured you'd of hit bottom as RC and that's why you vanished. Oh well, apparently not. Your contradictions have been shown and your continual side stepping of arguments against you is blatant.

And honestly flag burning? American flags are almost never burned in protest in this country. If you're going to troll on an issue atleast pick one that's semi-relevant.
Since the 'Mark Foley' is better than Rosa Parks thread he's gone stale and just gone into Mummy! I'm a neo-con! mode. Which is hardly as fun.

I thought the Rosa Parks is a filthy criminal bit was trollish gold. The Mark Foley thing was too far out to be taken seriously. At least in my opinion.
The way MTAE (or his puppeteer) takes it so seriously makes it funny just watching him justifying it. At least for the first page or so. But for 'watching the troll bang his head on the low bridge' fun, the Rosa Parks bit was excellent.

The way MTAE (or his puppeteer) takes it so seriously makes it funny just watching him justifying it. At least for the first page or so. But for 'watching the troll bang his head on the low bridge' fun, the Rosa Parks bit was excellent.

He's not taking it seriously, he's just screwing with people. Which is kind of funny until you see how many people insist upon treating him seriously.

He's not taking it seriously, he's just screwing with people. Which is kind of funny until you see how many people insist upon treating him seriously.
He is (or was) taking the flag thing quite seriously. I don't think he wants to troll any more, so he takes up the neo-con line, which is less silly, and he probably believes in. Unless, of course, he's just a puppet.

It's useful for letting off steam after a biology exam, in any case.

Dodge #2. You implied that there was as near as damn it a conspiracy of flag burners to spread anti-Americanism.

I implied nothing of the sort. There is no organized central leadership co-ordinating the activities of such anti-American individuals. They operate either alone or in small groups; they rarely obey the orders of someone above them in a hierarchy. Thus, I do not feel that the term "conspiracy" can even be remotely applied here.

It's a dodge hat trick! Lamp posts. Bins. It doesn't take a PHD to know what I mean. It's still a term in use in the UK. Of course, I don't need to tell you that you've yet again ignored what I said and not even made the slightest attempt at a rebuttal. Oh well, one can live in hope...

You cannot compare a "telegraph" pole to the American flag; one is simply a functional element of our society designed to serve a practical purpose whereas the other is a purely symbolic construct.

-Cool? The Americans I've met are about as stylish as my blind aunt.

-As with most things, Scandinavia kicks your ass at having money.

-Free? No. Why? Because Patriot act etc.

-Powerful...Yes.

I find the USA flag quite unattractive...Not because it's ugly, but because it stands for USA.

Snore.

I wouldn't. Seems pretty pointless to die for flag-burning.

You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other son-of-a-bitch die for his.
- General George Patton

That's not what I stated; I simply claimed that flag burning contributes to immorality. However, other factors also play a role.


Immorality? I guess protest would be immoral to some people.

The term "conspiracy theory" implies that a group of men were engaged in plotting a devious scheme. If you are referring to the fact that different judges interpret the Constitution in diverse ways to suit their own activist desires, that is a proven truth, not a theory.


Those that claim the Constitution holds no interpretation are following their own activist desires.

I hate to break it to you, but we stopped using telegraphs a long time ago.

Actually no we didn't. We just reassigned them to something else.

Snore.

C'mon ... Usa, Japan.

The term "conspiracy theory" implies that a group of men were engaged in plotting a devious scheme. If you are referring to the fact that different judges interpret the Constitution in diverse ways to suit their own activist desires, that is a proven truth, not a theory.
So where is this proof that shows this? You're still not providing anything to back up your statements.

C'mon ... Usa, Japan.
Huh? :confused:

So where is this proof that shows this? You're still not providing anything to back up your statements.

You're trying to nail jello to a tree - it won't work.

You're trying to nail jello to a tree - it won't work.
True, but I have nothing better to do right now. ;)

Huh? :confused:

He might be suggesting I'm your puppet.

He might be suggesting I'm your puppet.
*Grins* Given that your post count is twice mine, isn't that the other way around?

*Grins* Given that your post count is twice mine, isn't that the other way around?


There lies your evilness. Nobody would suspect it!

Is English your first language?

His first language is Internet.

It's useful for letting off steam after a biology exam, in any case.

You had a bio exam yesterday? I had my microbio exam yesterday!

Freaky...

Actually no we didn't. We just reassigned them to something else.

There isn't much else you could do with a 5-6 metre high pole of wood except use it to hold other wires.

i do not, and have not ever understood how, indenturing oneself to trying to impress everyone else, screwing over everyone else in the process, being thrown the bone of being allowed, actually encouraged, to make a pain in the ass of oneself in the process, is supposed to be, any kind of "FREEDOM"; at all, what so ever, period.

and then for icing on the cake, we're supposed to be proud of a country that demonizess everyone and everything that refuses to buy into screwing itself over on the off chance of somehow bootstraping itself into becomming addicted to the same indentured proccess. how in the hell, why in the hell, can anyone with half a brain, be pround of a country who'se only remaining claim to remarkability is its killing of people directly, or even inderectly by robbing them of their accustomed means of survival, essentially for the 'crime' of standing in it's way, by trying to save themselves and their own natural environment, their survival, as well as our own as well, utterly depends upon, even now, having gone so far as to impose this same tyranny on its own, supposedly "free" people, made thus supposedly "free" by doing so?

what in the hell is being ment by "free" in this context? what in the hell does any of that have to do, with any kind of freedom? it certainly isn't freeing anyone from having to worry about getting beaten over the head. and it isn't freeing anyone from having to worry about the means of survival, nor freeing them to persue gratification where any such thing is ever actually to be found.

i can understand someone lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else wanting everyone else to believe that their doing so somehow makes them free. what i can't understand, is anyone who'se pockets aren't already deepend by this proccess, buying into calling it freedom, or how they can, by any streatch of the immagination, expect it to make the deepining of their own pockets probable. or again, how any of that is supposed to equate to any kind of real freedom, security, or gratifictaion.

all of which, by the way, freedom, security AND gratification, universally, for everyone, is something that we are capable of living, in such a way as for everyone, universally, to have.

obviously not but procrustean redistribution, of a shortage of everything do to a darth of incentives to bring it into existence. i'm NOT suggesting anything of the sort. what i AM suggesting, is that NOT everyting that refuses to kiss the ass of this ubiguotous, socialy and culturaly encourage, and politicaly and idiologicly fanaticly promoted and even demanded dilusion, has to, or can only be, that kind of procrustean redistribution.

people like doing things. they just don't like doing things that they see themselves getting screwed by doing. that in the back of their mind they can see everyone including themselves getting ultimately screwed by their own sweat.

so pride and prestege are still motivating factors, but pride and prestege in CREATING with their own hands and tools and immagination, comfort, gratification and beauty, for themselves and others.

yes this is closely related to potlatching, but in a high tec, in harmony with nature, low stress, injoying what you are doing as you do, or would, in any sort of hobby that itself brings happiness and gratification in the doing of it.

i've envisioned what might be one way, one kind of a world in which this might be possible. others, perhapse better, or more likely to be persued and achieved, are likely to be capable of being thought of.

mathom houses, craftufacturing centers, and very miniature form factor but still actually big enough to provide real transportation to real people, objects and commodities, are key elements to this concept. the 'engine' that propells it of course, that replaces the frustrating nongratification of greed, is the "ego-boo" that comes from this creating and shairing of beauty.

once upon a time, even in monetary economies, there was some remaining residual vestage of this concept. yet we can now see how the pretense of instant gain, of equating the means of austentation with freedom, has, over the period of a few hundred years, completely eliminated it as a motivating and gratifying factor in everyday life.

there is much that we can thank monetary incentives for having given us, certain tecnologies which are actually useful and bennificial, along with a far greater number and diversity of those which have proven only detrimental. the refrigerator and the narrow gauge railway, even the development of solar cells and improved batteries. but neither can we rationally deny, that socially and culturally, environmentally, and perhapse even in all but very few exceptional niches, tecnologcily as well, that it has long since past its point of diminishing returns.

the last thing in hell we need is to destroy everything we have gained, in some destructive fit of frustration. but we do, undeniably need, if our species and quite possibly the web of life on our planet itself, is to survive, to not only find, but impliment and adopt, a healthier, more sustainable, and even, dare i say it, truely more free, way of both getting by, and gaining the real freedom that delusion is robbing us of.

what we do need to unbuild, is our emotional dependence on this complex of shared delusions, that we have become so accustomed to, that we have been passing down through the generations, for these past few hundred years. and yes, that's all the longer it has been.

it has NOT 'always been thus'. not even by any streatch of it.
and as pointed out, it does not 'always' have to continue to be.
indeed it is quite incappble of eternal perpetuation having, built in, by the very self blindness it demands, the seeds of its own, and unfortuately everything else's with it, destruction.

in short, hope exists, though neither in monetary nor procutian proccessess, but rather, and oddly enough, in a proccess, dependent upon neither, in which there is real and actual gratification, in both the proccess and the resaults of it, both of which, being mindfully harmonious with the well being of nature's vital to ourselves as well and as much to life on our world in all forms, cyclic proccess of self renewall.

utopian may imply unattainable, but when survival of our species depends upon something, calling it utopian becomes irrelivant. this is not a question of faith, but a mater of 'hard cold' reality.

and with REAL freedom as a real bonus!

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

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

No. But apparently if you desecrate the Cuban flag they'll kick you out.

Much respect to the flag, as always. :)

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

Not to mention that locking people up for desecrating the flag is a bigger desecration than the burning itself.

It would be like those occasional idiot parents who chain their kids to radiators because they don't want the kid to be unsupervised and have the chance to experiment with drugs. What you're doing to it does far more damage to what it really is than just applying a little flame and letting it bake.

Not to mention that locking people up for desecrating the flag is a bigger desecration than the burning itself.

Exactly.

If you think burning a flag is wrong and insults a nation, obviously your faith in that nation is build on a shaky foundation. After all, if it wasn't, you'd be able to take it in stride and understand that the person cannot destroy the ideas and values that make that nation simply by burning a flag.

The flag is a visual symbol. If you burn it, you burn a visual representation of ideas, values etc but you don't destroy the idea and values themselves. An ideas, values and faith can only be destroyed when people no longer accept it.

Snore.

I would like to thank you for helping the troll by bumping up an almost nine hour old thread. After it'd sunk to the depths. It's always glorious fun when one of these threads finally dies that someone has to break out the jumper cables and zap it back to life.

In the United States, desecrating the American flag is the highest insult. Burning the American flag is used as a symbol and a form of protest (which is protected under the First Amendment under the freedom of speech, the right to assembly and the right to petition the government).

When an old flag is taken off a flag pole, it is retired in a ceremony: the stripes are cut off and individually burned, and the blue part with the stars is burned last. It is a solemn and dignified occasion.

It is not illegal to desecrate the American flag, but it is highly offensive. A person can burn the flag if they want to, but they must be prepared to accept the consequences, whether it be rude insults from passersby, or a visit from the police.

The colors of the American flag have a symbolic meaning:

Red: courage
White: strength
Blue: loyalty

There are 13 stripes, one for each of the original colonies. Early designs had a star and a stripe added to the flag each time a new state entered the Union. When there were 18 states, people decided that this method was ridiculous, and simply added a star for every new state. So, there are 50 stars - one for each state.

Hey, you don't have to like the U.S. or the present government's policies, but please understand that the country is made up of regular people who love their country and its flag. Please be respectful, and try to find some other way to express your displeasure with U.S. policies and practices.

The colors of the American flag have a symbolic meaning:

Red: courage
White: strength
Blue: loyalty


No, it's actually something even cornier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States#Symbolism

It is not illegal to desecrate the American flag, but it is highly offensive. A person can burn the flag if they want to, but they must be prepared to accept the consequences, whether it be rude insults from passersby, or a visit from the police.




Why is a visit from the police a consequence of burning a symbolic cloth?

Seems like a waste of taxpayers money to me ... unless they are violating a burning ban or something and actually risking something by having an open flame.

The colors of the American flag have a symbolic meaning:

Red: courage
White: strength
Blue: loyalty
I may be overloading with the common sense here, but do you honestly think that during a revolution and war, people sat down and think of cheesy reasons of what the colours would mean?

I may be overloading with the common sense here, but do you honestly think that during a revolution and war, people sat down and think of cheesy reasons of what the colours would mean?

flag = post-revolution product

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 spirit and values of the US is more important than the flag than represents it. The chief value happens to be freedom of speech which is what burning of the flag happens to be. To stop people from burning the flag is one of the most unAmerican things one could do.

flag = post-revolution product
I was under the impression you guys got it during the revolutionary war.

I'll look at wiki.

EDIT: And it agrees with yours truly.

On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress passed the Flag Resolution which stated: "Resolved, That the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation." Flag Day is now observed on June 14 of each year. A false tradition holds that the new flag was first hoisted in June of 1777 by the Continental Army at the Middlebrook encampment.

In the United States, desecrating the American flag is the highest insult. Burning the American flag is used as a symbol and a form of protest (which is protected under the First Amendment under the freedom of speech, the right to assembly and the right to petition the government).

When an old flag is taken off a flag pole, it is retired in a ceremony: the stripes are cut off and individually burned, and the blue part with the stars is burned last. It is a solemn and dignified occasion.

It is not illegal to desecrate the American flag, but it is highly offensive. A person can burn the flag if they want to, but they must be prepared to accept the consequences, whether it be rude insults from passersby, or a visit from the police.

The colors of the American flag have a symbolic meaning:

Red: courage
White: strength
Blue: loyalty

There are 13 stripes, one for each of the original colonies. Early designs had a star and a stripe added to the flag each time a new state entered the Union. When there were 18 states, people decided that this method was ridiculous, and simply added a star for every new state. So, there are 50 stars - one for each state.

Hey, you don't have to like the U.S. or the present government's policies, but please understand that the country is made up of regular people who love their country and its flag. Please be respectful, and try to find some other way to express your displeasure with U.S. policies and practices.

You say it's not illegal and you are right. The OP suggested we try people for treason and throw them out of the country for burning the flag. You cannot take America away by burning a flag can you? "A rose by any other name would still be as sweet." This country is built on the solid foundation of values which are not represented by any symbol. I am an American and I bleed the same color as a Somalian do I not? You want to be insulted by the burning of the flag then fine. But you sure as hell better not claim that I should get a "visit by the police" (why so if as you claim it's not a crime?) if I chose to do it. The USSC, one of those branches of our government the founders thought it important to include already ruled on this many times. Are you opposed to flying the flag upside down? Or should we all be rounded up and detained for that too? I, along with many other men and women fight for this country to preserve rights, not to see them stripped while we're away in a foreign land.

F&G, if you really beleive in what America stands for and is, you will celebrate the rights of flag-burners. It is not that they are right or wrong to dislike our nation. I beleive, personally, that one has a responsibility to one's nation to ask the best of it, and that one does not punish their child by burning pictures of it, but that is just me. I leave that judgement to others.

However, burning the flag is an act of freedom. It is a sign of a nation that has fought so hard to be free, that even those who oppose it are free. We need not allow their baiting to lower the level of discourse, nor allow ourselves to become beasts with only ego and law on our side. Rather, ignore them, and they'll grow out of it.

He might be suggesting I'm your puppet.

Erm, no ...
http://www.japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0+17278

Check your manufacturers' location label.

Sulien on one hand your saying that it's a constitutional right to burn the US flag, yet you also say their are consequences such as the police coming to your door....... that makes no sense.

You're trying to nail jello to a tree - it won't work.

Sure, now you guys tell me.

*puts hammer, nails, and Jell-O away*

Another four hours wasted...

This thread is living proof that there is at least one hobby more popular than beating a dead horse, beating a METAPHYSICAL dead horse.

Just let this bloody thread die, F&G is an idiot and he's getting a stiffy thinking about how long we've discussed this particularly bilous view of his.

~S

A flag is a symbol, and I leave symbols to the simple-minded.

Ain't nobody ever died for a flag. Period. They died for what the flag represents. If you haven't got the simple intelligence to realize that burning one, especially the ones you get at Wal*Mart which actually SAY "made in China" on them, is a symbolic gesture, then perhaps it is you, not the "desecrator" who should leave.

Ain't nobody ever died for a flag. Period.

Have you ever heard of flag-bearers? They were courageous men given the honorable duty of carrying the flag in battle. They didn't have rifles nor weapons of any sort; their sole duty was to proudly hold the flag up high. Many died for the flag, and their sacrifice is remembered every time an ungrateful, despicable man burns such a flag. Such an act negates their incredible bravery and is a slap in the face to what they fought and died for.

Have you ever heard of flag-bearers? They were courageous men given the honorable duty of carrying the flag in battle. They didn't have rifles nor weapons of any sort; their sole duty was to proudly hold the flag up high. Many died for the flag, and their sacrifice is remembered every time an ungrateful, despicable man burns such a flag. Such an act negates their incredible bravery and is a slap in the face to what they fought and died for.

They fought and died for a reason I find stupid but I can still respect their incredible bravery

Have you ever heard of flag-bearers? They were courageous men given the honorable duty of carrying the flag in battle. They didn't have rifles nor weapons of any sort; their sole duty was to proudly hold the flag up high. Many died for the flag, and their sacrifice is remembered every time an ungrateful, despicable man burns such a flag. Such an act negates their incredible bravery and is a slap in the face to what they fought and died for.

They still did not die "for" the flag they died carrying the flag and for what it represents

This thread is living proof that there is at least one hobby more popular than beating a dead horse, beating a METAPHYSICAL dead horse.

Just let this bloody thread die, F&G is an idiot and he's getting a stiffy thinking about how long we've discussed this particularly bilous view of his.

~S

Considering the recent attempt to pass a law banning flag burning in Congress this is hardly an issue that is moot. There must be a good minority of people who actually think it is a good idea.

They still did not die "for" the flag they died carrying the flag

Well, thank you, Mr. Semantics, if that is your real name.

Well, thank you, Mr. Semantics, if that is your real name.

Its an important distinction all the same

Well, thank you, Mr. Semantics, if that is your real name.

When it is important ...

Someone said no one actually died for the flag ... you gave an example of someone that supposedly died for a flag which turned out to be bullshit as shown

If semantics shows how you make up BS responses more power to semantics

A flag is a symbol, and I leave symbols to the simple-minded.

Ain't nobody ever died for a flag. Period. They died for what the flag represents. If you haven't got the simple intelligence to realize that burning one, especially the ones you get at Wal*Mart which actually SAY "made in China" on them, is a symbolic gesture, then perhaps it is you, not the "desecrator" who should leave.

Heh really, symbols are for the simple minded. Ummm I wonder about these symbols we use to communicate called words? I mean the word Car is not in fact an actual car, just a symbol.

Words for the simple minded!:eek:

Heh really, symbols are for the simple minded. Ummm I wonder about these symbols we use to communicate called words? I mean the word Car is not in fact an actual car, just a symbol.

Words for the simple minded!:eek:

George Carlin

George Carlin

Umm wot? Summit to do with beer?

Desecrating the flag by any means whatsoever is tantamount to mutilating America itself

Disrespectful...yes. Insulting...yes. Tantamount to mutilating America?? What have you been smoken?

Can't we just ban the flag?

Have you ever heard of flag-bearers? They were courageous men given the honorable duty of carrying the flag in battle. They didn't have rifles nor weapons of any sort; their sole duty was to proudly hold the flag up high. Many died for the flag, and their sacrifice is remembered every time an ungrateful, despicable man burns such a flag. Such an act negates their incredible bravery and is a slap in the face to what they fought and died for.

You'll forgive me for saying I still think running around in battle unarmed except for a big stick and some cloth is a pretty bad idea.

You'll forgive me for saying I still think running around in battle unarmed except for a big stick and some cloth is a pretty bad idea.

You've obviously never fought in the scariest of battles. The battle for a tree fort

Can't we just ban the flag?

Good. That'll stop 'em from burning it.

Someone said no one actually died for the flag ... you gave an example of someone that supposedly died for a flag which turned out to be bullshit as shown

Perhaps your definition of "dying for a flag" is different from the rest of the world's, but that doesn't make you right. It is the patriotic duty of flag-bearers to hold the Stars and Stripes aloft, even at a substantial risk to their own life. If they wish, they could throw down the flag and run away like frightened school-girls, but they don't; they sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the status of the flag. They die for the flag. This may be a bit hard for you to comprehend, but try actually admitting that you're wrong once in a while instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "La, la, la, la!"

Until they go down in a hail of gunfire because they practically have a bullseye painted on them. Anyone who volunteers to be a flag-bearer is so blind with patriotism that they should get counseling.

heh or shot?

Perhaps your definition of "dying for a flag" is different from the rest of the world's, but that doesn't make you right. It is the patriotic duty of flag-bearers to hold the Stars and Stripes aloft"

Until they go down in a hail of gunfire because they practically have a bullseye painted on them. Anyone who volunteers to be a flag-bearer is so blind with patriotism that they should get counseling.

Perhaps your definition of "dying for a flag" is different from the rest of the world's, but that doesn't make you right. It is the patriotic duty of flag-bearers to hold the Stars and Stripes aloft, even at a substantial risk to their own life. If they wish, they could throw down the flag and run away like frightened school-girls, but they don't; they sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the status of the flag. They die so people won't think they're pansies..

Fixed.

You'll forgive me for saying I still think running around in battle unarmed except for a big stick and some cloth is a pretty bad idea.

Might as well just paint a big bullseye on your ass that says "target practice" if is going to go into battle unarmed. :)

This is a classic MTAE thread. Start with a stupid topic, and periodically pop in to drop one or two liners, ignore any serious argument and go after straw men and weak points.


Wonder how long til the mods once again grow tired of his tripe?

This is a classic MTAE thread. Start with a stupid topic, and periodically pop in to drop one or two liners, ignore any serious argument and go after straw men and weak points.


Wonder how long til the mods once again grow tired of his tripe?

We just have to wait for him to slip up then we can lower the mod noose.

There is no rule against being a retard here sadly. If there was, this place would be woefully underpopulated.

We just have to wait for him to slip up then we can lower the mod noose.

You're not threatening to use the moderators as a weapon, are you? Because that would be an infringement upon the forum rules.

This is a classic MTAE thread. Start with a stupid topic, and periodically pop in to drop one or two liners, ignore any serious argument and go after straw men and weak points.


And claim that his opinion is held by the majority of people, and the poster is woefully out of synch with the rest of the world.

And claim that his opinion is held by the majority of people, and the poster is woefully out of synch with the rest of the world.

Actually, I only made such a claim in another thread regarding Iraq. Furthermore, my statement was factually true, as I attached a poll to that particular thread asking users if they agreed with me (the majority replied in the affirmative). Perhaps it is you who is "out of sync" with the rest of the world.

He's a little over the top this time. The last time, he hit the perfect balance.

You're not threatening to use the moderators as a weapon, are you? Because that would be an infringement upon the forum rules.

I'm not threatening anyone. All I'm saying is that if you or anyone else does something that breaks the rules, we're in our full right to report it. I'm not threatening. I'm just making a simple statement of facts. If you interpret it like that then that's your problem.

You shouldn't have to worry unless you've done something wrong, should you? Unless you did slip up, in which case, it wouldn't be an infringement, would it? It is only an infringement on my part if you haven't done anything.

There's nothing wrong with using the mods as weapons when someone has done something wrong. In fact, that's what they're there for. They exist to take care of troublemakers.

You'll forgive me for saying I still think running around in battle unarmed except for a big stick and some cloth is a pretty bad idea.

But wait, that is armed... whoops, my bad. I'm still in SCA mode.

We just have to wait for him to slip up then we can lower the mod noose.

There is no rule against being a retard here sadly. If there was, this place would be woefully underpopulated.

There's really little reason to wait, he pretty much admitted he's MTAE in one of his other threads. Since he was able to compare himself with a supposed other person who was deleted ages ago. Though no one has said MTAE's full name, so unless he did some pretty in depth googling he can't of found out who that is. He even helpfully posted a link to jolt's search that he supposedly used to find out, which showed 0 results.


Squeeee! A quote:


If I didn't think you were an idiot before, you've convinced me by now. Given that so many people told me I was MTaE when I first started posting on this board, I checked out who the guy was in order to see if there was some truth to their claims. I read some of his posts and found that we were not extremely dissimilar from one another (except in terms of religion). You're right; if people like you hadn't constantly referred to me as "MTaE," I probably wouldn't have known about him. Unfortunately, people like you seemed bent on using fallacious ad hominem attacks against me. In case you're wondering, there is, in fact, a search function. Oopsie.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=782183

And oh my, is that flaming I spy?

The American flag is an integral part of our heritage:*snip*


Seriously, this forum has enough conversational pyromaniacs as it is ...... for the love of fuck give it a rest

Actually, I only made such a claim in another thread regarding Iraq. Furthermore, my statement was factually true, as I attached a poll to that particular thread asking users if they agreed with me (the majority replied in the affirmative). Perhaps it is you who is "out of sync" with the rest of the world.

And perhaps not. Although I did actually agree that we should withdraw from Iraq, just not precisely with your reasons. My point is, I've noticed a definite tendency in you to proclaim your opinion as objective truth.

Actually, I only made such a claim in another thread regarding Iraq. Furthermore, my statement was factually true, as I attached a poll to that particular thread asking users if they agreed with me (the majority replied in the affirmative). Perhaps it is you who is "out of sync" with the rest of the world.

Point to an actual poll, with random sampling and statistical analysis, that states that the majority of Americans agree with you on any given topic, and I'll think about it. Then I'll ask for the actual questions (The way a question is asked can have a huge impact on a polls outcome) and for the margin of error. Keeping always in mind the truism about lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm going to burn a flag tonight in honor of this thread. Can I get some respect?

I think that the American Flag shouldn't concern a forum where the United States of America doesn't have anything to do with these nations.

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.

First of all from now on if I say "Senator McCarthy", "Red Scare", or "J Edger" (unless of course I use them in a historical sense) I would like it to be known that they would be in reference to you. Secondly Senator McCarthy, your right that it would increase tolerance, as long as you agree with the status quo you would be tolerated. Dissenters would not be tolerated, and if dissent is not tolerated then how could we say were are a democracy? Personally, I think that being able to burn the American flag without punishment demonstrates the American principles of freedom, liberty, right to opinions and such a lot better than deportation.

I'm going to burn a flag tonight in honor of this thread. Can I get some respect?

'spet *bumps knuckles in a ghettoesque manner*

Slightly off topic but I saw a picture in the paper today of some Pakistani chaps burning a homemade Union Flag over the whole Rushdie thing and couldn't help thinking 'If you want to burn a flag in protest then go buy one, don't draw one with felt tip that looks fuck all like it's supposed to'. They even had too many diagonal white lines the half assed bastards.

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.

This really winds me up because i know there should be a slow process for the world to become a world goverment and not all the separate countries having proxi wars and going all nationalist (BNP, united states national party,etcetera...)
Because once we have world government humanity can finally end war, disease etc and head for the stars and create a human empire. The imperium of man has a cool ring to it.

'spet *bumps knuckles in a ghettoesque manner*



Props where props is due, s'all I'm sayin', homey.

are you aware that there are laws governing the use of a flag, you should look them up. displaying a flag is actually illegal if done incorrectly, and most americains incorrectly display there flags. if you watch a military ceremony and the colors do present colors, all flags are dipped except the amaericain flag, and this is even done in international ceremonies. this is because being that it is the symbol of our nation it isnt bowed to anyone, and yet most flag displays are at an angle. these flags are also generally torn, tatered etc. from constant flying, this is also wrong as there are laws governing when to fly a flag, you cant just have it up at any given time. and actually, when a flag gets old, you are suppose to burn it, it is a private ceremony conducted by only 2 peaple typically, but you are actually suppose to burn the flag.

I think that the American Flag shouldn't concern a forum where the United States of America doesn't have anything to do with these nations.
Most people here come from America, I think. But congratulations on not using a gun smilie on your first post.:D

are you aware that there are laws governing the use of a flag, you should look them up. displaying a flag is actually illegal if done incorrectly, and most americains incorrectly display there flags. if you watch a military ceremony and the colors do present colors, all flags are dipped except the amaericain flag, and this is even done in international ceremonies. this is because being that it is the symbol of our nation it isnt bowed to anyone, and yet most flag displays are at an angle. these flags are also generally torn, tatered etc. from constant flying, this is also wrong as there are laws governing when to fly a flag, you cant just have it up at any given time. and actually, when a flag gets old, you are suppose to burn it, it is a private ceremony conducted by only 2 peaple typically, but you are actually suppose to burn the flag.

Also, when making love to the American flag it is important to use the proper lubricant. Anything other than water-based is strictly illegal.

Also, when making love to the American flag it is important to use the proper lubricant. Anything other than water-based is strictly illegal.

im making a point

im making a point

As am I, my fine-feathered friend.

And you're getting mocked. It happens.

I'm really not mocking him, though. Just the laws.

im making a point

And you're getting mocked. It happens.

So if flag burning were banned would I still be able to burn a picture of the flag?

Can I take a polaroid of the flag then burn that?

What about things that resemble the flag but aren't exactly the flag? For example a flag with the wrong colors, or number of stars and stripes.

I'm pretty sure I could get rather creative in my displays of anti-patriotism.

So if flag burning were banned would I still be able to burn a picture of the flag?

Can I take a polaroid of the flag then burn that?

What about things that resemble the flag but aren't exactly the flag? For example a flag with the wrong colors, or number of stars and stripes.

I'm pretty sure I could get rather creative in my displays of anti-patriotism.

And thus, the flaws in any such proposed measure. Would it apply only to actual, physical, cloth flags, made by specific companies with specific attributes? Would it apply to representations of flags? Funeral flags burned in a house fire?