NationStates Jolt Archive

Often, I hear the question, "Would you burn a U.S. flag?" or "Should it be legal/illegal to burn a U.S. flag?" I have yet to hear someone ask the same thing about the U.S. Constitution, so here it is.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

Hell no. I would punch anyone who tried to burn one in front of me. The constitution is the guiding force of the nation, and should be respected.

An original copy? Hell no...it's an historical artifact.

Now if it's simply a printout of the text contained in the original constitution, I'll burn it if I damn well feel like it. It's just ink on paper.

Hell no. I would punch anyone who tried to burn one in front of me. The constitution is the guiding force of the nation, and should be respected.

I'd burn it purely to offend you then.

Hey, if the President is allowed to (metaphorically) burn the Constitution, so should everyone else.

Sorry, I had to.

I'd burn it purely to offend you then.

Why? To be a bastard?

I'd burn it purely to offend you then.

LOL!

Why? To be a bastard?

No, to make the point that it's a trivial thing to get upset about.

Why? I can't imagine burning a Constitution getting across any kind of message I would care to send. I like the Constitution.

But if I were freezing and all I had to start a fire with was a bunch of Constitutions, then I guess I'm gonna burn me some Constitutions. :p

No, to make the point that it's a trivial thing to get upset about.

I don't really think that the one of the symbols of our nation being destroyed is trivial, even if it is a copy.

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?

What if I burnt something that meant a lot to you? How would you like it?

I realize this wasn't in response to me, but will reply anyway.

I don't really think that the one of the symbols of our nation being destroyed is trivial, even if it is a copy.

I do.

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?

If it's your property, I don't really care.

What if I burnt something that meant a lot to you? How would you like it?

If it was something that belonged to me, I would care. Otherwise, I wouldn't care.

I don't really think that the one of the symbols of our nation being destroyed is trivial, even if it is a copy.

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?

What if I burnt something that meant a lot to you? How would you like it?

Wait, are we talking about the actual constitution or a copy?

I wouldn't burn the actual because it's an historical artifact.

I'd burn a copy, I would mind if someone burnt my own personal belongings to annoy me but if they burnt copies, I really couldn't care - I can't think of anything that would really upset me.

Having said that, if it really upset you so much, I probably wouldn't bother but if you're going to punch someone for it, then I would.

Wait, are we talking about the actual constitution or a copy?

Either one.

If I wanted to do it, I would do it because it is much more meaningful than burning an American flag. The flag is just stripes and stars on a rectangular cloth. The Constitution is (or is supposed to be) the embodiment of the principles on which our nation is founded, and the fact that we have the right (ok, through symbolic speech, we can argue) to do that is what makes America special.

Why? I can't imagine burning a Constitution getting across any kind of message I would care to send. I like the Constitution.

But if I were freezing and all I had to start a fire with was a bunch of Constitutions, then I guess I'm gonna burn me some Constitutions. :p

Two point I can think of would be tyhe suggestion that it's already been rendered to ashes or simply as a statement that said document allows the freedom to make even the statement that you hate it...

Either one.

Well, if it's the actual Cosntituion, then it's an important historical artifact and should be preserved. But a copy can be burnt; it's only a piece of recycled paper anyway.

Also, 'sup RB. Long time no see. Going back to II?

Also, 'sup RB. Long time no see. Going back to II?

Skinny! It's been ages! :D

Yes, I am. I'm already there. :)

Skinny! It's been ages! :D

Yes, I am. I'm already there. :)

Too long. I'm afraid I've migrated to other boards, but I'll have a nose in II, see whats going on.

I don't really think that the one of the symbols of our nation being destroyed is trivial, even if it is a copy.

I might be upset if someone burned a historical copy, but that's only for reasons of scholarship. I do agree that burning the flag or constitution are non-trivial, but non-trivial statements are even more important. If the nation is in such a state that someone who understands the symbols of it burns or otherwise defaces them in protest, it should serve as a wake up call at the very least. And that some feel a need to impose a restriction at gunpoint (which is what the law ultimately is) on such statements should be seriously worrysome....

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?

If you burned various works of Buddha in front of, I'd be reminded of the lesson contained in the parable about meeting the Buddha on the road.... It's esentially the same thing...

What if I burnt something that meant a lot to you? How would you like it?

It would depend, but most likely you would have to kill someone to burn up the most importat things. I'd be more upset that you needed to murder than with your desire to destroy symbols of ideas. The symbol =/= the idea, afterall...

Personally, I wouldn't burn the Constitution, even if it was a copy, simply because I wouldn't feel right about it, but if someone else were to, I wouldn't stop them.

its a fucking piece of paper, i wouldnt hesitate to burn it in any circumstance where i would burn any piece of paper--to start a fire in the fireplace perhaps.

i wouldnt burn it in protest because it would be a stupid way to protest.

An original copy? Hell no...it's an historical artifact.

Now if it's simply a printout of the text contained in the original constitution, I'll burn it if I damn well feel like it. It's just ink on paper.

This /\

I don't really think that the one of the symbols of our nation being destroyed is trivial, even if it is a copy.

I do. Because I don't see 'my' nation as having any legitimacy, so why should I care?

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?

Go for it. It's a good way of demonstrating a strong opinion.

What if I burnt something that meant a lot to you? How would you like it?

Well, I wouldn't like it, but as long as it's your copy, go for it. Say I write a book, you're perfectly entitled to burn it in front of me. I might not like it, but if you feel strongly enough about it, I might even see fit to provide you with a copy. Have fun!

being English I have no business in this thread but if it came to burning the British equivalent I would be there all day so its a maybe

I would however burn the US constitution as a symbol that being ruled by what is essentially the colonial era ten commandments is absurd

But if I were freezing and all I had to start a fire with was a bunch of Constitutions, then I guess I'm gonna burn me some Constitutions. :p

make sure you start with the old tattered ones first :)

I'd burn a flag, I think. Bush is bad, but McCain & Hillary are both at least as bad. Maybe after election day?

The Constitution, though currently ignored by most politicians, deserves more respect due to the concept of a limited representative government. Its primary flaw (reacknowledgment of slavery) is due to the curse of compromise.

I wouldn't stop you from burning a copy, though.

It's a piece of paper, whatev. Pretty outdated anyway.

It's a piece of paper, whatev. Pretty outdated anyway.

Who needs those pesky rights anyway? :rolleyes:

You can burn a copy of the Constitution, sure, but you cannot actually burn the Constitution. It's behind some pretty fucking serious security.

If I needed kindling to keep myself alive, or was forced to at gunpoint, sure. Even destroying the original does not magically free the United States from its rule of law.
However, as a form of protest I would never burn it, because I don't disagree with and there would be no point but to offend.

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?

If you burned God and the State in front of me, I would probably laugh.

I believe in it, so I would not burn it unless I had a reason. However, as the Constitution is not sacred, the destruction of a copy would not be a great loss. So frankly, if I had to burn a piece of paper, and one of the pieces is a copy of the Constution, it might get toasted.

As a protest, it makes no sense.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

I'm not particularly antagonistic to it--though it could be much better--but just because it's an important national symbol, burning it might be a way to protest something.

I'm not particularly antagonistic to it--though it could be much better--but just because it's an important national symbol, burning it might be a way to protest something.

What protest would be worth burning even a copy of the constitution?

How is the constitution 'outdated', as a previous poster said, and how can it be better?

edit: @ universe: how is the nation not legitimate?

I probably wouldn't actually punch someone if they burned a constitution, but they would sure get some verbal abuse. Someone better have a damn good reason to burn a constitution other than 'just for the fuck of it', or 'just to piss someone off'.

What protest would be worth burning even a copy of the constitution?

Any, if it worked.

How is the constitution 'outdated', as a previous poster said, and how can it be better?

Well, our understanding of how legislatures and executives should function has advanced over two centuries, for one... we see plenty of governments without separation of powers between executive and legislative who nevertheless avoid falling into tyranny.

The original copy? NO! A copy of it? Not unless it had something to do with my wellbeing. Would I burn every politician who (Metaphoricly) wipes his butt with the constitution? YES!

Who needs those pesky rights anyway? :rolleyes:

yeah like the right to freedom of expression :p

You can burn a copy of the Constitution, sure, but you cannot actually burn the Constitution. It's behind some pretty fucking serious security.

yeah but its visible and as such a suppose if you had some kind of super magnifying glass and a sunny day...

However, as a form of protest I would never burn it, because I don't disagree with and there would be no point but to offend.

As a protest, it makes no sense.

What protest would be worth burning even a copy of the constitution?

your both lacking in imagination then! what if you wanted to point out the destruction of your civil liberties by lets say dressing as the statue of liberty only with a death face and setting fire to the constitution with your torch

that could be kind of groovy its also oddly a protest to the conflicting message the statue of liberty gives compared to current American law if lets say you was an illegal immigrant (gosh I'm good:cool:)

How is the constitution 'outdated', as a previous poster said, and how can it be better?

it should be subject to change as its weird that you can try to apply something written hundreds of years ago to the present day (and as a result open it to interpretation play)

I probably wouldn't actually punch someone if they burned a constitution, but they would sure get some verbal abuse. Someone better have a damn good reason to burn a constitution other than 'just for the fuck of it', or 'just to piss someone off'.

so your immediate action when someone does something to piss you off is to get angry and snap...

No

your both lacking in imagination then! what if you wanted to point out the destruction of your civil liberties by lets say dressing as the statue of liberty only with a death face and setting fire to the constitution with your torch



that could be kind of groovy its also oddly a protest to the conflicting message the statue of liberty gives compared to current American law if lets say you was an illegal immigrant (gosh I'm good:cool:)


Possibly. It'd have to be a good reason.



it should be subject to change as its weird that you can try to apply something written hundreds of years ago to the present day (and as a result open it to interpretation play)


There have been many additions to the constitution, over time. The constitution is not static.



so your immediate action when someone does something to piss you off is to get angry and snap...

Those are my first thoughts. Most of the time I bite my tongue. Though something like burning the constitution, I'd probably ask them what the hell they were doing in an angry voice. And they better have a good answer, otherwise I I'd probably argue with them.

Those are my first thoughts. Most of the time I bite my tongue. Though something like burning the constitution, I'd probably ask them what the hell they were doing in an angry voice. And they better have a good answer, otherwise I I'd probably argue with them.

That would probably be best, especially as freedom of speech is addressed in the Constitution. Arguing with the protester would be a gesture in line with the Constitution itself.

I, personally, wouldnt burn it, because i dont see the point of Protesting the Constitution, but, I, and the Constitution itself, support the right for someone else to burn it, in protest, or whatever...

Same for flags and other Patriotic items...

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

I doubt it would burn, considering how many times the Bush administration has pissed on it.

I doubt it would burn, considering how many times the Bush administration has pissed on it.

I think that would make it all the more inflammable.

I personally would not burn a copy of the constitution. And as distasteful as I would find it if another person did, that is their right. It is a form of fredom of speech.

Although I would tell the American burning the costitution that if they disagreed that strongly with the founding principles of our nation they might think about moving eslewhere.

Possibly. It'd have to be a good reason.

and these are in short supply? hell even burning it for no reason is a statement in itself surely (art is a bitch:p)

There have been many additions to the constitution, over time. The constitution is not static.

ah, but the original document is somehow special

Those are my first thoughts. Most of the time I bite my tongue. Though something like burning the constitution, I'd probably ask them what the hell they were doing in an angry voice. And they better have a good answer, otherwise I I'd probably argue with them.

your going to yell to someone whilst they are giving a performance? are you a theater critic?!

clearly you wait for them to finish then gently ask what they are doing and probably end up friends after a long discussions on the power of symbols ;)

I think that would make it all the more inflammable.

considering the alcohol content you may want to run in the opposite direction preferably screaming

I don't know why I would burn a copy of the US Constitution but if I could think of one I'd burn it up. I'd burn it up good. I'd burn it with fire.

No, it's an important historical artifact.

The way I see it, it's like burning the flag. You go ahead and exercise your right to burn the flag, or the Constitution, or whatever national symbol you like. Of course, I'm then going to exercise my right to hand out a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin', but every decision has it's consequences.

The way I see it, it's like burning the flag. You go ahead and exercise your right to burn the flag, or the Constitution, or whatever national symbol you like. Of course, I'm then going to exercise my right to hand out a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin', but every decision has it's consequences.

So you equate exercise of free speech with retaliatory violence. How utterly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. :rolleyes:

The way I see it, it's like burning the flag. You go ahead and exercise your right to burn the flag, or the Constitution, or whatever national symbol you like. Of course, I'm then going to exercise my right to hand out a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin', but every decision has it's consequences.

I hate to break this to ya, Sparky. You don't have the right to "hand out a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin'". That's called assault, and it's illegal.

An original copy? Hell no...it's a historical artifact.

Now if it's simply a printout of the text contained in the original constitution, I'll burn it if I damn well feel like it. It's just ink on paper.

Agreed.

Hmm... I'm not American, but I'd like to comment on this. Even if I wasn't American, I (probably) wouldn't completely rule out burning the constitution. Sometimes people take the words of the constitution almost dogmatically, such as to say that such and such policy is wrong because it goes against the constitution. I say that rather than thinking of a principle for what one specific document (and for that matter, one that's associated with one particular nation) would say about it, we should think about a principle for the reasoning behind it, which would apply to any nation.

Often, I hear the question, "Would you burn a U.S. flag?" or "Should it be legal/illegal to burn a U.S. flag?" I have yet to hear someone ask the same thing about the U.S. Constitution, so here it is.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

No, because I consider myself a liberal and as such, in the real world, I have a sense of tradition and perspective.

Conservatives on the other hand, well, I'll let our president speak for them...

It's just a goddamn piece of paper.

I like burning things...I'm getting the urge to burn this thread as I speak (type?)...Can't...control...urge...to...flame...

AMERICANS ARE T3H SUX!! BUSH IS T3H NAZI TERRORIST!!ALL AMERICANS IS T3H STOOPIDS!

Sorry about that...

Tradition is crap. I'm sick of living in a nation that refuses to accept that in SOME ASPECTS of government, our system doesn't work and needs change.

Healthcare. Everyone has universal free healthcare now, and socialized healthcare has worked for other nations.

Energy. Socialized energy works WAY better. We could be taking advantage of the full potential of nuclear energy (like France does), but instead we choose to leave our energy needs up to corporations.

The list goes on. America needs to wake up and see that the "American Dream" is flawed. Not everyone can just 'work hard' and make as much money as they want. I doubt Bill Gates works much harder than most teachers in the US, yet teachers make shit for money.

Why can't we look at what kinds of solutions have worked in other countries and employ them here in America?

I would never even consider burning the Constitution of the United States. It would be burning the foundation of my country, the symbol of all law and order, the document safeguarding out liberties. It would be spitting upon and discarding the supreme law of the land. It would be saying the Founding Fathers were fools.

Essentially, it would be like heresy for me. Not saying it should be illegal, but I would be extremely offended if I saw someone doing it since they would be saying that the United States and the principles it was founded upon should cease to exist. I very much admire the Founding Fathers and the vision they had for the US government and someone burning it would likely not support the words held in the document. So we'd have an argument, I suppose.

Now, burning a flag seems like it would hold a different message. I'd rather just burn pictures of politicians or factions I disagree with rather than just burn something symbolizing the whole country. I'd burn an elephant, but PETA would kill me. Maybe a toy elephant.

I would never even consider burning the Constitution of the United States. It would be burning the foundation of my country, the symbol of all law and order, the document safeguarding out liberties. It would be spitting upon and discarding the supreme law of the land. It would be saying the Founding Fathers were fools.

Essentially, it would be like heresy for me. Not saying it should be illegal, but I would be extremely offended if I saw someone doing it since they would be saying that the United States and the principles it was founded upon should cease to exist. I very much admire the Founding Fathers and the vision they had for the US government and someone burning it would likely not support the words held in the document. So we'd have an argument, I suppose.

Now, burning a flag seems like it would hold a different message. I'd rather just burn pictures of politicians or factions I disagree with rather than just burn something symbolizing the whole country. I'd burn an elephant, but PETA would kill me. Maybe a toy elephant.

Might one burn a copy of the Constitution precisely because one agrees with its ideals but believes those ideals are not being fulfilled? As a symbol of how, for example, the Bush Administration has ravaged constitutional principles?

I personally am not likely to burn a copy of the Constitution, but if I did it would be as part of such a protest. Thus, I am not ruling the possibility out.

On the Constitution and the Union (http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1832/12/29/on-the-constitution-and-the-union)

On the Constitution and the Union (http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1832/12/29/on-the-constitution-and-the-union)

Excellent point. And well-made.

KP1;13522536']Tradition is crap. I'm sick of living in a nation that refuses to accept that in SOME ASPECTS of government, our system doesn't work and needs change.

Healthcare. Everyone has universal free healthcare now, and socialized healthcare has worked for other nations.

Energy. Socialized energy works WAY better. We could be taking advantage of the full potential of nuclear energy (like France does), but instead we choose to leave our energy needs up to corporations.

The list goes on. America needs to wake up and see that the "American Dream" is flawed. Not everyone can just 'work hard' and make as much money as they want. I doubt Bill Gates works much harder than most teachers in the US, yet teachers make shit for money.

Why can't we look at what kinds of solutions have worked in other countries and employ them here in America?

Tradition most certainly is NOT crap. There are reasons for tradition.

No socialism, thanks.

While I'm not quite as against universal health care, as health care is not a right, as I used to be, I have come to learn that the US spends more than any other country on health care, with less to show for it. Health care needs reform, but I don't think turning to universal health care should be jumped right into.

Often, I hear the question, "Would you burn a U.S. flag?" or "Should it be legal/illegal to burn a U.S. flag?" I have yet to hear someone ask the same thing about the U.S. Constitution, so here it is.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

The symbolism of burning a Constitution is completely different than the burning of a flag. A flag is SUPPOSED to be burned if soiled. People who burn the flag feel that it has been metaphorically soiled by the actions of the current president, congress, military, etc.

Tradition most certainly is NOT crap. There are reasons for tradition.

No socialism, thanks.

While I'm not quite as against universal health care, as health care is not a right, as I used to be, I have come to learn that the US spends more than any other country on health care, with less to show for it. Health care needs reform, but I don't think turning to universal health care should be jumped right into.

Why not?

Why not?

I don't think its a right. I don't think its ok for other people to pay for me, so I don't think its ok for me to pay for them.

Hey, if the President is allowed to (metaphorically) burn the Constitution, so should everyone else.

That's not what he's doing. He's defecating on it.

Mag probably thinks he's clever but actually he sounds like a bitch.

Don't deny it.

What if I burnt a bible in front of you, or the book of your religion?


If you burned a Principia Discordia I'd bet most of us Discordians would get marshmallows and hot dogs (without buns).

I don't really think that the one of the symbols of our nation being destroyed is trivial, even if it is a copy.

symbols have no meaning other than the meaning that we chose to give them. To create an emotional attachment to a piece of paper is foolish.

symbols have no meaning other than the meaning that we chose to give them. To create an emotional attachment to a piece of paper is foolish.

Whatever.

It is a symbol of our nation, of what we stand for, you know, liberty, freedom, stuff like that.

I guess those aren't those important to people anymore?

I don't think its a right. I don't think its ok for other people to pay for me, so I don't think its ok for me to pay for them.

Fair enough, I don't agree with you, but I understand your POV.

The way I see it, it's like burning the flag. You go ahead and exercise your right to burn the flag, or the Constitution, or whatever national symbol you like. Of course, I'm then going to exercise my right to hand out a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin', but every decision has it's consequences.

You don't have the right to commit assault and battery, who the hell told you you did?

Whatever.

It is a symbol of our nation, of what we stand for, you know, liberty, freedom, stuff like that.

I guess those aren't those important to people anymore?

liberty, freedom, and "stuff like that" are not destroyed or diminished by burning a piece of paper. Burning a copy of bill of rights does not destroy the bill of rights. It merely destroys a piece of paper.

It is a symbol of our nation, of what we stand for, you know, liberty, freedom, stuff like that.

What if I instead see it as a symbol of federal power in the service of the financial aristocracy encroaching upon local autonomy and decentralized democracy?

Secondhand smoke.. what? No thanks.
Especially inky smoke, that can't be good for the 'ol breathboxes.

I would not burn the original Constitution, because that would be like burning the original Mein Kampf; it is too significant to history regardless of how terrible it is. However, seeing as how it is an imperialistic and coercive document, I would happily burn a copy.

I would not burn the original Constitution, because that would be like burning the original Mein Kampf; it is too significant to history regardless of how terrible it is. However, seeing as how it is an imperialistic and coercive document, I would happily burn a copy.

Have you read it?

What if I instead see it as a symbol of federal power in the service of the financial aristocracy encroaching upon local autonomy and decentralized democracy?

What if we see you as a commie? Huh? Watcha gonna say 'bout that!?

Its burn a copy, becauses its a 200 year old document thats age is starting to show

Fair enough, I don't agree with you, but I understand your POV. Cool. Have a fluffle. :fluffle:

liberty, freedom, and "stuff like that" are not destroyed or diminished by burning a piece of paper. Burning a copy of bill of rights does not destroy the bill of rights. It merely destroys a piece of paper.

True, but it seems like when they burn it they are spitting on the entire nation, and what it stands for.

What if I instead see it as a symbol of federal power in the service of the financial aristocracy encroaching upon local autonomy and decentralized democracy?

:eek:

I have no idea!

Its burn a copy, becauses its a 200 year old document thats age is starting to show

People keep saying that, but never elaborate. In what ways is the Constitution out of date?

What if we see you as a commie? Huh? Watcha gonna say 'bout that!?

That you have good eyesight.

Cool. Have a fluffle. :fluffle:

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/love072.gif

:D

True, but it seems like when they burn it they are spitting on the entire nation, and what it stands for.

Or "spitting on a nation" that they feel has strayed from its fundamental values.

That you have good eyesight.

When I squint I see you as a pinko-liberal.. you know, so I don't hurt my delicate all-American eyes.

I have no idea!

Perhaps because you haven't considered that someone might burn the Constitution in defense of liberty?

Perhaps because you haven't considered that someone might burn the Constitution in defense of liberty?

Burning the Constitution doesn't do anything either way, except release heat and spread carbon all over. I think the risks outweigh the gains.

Or "spitting on a nation" that they feel has strayed from its fundamental values.

Perhaps because you haven't considered that someone might burn the Constitution in defense of liberty?

You see, if someone was explaining that before, as, or right after they burned one, I'd see their point. I'd still most likely disagree with burning the constitution, I'd grumble about it, but I'd understand why they did it.

When I squint I see you as a pinko-liberal.. you know, so I don't hurt my delicate all-American eyes.

I make pinko-liberals look like William F. Buckley.

Burning the Constitution doesn't do anything either way, except release heat and spread carbon all over.

I don't know. I think radical displays of public protest can accomplish at least two things. First, they can bring the issue in question to the forefront of public discussion. Second, by being extreme they can provide space for other reformers to appear more moderate, and gain traction.

Do these benefits outweigh the obvious downsides? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ultimately it's a pragmatic judgment call that can only be made in a particular context.

Burning the Constitution doesn't do anything either way, except release heat and spread carbon all over. I think the risks outweigh the gains.

WHAT!?! Think of the energy we could gain from burning copies of the constitution, or do you want people to die?

BTW, I support burning the constitution out of protest, since it sends a very powerful message. I could be saying that "with (whatever) now in place, the constitution is meaningless".

I make pinko-liberals look like William F. Buckley.

I hope not. Buckley is dead.

I would not burn the original Constitution, because that would be like burning the original Mein Kampf; it is too significant to history regardless of how terrible it is. However, seeing as how it is an imperialistic and coercive document, I would happily burn a copy.

Seconded.

Although, I would have no reservation about burning the original Mein Kampf. ^^

Perhaps because you haven't considered that someone might burn the Constitution in defense of liberty?

Considering that I view the Constitution as a document that does just that, your alternate viewpoint manages to confuse me, but at the same time intrigue me with intellectual lusts that cannot be satiated in any way other than for you to elaborate.

Have you read it?

Yes, and behind its pretty sentiments there was and is only the desire to bend the will of others for the benefit of the powerful.

Yes, and behind its pretty sentiments there was and is only the desire to bend the will of others for the benefit of the powerful.

Give this man a cigar.

People keep saying that, but never elaborate. In what ways is the Constitution out of date?

Notice how we keep having all these problems interperting it in light of new technologies, or even in light of changing values in society?

Yes, and behind its pretty sentiments there was and is only the desire to bend the will of others for the benefit of the powerful.

Could you be more specific plz?

I make pinko-liberals look like William F. Buckley.

No idea who that is, I don't get much news under this rock.. and the stuff I do get is mostly snail-mail.

I don't know. I think radical displays of public protest can accomplish at least two things. First, they can bring the issue in question to the forefront of public discussion. Second, by being extreme they can provide space for other reformers to appear more moderate, and gain traction.

Do these benefits outweigh the obvious downsides? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ultimately it's a pragmatic judgment call that can only be made in a particular context.
I guess my problem is that I don't see it as particularly radical.

Notice how we keep having all these problems interperting it in light of new technologies, or even in light of changing values in society?

You act as if this was unexpected. It wasn't. The Founding Fathers built it to react to situations like that. They're called amendments.

I have no desire to burn it nor would I take offense from anyone else burning it. I'm apathetically neutral.

I don't think its a right. I don't think its ok for other people to pay for me, so I don't think its ok for me to pay for them.

If it isn't a right, then why should it not be one? Rights are not just a set list of things like:
ATTENTION: HERE ARE YOUR TEN ONLY RIGHTS, THESE ARE THE ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE AND WILL EVER HAVE. NO RIGHTS CAN BE TAKEN OFF OF THIS LIST:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5..... blah blah.


It is interesting that free expression is a right, yet getting the best possible medical care, so that you may LIVE, is not.

Possibly at a protest dressed up as Bush or something. Other than that, I have utmost respect for it.

Could you be more specific plz?

That piece of paper was basically established in order to benefit a small elite, specifically public debt speculators, creditors, industrialists and public land speculators, through taxation and privileges. The imperialism becomes apparent when one considers that not only would public land speculators need an economy of scale of corruption that only a centralized authority could provide (one of the impetuses for the Northwest Ordinance that preceded the Constitution) and improvements at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer in order to boost his real estate values, but those 'improvements' would also require the extermination of the Native Americans, thus setting a precedent of violence and aggression for the Federal government.

That piece of paper was basically established in order to benefit a small elite, specifically public debt speculators, creditors, industrialists and public land speculators, through taxation and privileges. The imperialism becomes apparent when one considers that not only would public land speculators need an economy of scale of corruption that only a centralized authority could provide (one of the impetuses for the Northwest Ordinance that preceded the Constitution) and improvements at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer in order to boost his real estate values, but those 'improvements' would also require the extermination of the Native Americans, thus setting a precedent of violence and aggression for the Federal government.

Come, now. As Soheran has demonstrated, the Constitution is far from perfect, but it is hardly the oppressive influence that you describe. Is the Bill of Rights also a tool of the powerful?

Come, now. As Soheran has demonstrated, the Constitution is far from perfect, but it is hardly the oppressive influence that you describe. Is the Bill of Rights also a tool of the powerful?

The millions who have been murdered, kidnapped, and robbed by the Federal government over 200 years would disagree. And as a matter of fact, it is a tool of the powerful, as it was a ploy to suppress anti-Federalist opposition in the short-term so that they could re-interpret those rights later when their legitimacy allowed, again for the benefit of the few (such as all the exceptions that have been made for national security or whatever boogeyman they conjure up at the moment.)

The millions who have been murdered, kidnapped, and robbed by the Federal government over 200 years would disagree.

Because those murders, kidnappings, and robberies would not have occurred without the Constitution of 1787?

What happy history would have happened instead?

And as a matter of fact, it is a tool of the powerful, as it was a ploy to suppress anti-Federalist opposition in the short-term so that they could re-interpret those rights later when their legitimacy allowed, again for the benefit of the few (such as all the exceptions that have been made for national security or whatever boogeyman they conjure up at the moment.)

Um, the Bill of Rights wasn't added until well after the Constitution itself had been ratified, so it is hard to see it as just a ploy to suppress opposition.

Furthermore, you really think the trend has been interpretations that increasingly benefit the few? Can you give examples?

Yes, and behind its pretty sentiments there was and is only the desire to bend the will of others for the benefit of the powerful.

How did you figure this out? Is there a constitutional version of the Bible Code, where the first letter of every clause together spell out, "Hamilton is dead" or something?

Because those murders, kidnappings, and robberies would not have occurred without the Constitution of 1787?

What happy history would have happened instead?

If there was no Federal government did not exist, the Federal government's wars, conscriptions, unjust imprisonments, and taxation would not have occurred. The Federal government would not have bases scattered to the far reaches of the world, and would not have aided and abetted countless despots to murder their own people. In general, the world would be a better and happier place if the Constitution and the monster that is built upon it did not exist.

Um, the Bill of Rights wasn't added until well after the Constitution itself had been ratified, so it is hard to see it as just a ploy to suppress opposition.

Actually, one of the reasons that there were non-signers to the Constitution at the Constitutional convention was because there were not enough protections from the Federal government. The only way the Constitution was really passed was on the promise that there would be some protection added, which was passed in the First Congress.

Furthermore, you really think the trend has been interpretations that increasingly benefit the few? Can you give examples?

The entire existence of the Federal government is devoted to benefitting the few. One example has been the ever-expanding number of reasons to suspend habeas corpus, most recently with terrorism with the Patriot and Military Commissions Act, that give power and prestige to bureaucrats and help sustain public hysteria concerning boogeymen so as to perpetuate war and help war-profiteers. All this, of course, at the expense of the public whose rights are violated and which are supposedly protected by their violator.

Not a chance in hell I would burn a flag [unless doing proper disposal] or the US Constitution.

If there was no Federal government did not exist, the Federal government's wars, conscriptions, unjust imprisonments, and taxation would not have occurred. The Federal government would not have bases scattered to the far reaches of the world, and would not have aided and abetted countless despots to murder their own people. In general, the world would be a better and happier place if the Constitution and the monster that is built upon it did not exist.

Right. Because those are like completely unique to the U.S., right?

Certainly, if I had a reason to, I would burn a copy of the U.S. Constitution. I'd rather not burn an original copy because it has historical value, but even the original copies are, ultimately, only recordings. The Constitution isn't paper and ink, it's what the ink on the paper says.

Often, I hear the question, "Would you burn a U.S. flag?" or "Should it be legal/illegal to burn a U.S. flag?" I have yet to hear someone ask the same thing about the U.S. Constitution, so here it is.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

I would, if I were freezing to death and needed kindling.

It's not a holy book - burn away. :p It's an important document, but we can print more.

The Constitution isn't paper and ink, it's what the ink on the paper says.

Nothing meaningful. Mostly crap.

What sucks the most about the constitution is how easy it is to abuse. Several parts of it are so vaguely and ambiguously worded (*cough* "necessary and proper clause" and "commerce clause" *cough*) that they can be used to justify just about anything.

i'm not american so i might not have the right to reply. but i wouldn't burn any flag or something like a constitution or holy book for that matter. because even tough i really don't like the usa because of how they act and play the game of politics and war. but burning soething like mentioned above is dishonorable and unlike certain terrorists i will not be tempt to such pefetic way's. it hurt me when recently a few terrorists burnt the flag of my country. atleast usa just say's it will go to war instead of burning a flag because of a minor disagreement in this case an opinion of 1 person. in other words burning is just mindless and never good on the long term.

just wanted to say that

I'm not Persian or Latin American, so no, I wouldn't.

I believe pretty wholly in the U.S. Constitution. I think it is the foundation upon which this country is built. It lays out our principles, our rights, our responsibilities, our laws.

And yes, I would burn it.

I would burn the constitution in protest to a violation of that constitution. I would burn the constitution in protest to an amendment I felt was counter to core American principles. I would burn the constitution if they ever amended it to ban gay marriage. I would burn the constitution if there was a law or amendment banning me from burning the constitution.

The constitution is an idea, and such things cannot be harmed by fire. But a copy of the constitution is a symbol, and burning it is a symbol. Symbols are a method of communication, of speech, of expression.

I am a U.S. Citizen, and would proudly burn a U.S. Flag, a copy of the constitution, or of the declaration of Independence. Doing so is a celebration of what it means to be an American citizen.

How do you think I keep my house warm?

Absolutes don't work.

This is a "depends" issue.

Would I burn a constitution if I was freezing and the lives of myself and perhaps my friends depended on using a pocket constitution as tinder to start a fire? Yes, I would. They can always print more pocket constitutions.

However, the constitution would be safe from the flame if we also had a bible with us, for some unknown reason.

Also, people keep on saying they would never burn the original constitution. Burning the original constitution would be one hell of a symbol. Things would have to get pretty bad before I thought it would be appropriate, but I can imagine a situation in which throwing it up on the white house fence and lighting it afire would be the only way to say what needed to be said.

no symbol is too sacred to become another symbol. Fire is a way of converting one type of matter into another, and one type of symbol into another.

there is nothing legitimately sacred about the instuments and symbols of hierarchal government under any idiology.

the real effects of real policies on real people, places and things are what are.

i'm not into making a spectical of myself though, unless there's a real chance of doing so actually accomplishing something i would consider to be positive. i more into simply quietly witholding support from what i find unacceptable.

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

Burning it symbolically (as in, not to start a fire for warmth and it's the only available tinder) seems pretty useless to me, it's not something I'd ever do.

Partly because I think checks and balances and the bill of rights are good ideas. Also partly because, if you did burn the constitution, no one would really think anything other than that you're a grade-A douchebag.

Burning it symbolically (as in, not to start a fire for warmth and it's the only available tinder) seems pretty useless to me, it's not something I'd ever do.

Partly because I think checks and balances and the bill of rights are good ideas. Also partly because, if you did burn the constitution, no one would really think anything other than that you're a grade-A douchebag.

Burning the constitution would not necessarily, or even likely, be in protest to the contents of said constitution. (though it might if they pass that anti-gay marriage amendment.)

I hope not. Buckley is dead.

Suggesting an equivalence in that respect was not my intention. ;)

Considering that I view the Constitution as a document that does just that, your alternate viewpoint manages to confuse me, but at the same time intrigue me with intellectual lusts that cannot be satiated in any way other than for you to elaborate.

Surely you're aware that the ratification of the Constitution was a matter of much debate? The problem its opponents had was not that the Constitution was too protective of liberty, but that it wasn't protective enough--that its centralization of power was in fact dangerous to liberty.

Agree or disagree, but the Constitution isn't unambiguously indicative of liberty regardless.

I guess my problem is that I don't see it as particularly radical.

You're right--it isn't. Not in itself anyway. Much depends on the attitudes others have to the act.

And I meant "radical" not in its true sense of "at the root" but in its casual sense of "against the norm."

Burning the constitution would not necessarily, or even likely, be in protest to the contents of said constitution. (though it might if they pass that anti-gay marriage amendment.)

Then burning it is retarded. It is a symbol yes, but first and foremost, it is a decent blueprint for a government with checks and balances. The best plan for a governmental system? I doubt it, but a pretty decent one.

When one is trying to send a message, it's important to make sure that the message one is attempting to send, is the same as the message being received by others. If one burns the constitution, the message that I would get, and that many, maybe even most others would get as well, is that one hates the contents of said document. If this is not the intended message, then burning the constitution is probably not the best way to get whatever that is across.

I'm not American, but if I were, and I was seriously opposed to something in the constitution or something happening in government, and I wanted to make a point in public, I might burn a copy of the constitution.

I can't see a point to burning it just for fun, but, again, for example: If I were seriously opposed to something in the Bible or something Christians were doing, I might burn a Bible in public, but only to make a serious point. That being said, it's an extreme reaction, and its important to respect things that are important to other people.

Then burning it is retarded. It is a symbol yes, but first and foremost, it is a decent blueprint for a government with checks and balances. The best plan for a governmental system? I doubt it, but a pretty decent one.

When one is trying to send a message, it's important to make sure that the message one is attempting to send, is the same as the message being received by others. If one burns the constitution, the message that I would get, and that many, maybe even most others would get as well, is that one hates the contents of said document. If this is not the intended message, then burning the constitution is probably not the best way to get whatever that is across.

This is why the situation, the context, has to be right for me to want to burn it. Like the aforementioned gay marriage ban amendment. If that was ever passed, and the news showed a group of protesters burning the newest copies of the constitution, their meaning would be pretty unambiguous. And if America became a police state in which Arab-Americans and gays were taken off to camps, burning the original constitution on the white house lawn would be a pretty unambiguous statement as well.

I'm not burning one right now because I don't feel the context is there to provide the symbol of burning the constitution with enough meaning to have value.

How do you think I keep my house warm?

I bet you save a bundle on heating bills. :cool:

I'd burn specific parts. :p

The US Constitution is a document that entrenches classism and elitism into the entire institution of US government, it deserves not so much to have a copy burnt as the whole thing supplanted.

The US Constitution is a document that entrenches classism and elitism into the entire institution of US government, it deserves not so much to have a copy burnt as the whole thing supplanted.

You must be so much fun at parties

I think they should. It's not like the government is honoring it.:D

If the constitution was the only piece of combustible matter around besides my own body, and I was in Siberia, yeah. I'd burn it after apologizing to the spirits of our founding fathers, the names of whom I've forgotten. :D

Whatever.

It is a symbol of our nation, of what we stand for, you know, liberty, freedom, stuff like that.

I guess those aren't those important to people anymore?
As if to associate freedom, liberty, and "stuff like that" (WTF?) with just the United States and not other countries?

What protest would be worth burning even a copy of the constitution?

How is the constitution 'outdated', as a previous poster said, and how can it be better?

edit: @ universe: how is the nation not legitimate?

I probably wouldn't actually punch someone if they burned a constitution, but they would sure get some verbal abuse. Someone better have a damn good reason to burn a constitution other than 'just for the fuck of it', or 'just to piss someone off'.

What do you mean, how can it be better? You don't honestly believe that it's a perfect example, with absolutely no way to be improved. As for what protest, generally, one against the government would seem appropriate. If one wishes to protest what the government are doing to the constitution, one might reasonably burn a copy of the constitution.

And the nation isn't legitimate because I don't see any nation or government as legitimate. Nothing special about America there.

Perhaps because you haven't considered that someone might burn the Constitution in defense of liberty?
Similar kinda thing with shooting the Constitution here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=4MQmOEA1s8g

If it's your own american flag which you bought in a shop, and your own copy of the constitution, and the government says it illegal for you to burn these things then you do not live in a free country

It's not a holy book - burn away. :p It's an important document, but we can print more.
"Holy" books have less meaning than a constitution actually. Are you implying that it's worse to burn a bible than a constitution?

So you equate exercise of free speech with retaliatory violence. How utterly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

No, what I equate it with is the concept that actions have consequences. That men are responsible for their actions and, ideally, should make bold public statements, no matter how ill-conceived and foolish, only if they are willing to bear the consequences of the actions, no matter what they be. A concept that is wholly in line with the Constitution.

I hate to break this to ya, Sparky. You don't have the right to "hand out a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin'". That's called assault, and it's illegal.

You don't have the right to commit assault and battery, who the hell told you you did?

Do they not teach rhetoric in schools anymore? Or even common sense? Since y'all are apparently confused on this point, let me clarify this. I do not actually think I have a right to beat on people. I do have the ability, though, and in the face of someone burning a flag or the Constitution, or a few other selected topics, would consider it almost an obligation. Like the song says:

So one slip of the tongue 'bout my dog
Or my woman
Or this country that I proudly serve
You'll see a side of me man
That you damn sure don't wanna
Cause them there's fightin' words

Burn the Constitution? That`s like burning the flag to me........Never.
Burn some of the politicians who try to pervert it from the founders meaning into something more PC? In a heartbeat.
A list of who should be kindling in the fire:
Hillary
Obama
Ted Kennedy
Charles Schumer
Nancy Pelosi
Dick Durbin
Rod Blagojevich (Governor of Illinois)
Richard M. Daley (Mayor of Chicago)

If you wanted to burn the original Constitution, you would first have to engage the President in some form of combat to the death by law - because the president has sworn to defend it with his life and the powers are invested in him to do so. Plus, if you did beat the president, Dick Cheney automatically becomes president and hes not afraid to shoot people.

Secular-progressives would basically burn the Constitution via amendments and change it to enable a socialist paradise full of weak, godless, and selfish crybabies. - Either way I don't want to destroy the Constitution, I want to keep it basically the way it is.

Secular-progressives

Ah, a Bill O'Reilly listener.

would basically burn the Constitution via amendments

What, the ERA?

Seriously, which amendments have "secular-progressives" proposed that bother you so much?

and change it to enable a socialist paradise full of weak, godless, and selfish crybabies.

What on Earth are you talking about?

How did you figure this out? Is there a constitutional version of the Bible Code, where the first letter of every clause together spell out, "Hamilton is dead" or something?

Charles A. Beard's investigation, Alexander Hamilton's correspondence, and the economic interests of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention (up to four-fifths were public debt speculators, and there were plenty of those who would greatly benefit from mercantilist economic policies) all point to the fact that the Constitution was not some glorious savior but merely a reflection of the desire of various economic interests to coerce others for their own gain.

Right. Because those are like completely unique to the U.S., right?

Without the Constitution's centralization of power, the Federal government would have had far fewer means to act upon its aggressive impulses. Ergo, by necessity the level of violence that the United States' central government would have committed over two hundred years would be far, far lower (you can't very well conquer someone if you have to beg for handouts to fund such an enterprise.) Thus, the Constitution is directly responsible for the sufferings of millions, perhaps even billions.

Unless it was an original, in which case I'd sell it for millions. But yeah, it's just a piece of paper.



Though I'm not American so I may not count.

No, what I equate it with is the concept that actions have consequences. That men are responsible for their actions and, ideally, should make bold public statements, no matter how ill-conceived and foolish, only if they are willing to bear the consequences of the actions, no matter what they be. A concept that is wholly in line with the Constitution.

Do they not teach rhetoric in schools anymore? Or even common sense? Since y'all are apparently confused on this point, let me clarify this. I do not actually think I have a right to beat on people. I do have the ability, though, and in the face of someone burning a flag or the Constitution, or a few other selected topics, would consider it almost an obligation. Like the song says:

So one slip of the tongue 'bout my dog
Or my woman
Or this country that I proudly serve
You'll see a side of me man
That you damn sure don't wanna
Cause them there's fightin' words

Nope.

Sorry, but responding to mere free speech with physical violence is NOT "wholly in line with the Constitution."

You would pervert the very document you claim to be protecting.

Why is it every jackass thinks that if he runs into some protesters doing something he objects to he will not only be ready and willing but also able to "kick their asses"? I mean seriously, I've run into this line before from such "brave men" who claim to be truly ready to beat the ass of anyone caught burning a flag. This is as if:

1) protesters somehow though typically protesting in mass will just sit idly by as some knuckledragger fights them one by one

2) protesters dont know their actions might enflame said knuckledraggers and have taken steps to prepare themselves for that. I have known many a protester who have gone to protests carrying everything from mace to switchblades just in case.

Seriously, the only thing more idiotic than trying to claim some pride in ones nation by resorting to physical violence in response to an exercise in free speech protest is assuming those same protestors won't take offense at your attempts at violence and not stab you in the fucking eye.

Often, I hear the question, "Would you burn a U.S. flag?" or "Should it be legal/illegal to burn a U.S. flag?" I have yet to hear someone ask the same thing about the U.S. Constitution, so here it is.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

Well if it's all right with environmental, safety and property laws I think people should be allowed to burn anything. I don't see what could ever be so special about a colorful piece of cloth or a piece of paper to not be allowed to burn it, that whole idea seems really ridiculous.

Burn the Constitution? That`s like burning the flag to me........Never.
Burn some of the politicians who try to pervert it from the founders meaning into something more it was probably not intended to be? In a heartbeat.
A list of who should be kindling in the fire:
George Bush
All his cronies
Justice Sculia
80% of the Republican Party


Fixed.

Secular-progressives would basically burn the Constitution via amendments

You fail because you watch Bill O'riely. Anyone who knows jack shit about anything stays away from his show.

and change it to enable a socialist paradise full of weak, godless, and selfish crybabies. -

Nothing wrong with being godless, and I dont really think any amendment proposed by these "secular progressives" you speak of could be considered selfish. In fact, Id say trying to deny minorities rights so you keep your privaliged status is selfish.


Either way I don't want to destroy the Constitution, I want to keep it basically the way it is.

Agreed. Allowing women to vote, ending slavery, and garunteeing everyone equal protection under the law was an awful idea. So was free speech, freedom of religion, right to trial by jury, etc.

The above two posters are why I would burn both flags and constitutions at a protest. It pisses them off, and if Im pissing people like the above off, I must be doing something that betters the world. Maybe Id burn a Bible too, just as the cherry on top.

Knight, if you go around intentionally pissing people off sooner or later someone is going to beat your ass.

I'm not saying it should happen. I'm saying it will probably happen.

No, what kind of a fucking question is that?

Knight, if you go around intentionally pissing people off sooner or later someone is going to beat your ass.

I'm not saying it should happen. I'm saying it will probably happen.
C'mon, that's what the 'net is for.

No, what I equate it with is the concept that actions have consequences. That men are responsible for their actions and, ideally, should make bold public statements, no matter how ill-conceived and foolish, only if they are willing to bear the consequences of the actions, no matter what they be. A concept that is wholly in line with the Constitution.





Do they not teach rhetoric in schools anymore? Or even common sense? Since y'all are apparently confused on this point, let me clarify this. I do not actually think I have a right to beat on people. I do have the ability, though, and in the face of someone burning a flag or the Constitution, or a few other selected topics, would consider it almost an obligation. Like the song says:

So one slip of the tongue 'bout my dog
Or my woman
Or this country that I proudly serve
You'll see a side of me man
That you damn sure don't wanna
Cause them there's fightin' words

You're right, Gomer. You do indeed have the ability to do so. Just as I have the ability to laugh my ass off when you go to jail for it. For the record, I wouldn't waste my time with burning a copy of the Constitution. I prefer to exercise my Right of Dissent at the ballot box. However, if someone else wishes to do so, they can. You don't have to like it; you do have to live with it. But hey, if you think a jail sentance and a permanent criminal record is an acceptable price for violating the civil rights and indeed the very person of someone who has the colossal nerve to dare to disagree with you, go ahead, knock yourself out. Way to defend those Constitutional rights you pretend to believe in.:rolleyes:

BTW, I wasn't confused on your point, you didn't make one. All you did was engage in some neanderthal chest-beating.

Burn the Constitution? That`s like burning the flag to me........Never.
Burn some of the politicians who try to pervert it from the founders meaning into something more PC? In a heartbeat.
A list of who should be kindling in the fire:
Hillary
Obama
Ted Kennedy
Charles Schumer
Nancy Pelosi
Dick Durbin
Rod Blagojevich (Governor of Illinois)
Richard M. Daley (Mayor of Chicago)Sounds like a lot of bullshit.
No offense or anything, it just sounds like it, not that it's a regular part of your perspective or anything.
You know, bullshit.

The right to free speech doesn't protect you from the consequence of people not liking or supporting you because of the things you said.

However, it does protect you from any form of physical violence, harassment, violence against property, etc.

If you are reduced to violence in the face of an argument or a gesture, it is because you lack the intelligence or the integrity to respond to it in a civil manner.

Knight, if you go around intentionally pissing people off sooner or later someone is going to beat your ass.

I'm not saying it should happen. I'm saying it will probably happen.


If someone decides to attack me because of my form of protest, I just know I won.

Why is it every jackass thinks that if he runs into some protesters doing something he objects to he will not only be ready and willing but also able to "kick their asses"? I mean seriously, I've run into this line before from such "brave men" who claim to be truly ready to beat the ass of anyone caught burning a flag.

As far 'ready and willing' go, it's like this: It's not just people who are 'doing something I object to.' I object to a lot things: pants with words written on the ass, white guys with dredlocks, chicks that don't shave their legs, rap music, etc. I don't do anything about it because when it comes to stuff like that, people are perfectly free to make thier own bad decisions. But when you pointedly deface a symbol of an ideal that heroes have sacrificed and died for, that needs a direct response.

As regards 'ability', generally, the people who burn flags are hippies, and the next hippy I see that's worth a damn in general, much less in a fight, will be the first.

And as far as the 'ridiculousness' of taking pride in your country goes, that attitude is one of the things that are wrong with people nowadays. They sit around in the coffee shops and drink their 4$ fagachinos and plug their IPhones into their laptops and send each other YouTube videos of other clowns doing the same thing and meanwhile have lost sight of the concepts that lead to that pride, like 'honor', 'sacrifice', 'responsibility' and 'duty'

As far 'ready and willing' go, it's like this: It's not just people who are 'doing something I object to.' I object to a lot things: pants with words written on the ass, white guys with dredlocks, chicks that don't shave their legs, rap music, etc. I don't do anything about it because when it comes to stuff like that, people are perfectly free to make thier own bad decisions. But when you pointedly deface a symbol of an ideal that heroes have sacrificed and died for, that needs a direct response.

You mean like freedom of speech, yes? And....buring flags and such is freedom of speech....so whats the problem?

As regards 'ability', generally, the people who burn flags are hippies, and the next hippy I see that's worth a damn in general, much less in a fight, will be the first.

Errrrr, damn pinko commie fags, I can kick dat there hippies ass y'all!

And as far as the 'ridiculousness' of taking pride in your country goes, that attitude is one of the things that are wrong with people nowadays. They sit around in the coffee shops and drink their 4$ fagachinos and plug their IPhones into their laptops and send each other YouTube videos of other clowns doing the same thing and meanwhile have lost sight of the concepts that lead to that pride, like 'honor', 'sacrifice', 'responsibility' and 'duty'


So, in that long winded little nonsensical rant of yours, you failed to tell me why I should take pride in the plot of dirt I happened to be born in.

As far 'ready and willing' go, it's like this: It's not just people who are 'doing something I object to.' I object to a lot things: pants with words written on the ass, white guys with dredlocks, chicks that don't shave their legs, rap music, etc. I don't do anything about it because when it comes to stuff like that, people are perfectly free to make thier own bad decisions. But when you pointedly deface a symbol of an ideal that heroes have sacrificed and died for, that needs a direct response.

As regards 'ability', generally, the people who burn flags are hippies, and the next hippy I see that's worth a damn in general, much less in a fight, will be the first.

And as far as the 'ridiculousness' of taking pride in your country goes, that attitude is one of the things that are wrong with people nowadays. They sit around in the coffee shops and drink their 4$ fagachinos and plug their IPhones into their laptops and send each other YouTube videos of other clowns doing the same thing and meanwhile have lost sight of the concepts that lead to that pride, like 'honor', 'sacrifice', 'responsibility' and 'duty'

You give me irresistible urges to burn flags and grow dreadlocks.

No, what kind of a fucking question is that?

Care to explain why?

As far 'ready and willing' go, it's like this: It's not just people who are 'doing something I object to.' I object to a lot things: pants with words written on the ass, white guys with dredlocks, chicks that don't shave their legs, rap music, etc. I don't do anything about it because when it comes to stuff like that, people are perfectly free to make thier own bad decisions. But when you pointedly deface a symbol of an ideal that heroes have sacrificed and died for, that needs a direct response.

Look, I just want to pull out one thing here: 'I object to ... chicks that don't shave their legs'. Who the hell are you to say to someone else "You don't conform to how I think you should be, so I don't like you"? What the hell gives you the impression that this is a productive, useful attitude? You're saying that you object to people who don't conform to your expectations for them, people who don't abide by your rules.

Fuck that. Fuck everyone who thinks like that.

I'm my own damn person, and I'll do my own damn thing, and I don't give a damn what you think of it. Actually, let me correct that. Given your attitude, I do give a damn what you think: I will deliberately do those things you oppose. Now let me go find a copy of the Constitution...

As regards 'ability', generally, the people who burn flags are hippies, and the next hippy I see that's worth a damn in general, much less in a fight, will be the first.

Heh. You wish. I'm an anarchist. As you may remember, anarchist protesters have fought against and beaten riot police, and are generally pretty damn effective if we need to be. Besides, Neo Art has already commented on what protesters might be carrying, and assuming that 'hippies aren't worth a damn' is a fairly silly thing to be doing under any circumstance.

And as far as the 'ridiculousness' of taking pride in your country goes, that attitude is one of the things that are wrong with people nowadays. They sit around in the coffee shops and drink their 4$ fagachinos and plug their IPhones into their laptops and send each other YouTube videos of other clowns doing the same thing and meanwhile have lost sight of the concepts that lead to that pride, like 'honor', 'sacrifice', 'responsibility' and 'duty'

I have an idea of the concepts of a few things you list there. For a start, let's have "honour" (I prefer the 'u' in honour, because it seems to be missing these days). It means, for me at least, that I stand by my word and my reputation, I honour my agreements, that sort of thing. How about "sacrifice", which would be where one lays down one's own desires and wishes for another. Care to suggest a few more?

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that I probably have a better idea of a few other concepts: "tolerance", "respect", "acceptance". Those aren't anything you've appeared to demonstrate from your posting.

Furthermore, let's not overlook the silliness of accusing people who burn flags of being 'hippies' in one line, and mindless consumers in another. The two are basically separate, given the different focuses and the like. Speaking for myself, I'm not even a hippie, and I'm definitely not a mindless consumer or hipster. If you're going to broadly tar your opponents like that, at least use the right stereotypes.

I could bang on about 'pride in one's country' as well, but I'm not even going to bother with that at the moment. I'm an anarchist, you should be able to extrapolate my position from that.

Look, I just want to pull out one thing here: 'I object to ... chicks that don't shave their legs'. Who the hell are you to say to someone else "You don't conform to how I think you should be, so I don't like you"? What the hell gives you the impression that this is a productive, useful attitude? You're saying that you object to people who don't conform to your expectations for them, people who don't abide by your rules.

Fuck that. Fuck everyone who thinks like that.

I'm my own damn person, and I'll do my own damn thing, and I don't give a damn what you think of it. Actually, let me correct that. Given your attitude, I do give a damn what you think: I will deliberately do those things you oppose. Now let me go find a copy of the Constitution...



Heh. You wish. I'm an anarchist. As you may remember, anarchist protesters have fought against and beaten riot police, and are generally pretty damn effective if we need to be. Besides, Neo Art has already commented on what protesters might be carrying, and assuming that 'hippies aren't worth a damn' is a fairly silly thing to be doing under any circumstance.



I have an idea of the concepts of a few things you list there. For a start, let's have "honour" (I prefer the 'u' in honour, because it seems to be missing these days). It means, for me at least, that I stand by my word and my reputation, I honour my agreements, that sort of thing. How about "sacrifice", which would be where one lays down one's own desires and wishes for another. Care to suggest a few more?

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that I probably have a better idea of a few other concepts: "tolerance", "respect", "acceptance". Those aren't anything you've appeared to demonstrate from your posting.

Furthermore, let's not overlook the silliness of accusing people who burn flags of being 'hippies' in one line, and mindless consumers in another. The two are basically separate, given the different focuses and the like. Speaking for myself, I'm not even a hippie, and I'm definitely not a mindless consumer or hipster. If you're going to broadly tar your opponents like that, at least use the right stereotypes.

I could bang on about 'pride in one's country' as well, but I'm not even going to bother with that at the moment. I'm an anarchist, you should be able to extrapolate my position from that.



Careful how you talk to him, he might kick yer ass.

I can't think of circumstances under which I personally would burn either a U.S. Constitution or an American flag. I'd be sympathetic to someone burning the Constitution as a symbol of what our government has done to it, but I don't think I'd do it myself just because I don't think the message comes through very clearly. Someone burning a Constitution out of hatred, I think, would offend me quite a bit more than someone burning an American flag out of hatred.

If someone decides to attack me because of my form of protest, I just know I won.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Ghandi:D

I really don't get this mentality of "I'll kick those protesters ass!" not just because of the violence but...come on...hippies? What fucking decade do you think this is? I've known many anarchist and anti globalizationist protesters, these are not the "let's wear tie-dye, not bathe and sing bob dylan" kind of protesters. These are the "you take one step closer mother fucker and I will slice your balls off with a razor blade and shove them down your fucking throat" protesters.

And they mean it.

I'd burn it purely to offend you then.

Yay! Me too!

You mean like freedom of speech, yes? And....buring flags and such is freedom of speech....so whats the problem?

It's not necessarily the statement, it's the matter in which it's expressed. Respectful disagreement is one thing. But if what you want is a bit of attention, how about you make a sign that says 'Pay Attention To Me', you'll be less likely to experience what the head-shrinkers call 'negative reinforcement.'

So, in that long winded little nonsensical rant of yours, you failed to tell me why I should take pride in the plot of dirt I happened to be born in.

It's one of those things where the fact that you have to ask the question guarantees you won't understand the answer.

Look, I just want to pull out one thing here: 'I object to ... chicks that don't shave their legs'. Who the hell are you to say to someone else "You don't conform to how I think you should be, so I don't like you"? What the hell gives you the impression that this is a productive, useful attitude? You're saying that you object to people who don't conform to your expectations for them, people who don't abide by your rules.

You missed the bit where I said that I objected, but didn't do anything about it because people were entitled to make their own bad decisions. Besides what happened to the sancrosanct anything goes attitude towards free speech? Some hippy is free to burn the flag, but I can't say that chicks that don't shave their legs are kind of nasty? What about my sacred right to free speech? Actually, that's fairly typical of the crowd that shrieks 'tolerance' as soon as someone voices an opinion. As long as you're tolerant of the things they're tolerant of, then you're being 'tolerant', but God forbid you have a different opinion. And they say irony is dead.

Heh. You wish. I'm an anarchist. As you may remember, anarchist protesters have fought against and beaten riot police, and are generally pretty damn effective if we need to be.

These are the "you take one step closer mother fucker and I will slice your balls off with a razor blade and shove them down your fucking throat" protesters.

You know, it's funny, I always hear about these brave counter-cultural underground ass-kicking avengers, but, funnily enough, they never seem to be wherever I am at the time.

You know, it's funny, I always hear about these brave counter-cultural underground ass-kicking avengers, but, funnily enough, they never seem to be wherever I am at the time.

yes, because I'm sure you hang out around protest areas. I mean seriously, it's common sense. What do you expect, you're going to go beat up some guy and his hundreds of friends nearby are not going to beat the ever loving fuck out of you?

Really?

Besides what happened to the sancrosanct anything goes attitude towards free speech? Some hippy is free to burn the flag, but I can't say that chicks that don't shave their legs are kind of nasty? What about my sacred right to free speech? Actually, that's fairly typical of the crowd that shrieks 'tolerance' as soon as someone voices an opinion. As long as you're tolerant of the things they're tolerant of, then you're being 'tolerant', but God forbid you have a different opinion. And they say irony is dead.

Are you under the inane and nonsensical dillusion that your right to say something somehow renders you immune to criticism for your words? You're right, there's a huge irony gap here. Unfortunatly it's from you, and your nonsensical and childish "how dare they say they don't agree with what I said, what about freedom of speech?"

Your freedom of speech entitles you to say it. I would not dream of stopping you. That's your right. But while your freedom of speech gives you a right to say it, my freedom of speech gives me the right to call you a jackoff for saying it.

THE U.S. constitution, no, I would ransom it back. A U.S. constitution, yes, most definatly.

Why? I can't imagine burning a Constitution getting across any kind of message I would care to send. I like the Constitution.

But if I were freezing and all I had to start a fire with was a bunch of Constitutions, then I guess I'm gonna burn me some Constitutions. :p

What does it mean if the insane one is the one who makes the most sense? :p

yes, because I'm sure you hang out around protest areas. I mean seriously, it's common sense. What do you expect, you're going to go beat up some guy and his hundreds of friends nearby are not going to beat the ever loving fuck out of you?

I've done some counter-protesting, and yeah, that's pretty much exactly what happened. This Che Guevera-looking fucker lit an American flag and I went over, kicked him in the grapefruits, grabbed the flag, put it out, and told his friends that if they wanted it back they could come get it. Unsurprisingly, there were no takers. In fact, no-one even said anything until I had turned and started to walk away. Besides, there's a word for people who are only brave in groups. That word is 'coward.' (although, if you guessed 'hippy' you could be forgiven, as the two are more often than not synonomous)

Are you under the inane and nonsensical dillusion that your right to say something somehow renders you immune to criticism for your words? You're right, there's a huge irony gap here. Unfortunatly it's from you, and your nonsensical and childish "how dare they say they don't agree with what I said, what about freedom of speech?"


What you've latched onto there is me making fun of your argument. All I said was that while you are free to have any opinions you like, you are also free to experience the possible consequences of expressing said opinions, said consequences possibly taking any number of forms. At which point the forces of 'tolerance' descended on me and proceeded to illustrate how they were, in your words "under the inane and nonsensical dillusion that your right to say something somehow renders you immune to criticism for your words?"

I also pointed out the irony of a staunch defender of 'free' speech throwing a 'you can't say that' hissy fit at me for saying that chicks who don't shave their legs are kind of nasty.

I've done some counter-protesting, and yeah, that's pretty much exactly what happened. This Che Guevera-looking fucker lit an American flag and I went over, kicked him in the grapefruits, grabbed the flag, put it out, and told his friends that if they wanted it back they could come get it. Unsurprisingly, there were no takers. In fact, no-one even said anything until I had turned and started to walk away. Besides, there's a word for people who are only brave in groups. That word is 'coward.' (although, if you guessed 'hippy' you could be forgiven, as the two are more often than not synonomous)

Suuuuuure you did. I bet that's exactly what happened

:rolleyes:

I also pointed out the irony of a staunch defender of 'free' speech throwing a 'you can't say that' hissy fit at me for saying that chicks who don't shave their legs are kind of nasty.

Do me a favor would ya? Find me the person who told you that you couldn't say it.

It's one of those things where the fact that you have to ask the question guarantees you won't understand the answer.


Well, let's just play along with this for a minute, shall we? You're saying that there might be no reason one would consider not taking pride in a abusive government, inherently illegitimate, with a habit of torturing their civilians? But of course, I should take pride in it, yes? Why?


You missed the bit where I said that I objected, but didn't do anything about it because people were entitled to make their own bad decisions. Besides what happened to the sancrosanct anything goes attitude towards free speech? Some hippy is free to burn the flag, but I can't say that chicks that don't shave their legs are kind of nasty? What about my sacred right to free speech? Actually, that's fairly typical of the crowd that shrieks 'tolerance' as soon as someone voices an opinion. As long as you're tolerant of the things they're tolerant of, then you're being 'tolerant', but God forbid you have a different opinion. And they say irony is dead.


I know that you said that. In case you have actually read my comment, I didn't say you were making anyone o it, I said that I considered your attitude silly, and in fact downright sickening. You can say it, of course, but I reserve the right to consider your attitude stupid, as I did.


You know, it's funny, I always hear about these brave counter-cultural underground ass-kicking avengers, but, funnily enough, they never seem to be wherever I am at the time.

You know, I figured you were just misinformed here, not being deliberately stupid. So I went and looked it up
for you. Allow me to quote wikipedia, on the 1999 Seattle WTO Riots:


That morning, the King County Sheriff's Office and Seattle Police Department fired pepper spray, tear gas canisters, percussion grenades, and eventually rubber bullets at protesters at several intersections in an attempt to reopen the blocked streets and allow as many WTO delegates as possible through the blockade.[5] At 6th Avenue and Union Street, the crowd threw them back.


(from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity))

So they fought off bloody riot police with rubber bullets. That takes a fair bit of fighting ability, I would say, but you might be crazy enough to disagree. Similar confrontations have taken place at G8 summits, National Conventions, and many other events. Going back over longer stretches of history, we have revolutions, assassinations, and bombings. Seems that some people don't just brag about being able to fight, but are quite willing to do it.

But just for you, I'll make you an offer. Why don't you pop over to the Republican National Convention this year, and have a go at the protestors there. I'll even get a friend or two to burn a constitution, just for you. I wouldn't advise trying anything violent.

I've done some counter-protesting, and yeah, that's pretty much exactly what happened. This Che Guevera-looking fucker lit an American flag and I went over, kicked him in the grapefruits, grabbed the flag, put it out, and told his friends that if they wanted it back they could come get it. Unsurprisingly, there were no takers. In fact, no-one even said anything until I had turned and started to walk away. Besides, there's a word for people who are only brave in groups. That word is 'coward.' (although, if you guessed 'hippy' you could be forgiven, as the two are more often than not synonomous)


Im sure thats exactly what happened. And then, you shot bolts of lightening out your ass and smote the evil non-patriots who dared to dissent.

"I swear it was thiiiis big!"

EDIT: There are also two things Id like to mention that I forgot.

1. I like how in your disertation on your "manliness" and how tough you were, you said you kicked the guy in the balls. You should know that rule numero uno of guys fighting is no shots at the jewels. So, to be honost, if this story is true, youre a puss. If not, youre a liar.

2. You said hippies are cowards. I submit that to stand up to "the man" (as much as I loathe that term) and to stand up publically for your unpopular opinions takes more courage than going along with what the government says becuse "We're 'merica! And we're always right! Gr!"

Why the hell would you burn a Constitution? The thing's already been ripped to shreds by the Supreme Court and current administration.

Why? I can't imagine burning a Constitution getting across any kind of message I would care to send. I like the Constitution.

But if I were freezing and all I had to start a fire with was a bunch of Constitutions, then I guess I'm gonna burn me some Constitutions. :p

Awe . . . that was great.:gundge:

I really agree with everything in the constitution but it's a piece of paper, not a holy artifact, and I would have no problem burning one. I can burn a piece of paper while still believe in the things the paper says.

Oh, and I'd burn people like Sante Croix without a second thought as well. Just sayin'.

THE U.S. constitution, no, I would ransom it back. A U.S. constitution, yes, most definatly.

yeah I would burn a constitution so long as it wasn't the only copy. I'm not much for symbolism.

If I was cold, and had to start a fire, of course.

Suuuuuure you did. I bet that's exactly what happened

Im sure thats exactly what happened. And then, you shot bolts of lightening out your ass and smote the evil non-patriots who dared to dissent.

Where is my motive to lie? There's no profit in it, and my ego is no near being wrapped up enough in this argument to do so. Besides, just because you and your ilk are incapable of conceiving of individual achievment outside of 'the group' does not mean it didn't happen.

Do me a favor would ya? Find me the person who told you that you couldn't say it.

Here you go:

Look, I just want to pull out one thing here: 'I object to ... chicks that don't shave their legs'. Who the hell are you to say to someone else "You don't conform to how I think you should be, so I don't like you"? What the hell gives you the impression that this is a productive, useful attitude?

Allow me to quote wikipedia, on the 1999 Seattle WTO Riots.

Oooh Wikipedia, now there's an authoritative source. An internet site that anyone can edit. You have completely shut me down with the absolute last word.

But just for you, I'll make you an offer. Why don't you pop over to the Republican National Convention this year, and have a go at the protestors there. I'll even get a friend or two to burn a constitution, just for you. I wouldn't advise trying anything violent.

Yeah yeah, if I were there...with my all my friends...and a bat..and maybe a tank...you'd be in sooo much trouble. Spare me. Like I said, they never seem to be where I am, but they're always somewhere.

1. I like how in your disertation on your "manliness" and how tough you were, you said you kicked the guy in the balls. You should know that rule numero uno of guys fighting is no shots at the jewels. So, to be honost, if this story is true, youre a puss. If not, youre a liar.

Yeah, I don't know what copy of Maxim you got your 'guy rules' out of, but anyone who has ever been in an actual fight, as opposed to doing their fighting on Playstation, knows that the first and really only rule of fighting is: Do whatever it takes to win.

Why? I can't imagine burning a Constitution getting across any kind of message I would care to send. I like the Constitution.

But if I were freezing and all I had to start a fire with was a bunch of Constitutions, then I guess I'm gonna burn me some Constitutions. :p

:D

I said 'no' both because of respect, and lack of desire for vandalism.

Now, when we start talking mass printouts, my objection becomes far less strong, as LG has above provided, there are certainly cases where sometimes, paper is paper.

Then again, if I'm having a bonfire, and all I have are reams and reams of constitution printouts (why I would plan a bonfire without wood, I'm not sure, why I would have reams and reams of Constitution prinouts... I'm also not sure) then I would use them as fuel for the flames, not out of disrespect, but out of the realization that a printout is a printout.

Oooh Wikipedia, now there's an authoritative source. An internet site that anyone can edit. You have completely shut me down with the absolute last word.



Far more credible source than a personal story...




Talking about this with you is giving me an urge to burn flags, and a constitution (a copy, as it is after all a historical artifact).

I've done some counter-protesting, and yeah, that's pretty much exactly what happened. This Che Guevera-looking fucker lit an American flag and I went over, kicked him in the grapefruits, grabbed the flag, put it out, and told his friends that if they wanted it back they could come get it. Unsurprisingly, there were no takers. In fact, no-one even said anything until I had turned and started to walk away.

You knew what? I was going to join the chorus questioning your honesty, but I decided I didn't really care. Fuck this stupid contest about "Who's tougher."

The really telling thing isn't whether or not you lied. It's that you think walking up to someone and attacking him is an acceptable way to behave... and then to boast about.

As if the (alleged) fact that you can fight someone and win makes you right. As if physical assault is any way to behave in civilized society. Most of us get over such pathetic immaturity around age five.

I'm a coward and a weakling. There, I've admitted it. Most leftist protesters aren't, but I am. But for some of us, merit has more to do with maturity and decency than middle-school contests about who's is bigger.

:rolleyes:

You knew what? I was going to join the chorus questioning your honesty, but I decided I didn't really care. Fuck this stupid contest about "Who's tougher."

The really telling thing isn't whether or not you lied. It's that you think walking up to someone and attacking him is an acceptable way to behave... and then to boast about.

As if the (alleged) fact that you can fight someone and win makes you right. As if physical assault is any way to behave in civilized society. Most of us get over such pathetic immaturity around age five.

I'm a coward and a weakling. There, I've admitted it. Most leftist protesters aren't, but I am. But for some of us, merit has more to do with maturity and decency than middle-school contests about who's is bigger.

:rolleyes:



Well done. Way to rise above the rest of us. I salute you.


*note, this is NOT sarcasm

Far more credible source than a personal story...

They did a study and it turns out that Wikipedia had .5 more errors per page than Encyclopedia Britannica. Not bad, considering Wikipedia's articles are often twice as long.

Often, I hear the question, "Would you burn a U.S. flag?" or "Should it be legal/illegal to burn a U.S. flag?" I have yet to hear someone ask the same thing about the U.S. Constitution, so here it is.

Would you ever burn a U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?

I answered yes, other, because there's one situation that comes to mind that would warrant burning it. I'll lay it out for ya...

I'm freezing to death. I have lots of wood to burn and a match, but no tinder (for non-boyscouts- tinder is the smallest unit of firewood, used at the very beginning of a fire). I look over and see my trusty US constitution poking out of my back pack. I know there's no other way, so I tearfully tear it into individual pages ball them up and light the fire with my one match.

Life or death: the only appropriate situation for burning the Constitution.

Oh, and I'd burn people like Sante Croix without a second thought as well. Just sayin'.

Better men than you have tried and failed,friend.

Far more credible source than a personal story...

Yeah, because it's not like you never know who is on there editing and adding information. Oh, wait, it's exactly like that. For all you know, it could be Peaches Valentine, the mongoloid who never leaves his house because he has flippers instead of arms and legs. He could get on there and post something like this:

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."

And then it could get picked up by other popular reference websites and posted as factual information. Of course, it's later proved to be complete nonsense from beginning to end, but by then the damage is done. I'm sure even your education has left you familiar with the old cliche about putting toothpaste back in the tube?

The really telling thing isn't whether or not you lied. It's that you think walking up to someone and attacking him is an acceptable way to behave... and then to boast about.

Like most people who have no experience with/a distaste for physical confrontation, you have trouble differentiating between random and senseless violence and deserved retribution. It's not like he was giving away free puppies to homeless kids and I just kicked his ass from out of nowhere. Because of his actions, he deserved what happened to him.

As if the (alleged) fact that you can fight someone and win makes you right. As if physical assault is any way to behave in civilized society. Most of us get over such pathetic immaturity around age five.

I'm a coward and a weakling. There, I've admitted it. Most leftist protesters aren't, but I am. But for some of us, merit has more to do with maturity and decency than middle-school contests about who's is bigger.

And that school of thought might have vailidity if everyone else in the world shared your opinion. Unfortunately, as Chamberlain found out to his cost, the world is full of people who will merely pause long enough to bury you on that moral high ground and then move on to ravage what's left. Pacifism is a luxury that is only accorded to you by the actions and existence of non-pacifists.

he deserved what happened to him.

I'd just like to highlight this part here. So you believe that beating up people who disagree with you= deserved retribution? By trying to defend the country you have instead hurt the very ideals you were trying to protect. Mainly freedom of speech.

Click Stand;13536762']I'd just like to highlight this part here. So you believe that beating up people who disagree with you= deserved retribution? By trying to defend the country you have instead hurt the very ideals you were trying to protect. Mainly freedom of speech.

Y'all continue to miss the point. It's not just 'beating up people who disagree with me.' If that's what I did, I'd have no time to do anything else. Everybody I know disagrees with me about something. For instance, one of my best friends loves basketball, the appeal of which has always completely escaped me. Yeah, we occasionally fight each other, but that's for fun, with no hard feelings re:the occasional black eye or broken nose.

It's not even about public espousal of differing public opinions. You go on and run your mouth about whatever you like. But like with anything else, there's a line, and public defacement of a symbol like the flag or the Consitution is over that line.

But like with anything else, there's a line, and public defacement of a symbol like the flag or the Consitution is over that line.

No, no it's not. It's especially not over any sort of line that deserves a physical response.

Why not? Because one is legal free speech, and one is illegal assault. And for a civilized society to function no legal action is deserving of an illegal response. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate that you are unfit for modern civilized society and have no place within it.

who cares about a copy of it.

But who ever burns the real one would be stupied! They would get :sniper:
Our US Flag is diffrent from a COPY of the US Const.

But the REAL US Const should never be burned.

he deserved what happened to him.

Bullshit. You used violence to interfere with someone's constitutionally protected freedom of speech, and then stole his property on top of it. There's no need for you to burn a flag or a Constitution; if your story is true, you've already acted in a way that's far more anti-American.

But like with anything else, there's a line, and public defacement of a symbol like the flag or the Consitution is over that line.

So to defend the honour of the great and mighty USA you'll totally disregard its laws, not only the obvious law against assault, but whichever amendments guarantee freedom of expression and freedom to protest peacefully(unless that one isn't in the constitution, I don't know).

Seems to me that you're being far more disrespectful towards what the flag symbolises than the person burning it.

No, no it's not. It's especially not over any sort of line that deserves a physical response.

Why not? Because one is legal free speech, and one is illegal assault. And for a civilized society to function no legal action is deserving of an illegal response. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate that you are unfit for modern civilized society and have no place within it.

As for 'illegal' goes, the cops(around here anyways)are pretty unsympathetic as regards some hippy's tale of woe about how he got his ass whupped for burning the flag. I'm not exactly living in fear on that score.

As far as being 'unfit' for modern society, this is not the first time that charge has been leveled at me, and I have to say, the more society continues to slide downhill, the more and more I appreciate people telling me I don't fit in it.

Yeah, because it's not like you never know who is on there editing and adding information. Oh, wait, it's exactly like that. For all you know, it could be Peaches Valentine, the mongoloid who never leaves his house because he has flippers instead of arms and legs.


Ok, so personal stories are much more credible Im sure.


Im Karl Rove. Its equally as credible as Wikipedia for me to say so.


As for 'illegal' goes, the cops(around here anyways)are pretty unsympathetic as regards some hippy's tale of woe about how he got his ass whupped for burning the flag. I'm not exactly living in fear on that score.

Ok, so theyre not good cops. Whats your point?

As far as being 'unfit' for modern society, this is not the first time that charge has been leveled at me.

Ill bet:rolleyes:

Like most people who have no experience with/a distaste for physical confrontation, you have trouble differentiating between random and senseless violence and deserved retribution. It's not like he was giving away free puppies to homeless kids and I just kicked his ass from out of nowhere. Because of his actions, he deserved what happened to him.


You know, some people think that its moral to not return violence with violence. Are people like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. weak?


Ill probably regret asking that question...

Ok, so personal stories are much more credible Im sure.

The difference is that while I am vastly more credible than Wikipedia, I'm not citing myself as an authoritative source, I'm merely relating a personal experience that has contributed to my point of view.

You know, some people think that its moral to not return violence with violence.

His inability to return violence with violence had nothing to do with his taking a brave, moral high-ground Ghandi-like stand. It did, however, have a lot to do with his being a pansy who was more concerned with where his grapefruits had gotten off to. As for the rest of them, you lose some of your Ghandi-cred when you wait until someone has their back turned to yell nasty things about their parentage.

Like most people who have no experience with/a distaste for physical confrontation, you have trouble differentiating between random and senseless violence and deserved retribution.

No, I don't. The incapacity is yours.

Because of his actions, he deserved what happened to him.

No, he didn't. People don't deserve to be attacked for expressing political opinions in ways you don't like. This is rule one of basic respect of others. The fact that you disagree with what someone does in no way indicates that you should attack him.

And even if he did, your actions were still unjustified. Deserved or not, it is not YOUR job to administer justice. That's what it means to live in a society of law: you don't get to decide what other people deserve.

:rolleyes:

Pacifism is a luxury that is only accorded to you by the actions and existence of non-pacifists.

Who said that I was a pacifist? I said I was a coward, not a pacifist. Most pacifists are not cowards at all--quite the opposite.

You show yet again that I am right, and it is YOU who are incapable of drawing reasonable distinctions: either I must accept your right to attack whoever you like for the stupidest of reasons, or I must deny the justification of violence in ANY circumstance.

Bullshit.

No, I don't. The incapacity is yours.

No, I have the capacity, personally. That's the reason why people who talk in the theatre get yelled at, but people who burn the flag get handed an ass-whuppin'. It's a sliding scale of responses to obnoxious behavior, see?

No, he didn't. People don't deserve to be attacked for expressing political opinions in ways you don't like. The fact that you disagree with what someone does in no way indicates that you should attack him.

Y'all continue to rather obtusely miss the point here. It's not the fact that he disagreed with me that drew the wrath down on him, it's the manner in which he expressed that disagreement.There are plenty of ways to express diagreement without being disrespectful.

Who said that I was a pacifist? I said I was a coward, not a pacifist.

Yeah, same difference, really, in practice.

either I must accept your right to attack whoever you like for the stupidest of reasons...

Like I said, it's not whoever I like, and it's not for the stupidest of reasons. It's a tiny segment of the populace who have demonstrated by their actions that they deserve a whuppin'.

No, I have the capacity, personally. That's the reason why people who talk in the theatre get yelled at, but people who burn the flag get handed an ass-whuppin'. It's a sliding scale of responses to obnoxious behavior, see?



Y'all continue to rather obtusely miss the point here. It's not the fact that he disagreed with me that drew the wrath down on him, it's the manner in which he expressed that disagreement.There are plenty of ways to express diagreement without being disrespectful.



Yeah, same difference, really, in practice.



Like I said, it's not whoever I like, and it's not for the stupidest of reasons. It's a tiny segment of the populace who have demonstrated by their actions that they deserve a whuppin'.


And who are you to determine what manner of protest deserves violence and what manner doesnt? That is the point.

You responded to a legal act with an illegal act. I suggest if you ever leave whatever backwater hick-area you live in, you dont act like that. Cops in the rest of the US will take action against you for assualt like that.

Our point is your behavior is unacceptable to the vast majority of the country and the first world. There is a reason the first ammendment exists. Its to prevent things like what you did.

No, I have the capacity, personally. That's the reason why people who talk in the theatre get yelled at, but people who burn the flag get handed an ass-whuppin'. It's a sliding scale of responses to obnoxious behavior, see?

Y'all continue to rather obtusely miss the point here. It's not the fact that he disagreed with me that drew the wrath down on him, it's the manner in which he expressed that disagreement.There are plenty of ways to express diagreement without being disrespectful.

Yeah, same difference, really, in practice.

Like I said, it's not whoever I like, and it's not for the stupidest of reasons. It's a tiny segment of the populace who have demonstrated by their actions that they deserve a whuppin'.

Your alleged defense of liberty and the Constitution trips over your clear disregard for the principles of liberty and the Constitution.

You are just another thug who makes excuses for your violent tendencies.

The more I read of this boy's posts, the more I believe he fits the personality of someone who has never actually done the things he said he has, but rather says he's done the things he wishes he could after spending a tearstained evening crying himself to sleep after the school bully shoved his head in a toilet.

again.

You are just another thug who makes excuses for your violent tendencies.

You assume he has actually done any of the things he claims to?

He's no lowbrow thug, he's far more pathetic than that. He's someone who wishes he could be one. I mean really, "sometimes people deserve it"? The rants against gays, women, and polite society? It's so blue collar it's a jeff foxworthy punchline.

You assume he has actually done any of the things he claims to?

He's no lowbrow thug, he's far more pathetic than that. He's someone who wishes he could be one.

Thats the impression I am getting as well (mostly because he claimed he kicked the guy in the balls which no "tough guy" would do) but Im more debating the principle of what he said he did. Even if he would like to do what he said and hasnt actually done it, its still unacceptable.

Who said that I was a pacifist? I said I was a coward, not a pacifist.Yeah, same difference, really, in practice.


Because everyone knows that the Freedom Riders were all cowards. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Because everyone knows that the Freedom Riders were all cowards. :rolleyes: :headbang:

So was Ghandi. So are Buddhist monks.

His inability to return violence with violence had nothing to do with his taking a brave, moral high-ground Ghandi-like stand. It did, however, have a lot to do with his being a pansy who was more concerned with where his grapefruits had gotten off to. As for the rest of them, you lose some of your Ghandi-cred when you wait until someone has their back turned to yell nasty things about their parentage.
Wow, you sure got to know a lot about this guy in the space of time it took to kick him in the balls and steal his flag.

Either that or you just decided that since this man was burning a flag he must fit with your idea of what a man who burned a flag is like.
No, I have the capacity, personally. That's the reason why people who talk in the theatre get yelled at, but people who burn the flag get handed an ass-whuppin'. It's a sliding scale of responses to obnoxious behavior, see?
It's also why you might get asked to leave the theatre for the former and sent to jail for the latter.



Y'all continue to rather obtusely miss the point here. It's not the fact that he disagreed with me that drew the wrath down on him, it's the manner in which he expressed that disagreement.There are plenty of ways to express diagreement without being disrespectful.
And you showed respect to America by kicking a protester in the balls and stealing his flag? What a gigantic load of bullshit.

You know, I doubt you really give a rat's ass about about America. It's just the 'us' you were raised in, and you're an 'us/them' kind of person. You could just have easily been born in Northern Ireland and want to beat the shit out of all the Brits/Irish. Or you could have been born in Afghanistan and pray every day for the destruction of the Great Satan that is America.

But feel free to show me to be wrong. Go right ahead and show how you were actually being respectful to the ideals of America while you broke its laws and attacked one of its citizens for exercising one of his constitutionally guaranteed rights.

It's interesting that the US 'Cult of National Security' initiated by the conservatives is very similar to the Nazi tactic of creating mass hysteria, claiming the nation is constantly under attack and denoucing everyone else as unpatriotic pacifists.

No, I have the capacity, personally. That's the reason why people who talk in the theatre get yelled at, but people who burn the flag get handed an ass-whuppin'. It's a sliding scale of responses to obnoxious behavior, see?

Yes, you make distinctions--everyone does--but they are not the right ones. Indeed, you miss the character and point of the distinction between "random and senseless violence" and "deserved retribution."

Your own phrasing proves it. Your standard is the degree of "obnoxious behavior"--"obnoxious behavior" according to you, of course.

But reasonable people recognized long ago that violence is not an acceptable response to behavior that is merely "obnoxious." Obnoxious behavior may be annoying, it may be wrong, but it does not call for a violent response. We respect others enough that we can disagree with their behavior--however strongly--while still respecting their right not to be attacked.

And reasonable people also recognized long ago that if we want to live in an ordered, civilized society, we must abide by common rules and appeal to objective authorities--not act as vigilantes on our own.

Y'all continue to rather obtusely miss the point here. It's not the fact that he disagreed with me that drew the wrath down on him, it's the manner in which he expressed that disagreement.

Was he attacking you? Was he attacking anyone else? No? Then the "manner" does not justify your actions.

There are plenty of ways to express diagreement without being disrespectful.

That's right. Maybe you should learn this lesson. :rolleyes:

Yeah, same difference, really, in practice.

Nonsense. Most warmongers are cowards; that's why they insist on massive violence to defend themselves. For my part, I am not a warmonger, but I'll admit that my support for permissive gun laws has to do not only with my rational judgment of the public good, but also my personal, cowardly desire for protection whatever the cost.

Absolute pacifists, on the other hand, renounce the recourse to violence even in the event that they are in personal danger. That's one of the bravest things imaginable. You and I may think it unwise, but that does not diminish its courage.

Like I said, it's not whoever I like, and it's not for the stupidest of reasons.

It IS whoever you like, and that's why it's for the stupidest of reasons.

True, undoubtedly you do not aggress against everyone who annoys you... but the fact that they must annoy you excessively barely changes the character of the act.

Look, many kinds of people annoy me. Personally, I loathe homophobes. I find homophobic speech a lot more "obnoxious" than I find, say, beating up homophobic people for such speech--which, in its way, is a perfectly understandable act. In reading a work of fiction, where I feel no compulsion to bring my attitudes in line with rational moral standards, I would strongly "root" for those committing the violence.

But because I am a (more or less) mature, reasonable person, I know that what I find "obnoxious" is not the relevant standard in the real world. My emotional reaction is, in fact, entirely irrelevant. Someone who engages in homophobic speech in no way threatens the reasonable standards of a civilized society: he does not assault anyone else, he does not break any law. On the other hand, someone who responds to such speech with violence is both acting without regard for proportion--mere speech, however vile, does not call for a violent response--and is violating the idea of social peace by asserting that personal disputes should be decided with extralegal violence rather than through appeal to the public institutions administering the rule of law.

Thus, I would strongly oppose violent attacks on people for bigoted speech, and would support their right to defend themselves in a proportionate way--even as I find their behavior obnoxious and offensive in the extreme. I recognize that my personal emotional attitudes do not dictate what is and is not acceptable.

You have clearly not recognized this fact in your own case, though undoubtedly you deny others the right you grant to yourself.

It's a tiny segment of the populace who have demonstrated by their actions that they deserve a whuppin'.

According to you. And you are so arrogant that you know you must be right, and you automatically have the right to carry out your judgment.

:rolleyes:

Y'all continue to rather obtusely miss the point here. It's not the fact that he disagreed with me that drew the wrath down on him, it's the manner in which he expressed that disagreement.There are plenty of ways to express diagreement without being disrespectful.

aww, poor baby

It's interesting that the US 'Cult of National Security' initiated by the conservatives is very similar to the Nazi tactic of creating mass hysteria, claiming the nation is constantly under attack and denoucing everyone else as unpatriotic pacifists.
Interesting from a historian's point of view, but worrying from any other, I dare say.

Imagine a Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons, and quite possibly the best outfitted and trained military in the world(I'm not well read on such things so I may be wrong). If Hitler could take Germany from 0 to taking over Europe, imagine what someone like him could do with America today.
Nonsense. Most warmongers are cowards; that's why they insist on massive violence to defend themselves. For my part, I am not a warmonger, but I'll admit that my support for permissive gun laws has to do not only with my rational judgment of the public good, but also my personal, cowardly desire for protection whatever the cost.

Absolute pacifists, on the other hand, renounce the recourse to violence even in the event that they are in personal danger. That's one of the bravest things imaginable. You and I may think it unwise, but that does not diminish its courage.

I approve greatly of this view of bravery and cowardice. I can't claim to have ever thought anything like it, but it does make a great deal of sense to me.