Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on June 27, 2006, 11:54:42 AM
-
A vote on a new amendment to the Constitution is coming up for a vote soon. It may pass. One more right frittered away in the interests of politics.
Sad indeed.
The case for flag-burning (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-flag27jun27,1,1143144.story?coll=la-news-comment)
It's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. There has been no epidemic of flag-burning since the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that destruction of Old Glory as a protest was symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
The reintroduction of this amendment is part of the Republican Party's election-year attempt to rile up its social-conservative base, a "panderama" that already has produced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, which failed earlier this month.
-
When a highschool valedictorian can't give credit to God for her success then free speech is already lost. I agree, very sad. We have only ourselves to blame.
-
Good constitutional amendments limit the reach of government, not the rights of the citizenry.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I love it when the Govt. holds forum on issues that have no bearing with the tailspin that we are in right now. Too damn funny. I'm against flag burning myself, but I could list off about 300 issues that are way more important.
-
Originally posted by lukster
When a highschool valedictorian can't give credit to God for her success then free speech is already lost. I agree, very sad. We have only ourselves to blame.
I imagine if she were to express her love and admiration of Allah and that salvation is only possible through Allah in the same setting, you would be mortified...
Though I'm not a practitioner, flag burning is only a figure of speech and should be kept that way. Surely there are more important things to be looking at...or is this mere political grandstanding to deflect away from the republicans the public's notice of the crappy shape this country is in for November elections?
-
I could go either way with the flag, honestly, but I have always wondered: if a person could burn a flag as a political protest protected under the first amendment then why shouldn't that person be able to shoot a politician as an expression of political protest. If its just for the sole purpose of protesting politics of course......:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I love it when the Govt. holds forum on issues that have no bearing with the tailspin that we are in right now. Too damn funny. I'm against flag burning myself, but I could list off about 300 issues that are way more important.
Exactly. It's like when Congress stopped everything to debate the Terry Schiavo "issue". It's all mid-term election crap. And Congress wonders why their approval rating is below 30%. :furious
-
Congressional ratings are always that low
-
Originally posted by Horn
I imagine if she were to express her love and admiration of Allah and that salvation is only possible through Allah in the same setting, you would be mortified...
Though I'm not a practitioner, flag burning is only a figure of speech and should be kept that way. Surely there are more important things to be looking at...or is this mere political grandstanding to deflect away from the republicans the public's notice of the crappy shape this country is in for November elections?
You assume too much. I'm for free speech so long as it is done properly. Yelling fire in a theatre or selling child pornography should not be protected by the first amendment.
-
Yep, a diversionary tactic. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Originally posted by SKOALbttrnapnch
Congressional ratings are always that low
Really?
(http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060324i.gif)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Yelling fire in a theatre or selling child pornography should not be protected by the first amendment.
Neither are protected by the First Amendment.
ack-ack
-
I have had jobs in the past where there were huge looming tasks that I just didn't have the gumption to begin to tackle. So, I would pretend. I would open drawings, zoom in, zoom out, pan and click around. It looked like I was doing something, but no actual work was being done.
Alot like our congress.
-
lol - that was perfect, Furious.
But this is a serious issue. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601321.html)
"The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group pushing for the Senate this week to pass a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, just reported an alarming, 33 percent increase in the number of flag-desecration incidents this year.
The number has increased to four, from three."
-
I don't care if people burn flags or not but...
I have never been able to understand how burning them was considered "speech" ..... not even close.
lazs
-
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a
fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way,
preferably by burning.
U.S. Flag code (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+4USC8)
So is flag burning dignified or not? In protest or in respect, burning a flag is burning a flag. One could say one is making a statement and the other is part of ending, in a "dignified" way, a flag that has seen better days.
But in the end, it's still flag burning.
Just ridiculous that there is even a movement for an amendment to the constitution.
FTR - I am for the freedom to express one's displeasure by burning the flag...just don't let me catch you doing it near me.
-
I think burning the U.S. flag is fine up to 495 times. roll a congressional representative or senator in a flag then light'm up. it would be a noble deed and good start. then perhaps the petulant lawyers of the republic could be next. each wrapped in the corresponding state flag, they would no doubt aspire to the vacant seats irrespective of the smoldering. :D
-
Storch,
I don't think you need to do that quite so many times. I think by the time you get to 494, they will have caught on.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care if people burn flags or not but...
I have never been able to understand how burning them was considered "speech" ..... not even close.
lazs
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
Full acceptance of the theory that the Amendment operates not only to bar most prior restraints of expression but subsequent punishment of all but a narrow range of expression, in political discourse and indeed in all fields of expression, dates from a quite recent period, although the Court's movement toward that position began in its consideration of limitations on speech and press in the period following World War I.
-
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a
fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way,
preferably by burning.
I burnt a few for that reason... The days following 911, a few of my friends bought those little flags, and duck taped them to the radio antennas on there cars. After a couple of years they started to look ragged, so we took them down. They were just going to throw them away, which didn't make any sense. Instead i folded them up, rested them on empty beer bottles, so they wouldn't touch the ground, and set them afire. I made my friends put there hands over there hearts until the retirement ceremony was over.
One thing i wouldn't mind seeing though... If someone hates this country enough to burn the flag, i'd let them do it, on the condition that THEY were wrapped up in it first.
Show some respect for the flag of the country you live in. If you don't like the politicians, vote them out. Don't be a whining Pu@@Y, or an A@@ licking coward though.
-
actually, it's the flag code they want to enforce.. obstensibly; to prevent flag burning. But you can rest assured that'll mean fines, confiscation, jail time, attention from the FBI as being un-amerikan, a permanant note in your data base Korporate 201 File.... for flying a flag at night with out a spotlight, displaying it incorrectly (right to left/left to right, upside down..) having one sewn to the bellybutton of your pants or the motif of disrespect in clothing.. Bronk will do hard time for his Avatar.. etc, etc, etc.
Korporate Amerika uber Alles.
-
I have no issue with people burning our flag. So long as its followed by them renouncing their citizenship and boarding an airplane, moving to live in another country.
(Insert that video clip of the baseball player grabbing the flag away from those punks trying to burn it on the field.)
-
I believe it failed.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Neither are protected by the First Amendment.
ack-ack
According to the ACLU the latter should be.
-
If the world worked correctly you would have the right to have burn a flag in protest as long as anyone who saw you had the right to kick your bellybutton for it.
-
What kind of fool lives in a country they despise enough to burn it's national symbol? If you are that disgusted with where you live then surely you can find a place more to your liking. You want to to burn the flag go ahead. Being stupid isn't always against the law.
-
If it's my flag, I can do what I want with it, should burning a picture that I own of the President be illegal as well?.
shamus
-
Anyone has the right to burn it in protest.
I have the right to think they are jackaxes for doing so.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care if people burn flags or not but...
I have never been able to understand how burning them was considered "speech" ..... not even close.
lazs
A picture is worth a thousand words.
(http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/03/flag-burning.jpg)
These people are making a statement about dissatisfaction with their government.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Bronk will do hard time for his Avatar..
I knew it... they are out to get me!
:noid :noid
Bronk
-
Just had an idea.
Congressional resolution stating that all official US flags be made of fire retardant/fire-proof material.
Problem solved.
Damn, I should run for office...
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Just had an idea.
Congressional resolution stating that all official US flags be made of fire retardant/fire-proof material.
Problem solved.
Damn, I should run for office...
I hate to bust your bubble...soaked in any flammable liquid that generates high heats, even those materials will fail
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't care if people burn flags or not but...
I have never been able to understand how burning them was considered "speech" ..... not even close.
lazs
yah
-
Motion Defeated. By two votes.
I'm still flabbergasted that they even made the attempt... even the concept of abridging the 1st is illegal. That damned right is all but carved in stone!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]
Can't those baboons even READ?
-
Two or three Republican base issues raised so far, two or three to go.
Gotta marvel at these clowns. They think everyone is as stupid as them.
-
Hang, quick question for you.
What do you define as speech? I.E. What is free speech?
-
I believe Free Speech is Freedom of Expression.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
Or.. from somebody on the other side of the spectrum:
"Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection. -- Colin Powell"
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]
Can't those baboons even READ? [/B]
The motion was to amend the constitution. The 23rd amendment, repealing the 18th, would have been unconstitutional if changing the constitution was not allowed.
This thankfully defeated motion's purpose was to restrict our speech freedoms, thereby modifing the 1st amendment.
-
see how your respective senators voted send them a well done or a wtf email. do it now.
-
well... burning the flag is not speech. It is an act. It is an expression of an idea but it is not speech. It is an act that can be benign or... meant to incite.
It is no more protected under free speech than cross burning or cartoons of watermellon eating colored people. It is an act meant to incite riot or assault. In that respect it can be restricted. If the act causes people be offended to the point of violence then it is wrong..
Not to mention.... I know of very few cities where it is legal to burn anything without a permit.
Freedom of expression is allowed in the U.S. and should be but expression meant to incite violence should not be.
On the other hand... some speech is outlawed for some and not for others. That is a real violation of free speech.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the act causes people be offended to the point of violence then it is wrong..
Did it ever occur to you that the offended people might be wrong instead of the initial act, hardly an objective criterion to allow something, eh?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The motion was to amend the constitution. The 23rd amendment, repealing the 18th, would have been unconstitutional if changing the constitution was not allowed.
This thankfully defeated motion's purpose was to restrict our speech freedoms, thereby modifing the 1st amendment.
Something of a similar nature, I caught the tail end of something on the news and I'm not sure if the movement has any real possibility of succeeding. Apparently there are some who want every Supreme Court ruling to be considered irreversible. They are so afraid that roe vs wade will be overturned that they are willing to give tyranical authority to the sitting Supremes. Can you believe it?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Two or three Republican base issues raised so far, two or three to go.
Gotta marvel at these clowns. They think everyone is as stupid as them.
Did you notice that Harry Reid and Dianne Fienstein both supported the ban?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Two or three Republican base issues raised so far, two or three to go.
Gotta marvel at these clowns. They think everyone is as stupid as them.
geez you sure seem to be slow on the uptake. when it comes to expanding governmental power, it is clearly a bipartisan effort.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Something of a similar nature, I caught the tail end of something on the news and I'm not sure if the movement has any real possibility of succeeding. Apparently there are some who want every Supreme Court ruling to be considered irreversible. They are so afraid that roe vs wade will be overturned that they are willing to give tyranical authority to the sitting Supremes. Can you believe it?
Well, they're panicking since the chances of it being overturned have become less and less academic.
In itself that's understandable, would be a significant leap backwards of American society and judicial system alike, but this (proposed) measure is as draconic as it is ridiculous.
-
couple of thoughts on the whole thread...
First, Congress is working within the framework of the Founding Fathers. Congress can amend the Constitution as part of the checks and balances against the Supreme Court. I applaud the fact that the system is sort of working, even if the only reason it was voted on is because the Republican party is doing every thing they can to "mobilize" and "energize" Republican voters for the fall elections.
Second, there is no such thing as universal free speech, meaning you can say ANYTHING you want without any legal consequences. We've all heard of slander, haven't we?
Next, please explain to me the connection between "FIRE!" in a theater or child porn and burning the flag. Also, lukster, can you please provide a reference where the ACLU wants to protect child porn under the First Amendment? As whacko as the ACLU can be, i doubt they'd try to protect that under the First Amendment.
Finally, someone wants to burn the flag, go ahead. All it does to me is show me you can't articulate your dissatisfaction with the government in a non-confrontational way.
-
Originally posted by storch
geez you sure seem to be slow on the uptake. when it comes to expanding governmental power, it is clearly a bipartisan effort.
Then how's about you point out the bipartisan expansion of governmental power when you find an example of it. There are plenty to choose from.
This aint one.
But y'all said the same thing when they wasted all that time trying to ammend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. That, like this, is Republican - not bi-partisan.
None of this is very difficult to understand, is it?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That, like this, is Republican - not bi-partisan.
None of this is very difficult to understand, is it?
Considering the No vote was 31 Dems, 2 Reps, and 1 Ind (I think), I'm inclinded to agree with Nash on the quoted snip.
As I said, nothing but the Republicans trying to mobilize their voters for the fall.
it's gonna backfire with this registered Republican though.
-
first of all they are yelling boo and should do so louder. secondly every time a new governmental agency is created or a new law is enacted it is defacto bipartisan expansion of governmental power. that shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend should it? lastly what ever happened to your avatar with the well endowed girl excercising?
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Considering the No vote was 31 Dems, 2 Reps, and 1 Ind (I think), I'm inclinded to agree with Nash on the quoted snip.
As I said, nothing but the Republicans trying to mobilize their voters for the fall.
it's gonna backfire with this registered Republican though.
with two republicans dissenting it becomes a bipartisan effort irrespective of the number. I agree with you regarding the upcoming elections, the major parties are out of control. the question is where to place the vote to do the most good or perhaps the least damage?
-
burning a flag can be equally construed as a statement showing support for the pro pollution platform as opposed to the freedom of speech platform, although some would argue that political speech is a form of pollution.
There are more useful ways to demonstrate political contempt for america. flag burning seems so moslemesque to me :rolleyes:
-
This whole argument is only symbolic. How many here or elsewhere in this country do you suppose want to burn a flag? What effect towards change do you suppose doing so will have? It's ridiculous to worry about your right to burn a flag while your real liberties, like the girl who couldn't speak her mind at the commencement ceremony, are stolen.
-
Originally posted by lukster
It's ridiculous to worry about your right to burn a flag while your real liberties, like the girl who couldn't speak her mind at the commencement ceremony, are stolen.
You keep bringing this one up in virtually every thread here, as far as I know the details of what she said (or tried to) are still unknown. Simple thanks or full-fledged preaching, distinction between these seems essential here.
Do you have any info on this? So we can actually draw some conclusions on the incident that are based on something besides speculation...
-
Originally posted by Thud
You keep bringing this one up in virtually every thread here, as far as I know the details of what she said (or tried to) are still unknown. Simple thanks or full-fledged preaching, distinction between these seems essential here.
Do you have any info on this? So we can actually draw some conclusions on the incident that are based on something besides speculation...
Only the recent threads about freedom of speech. I belive the ACLU is stealing this from under our noses. I want people to see what's happening.
Here are the facts. The girl was the school's valedictoian. She was asked to speak. She started speaking about God in her life and her mic was cut. What other facts do you need?
You have a comment every time I bring this up. Why do you even care about our first amendment?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Only the recent threads about freedom of speech. I belive the ACLU is stealing this from under our noses. I want people to see what's happening.
I know that you feel that way but it does not answer my question.
Here are the facts. The girl was the school's valedictoian. She was asked to speak. She started speaking about God in her life and her mic was cut. What other facts do you need?
I think you know very well that it is quite necessary to have at least some factual information on what she said before we can judge.
You have a comment every time I bring this up. Why do you even care about our first amendment?
Hardly, I just noticed your persistence in the matter, apparently without backing it with any background info. Don't you believe that it is important to know what she said in order to judge whether she was interrupted for a reason or not?
And on your last statement, I'm interested in foreign politics in general and follow it up to a certain extent. Besides, the US, including its domestic affairs, have quite a pronounced effect on the rest of the world, so I observe it all with a healthy curiosity.
-
Originally posted by Thud
I think you know very well that it is quite necessary to have at least some factual information on what she said before we can judge.
In fact I don't think it matters what she was saying so long as she wasn't yelling fire or attempting to incite a riot. I think it safe to assume she was doing neither. That's why we call it "freedom of speech".
Point taken on your interst in this.
-
Not looking this up, but IIRC the SC has ruled that free speech is infringable in schools where students are limited in what they can say or report (school papers).
-
Originally posted by lukster
You have a comment every time I bring this up. Why do you even care about our first amendment?
Argumentum Ad Hominem
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not looking this up, but IIRC the SC has ruled that free speech is infringable in schools where students are limited in what they can say or report (school papers).
I looked it up for ya. Some info here:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm
"In Tinker, perhaps the best known of the Court's student speech cases, the Court found that the First Amendment protected the right of high school students to wear black armbands in a public high school, as a form of protest against the Viet Nam War. The Court ruled that this symbolic speech--"closely akin to pure speech"--could only be prohibited by school administrators if they could show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission."
I think it safe to say that the school's educational mission was in no danger by allowing this speaker her first amendment rights.
-
Originally posted by lukster
In fact I don't think it matters what she was saying so long as she wasn't yelling fire or attempting to incite a riot. I think it safe to assume she was doing neither. That's why we call it "freedom of speech".
That would be in public right, but a school can decide to keep out grievous or controversial issues at a private gathering, am I correct?
I'll explain why I think the contents were relevant: there have been a number of cases in the US in which employees were fired and their dismissal was upheld in court because they were preaching to their co-workers.
There their right to practice their religion and to freely express themselves were deemed subordinate to the other employees not being confronted with the expression of religion by the fired employees in question.
There the decisive factor consisted of the 'degree of active expression of religion, i.e. preaching or not', ergo, it seems to matter what is said in such a case.
-
I agree that a proposed amendment to ban flag burning was a political ploy to polarize voters.
As I've been accused of repeating, there is a more real threat to our "freedom of speech". Some so despise religion that they are willing to look the other way as this liberty is trampled so long as it is only religious "fanatics" being deprived. You don't don't have to look very far back in history to see where this can lead.
-
Originally posted by Thud
That would be in public right, but a school can decide to keep out grievous or controversial issues at a private gathering, am I correct?
I'll explain why I think the contents were relevant: there have been a number of cases in the US in which employees were fired and their dismissal was upheld in court because they were preaching to their co-workers.
There their right to practice their religion and to freely express themselves were deemed subordinate to the other employees not being confronted with the expression of religion by the fired employees in question.
There the decisive factor consisted of the 'degree of active expression of religion, i.e. preaching or not', ergo, it seems to matter what is said in such a case.
Public schools are just that, public, not private. I agree that a private organization has the right to restrict certain behaviors.
-
Ah, but the concept of public is a misnomer. The public schools are actually not just open to the public, they are in fact government entities. Try entering one without a justifiable reason to be present on campus. That is where the rub is here. They cannot, by court law and constitutional interpretation, allow anything resembling prosletizing as a part of an official school function. To do so, particularly without allowing any and ALL other faiths to do so is in fact taking a stance on one religious belief over others.
One point missed here is that the valedictoruian had this explained when her draft speech was given back to her and she was directed to remove references to religion. She was not unaware of the issue, she chose to ignore direction given to her by the entity responsible for the school and the school's functions. Make no mistake about it, a graduation is not an open "public forum", it is a school sponsored, directed and official activity.
I may not like the fact that she had her microphone cut off, but she was not at her forum, but the school's forum. As she was entering in the "adult world" she just got a lesson that you can't get your way all the time especially on someone elses dime.
-
Public schools are very much public. That is the exact reason given by those who would remove any appearance of that school's support for a religion. The school is operated by the state. I might agree that an employee could be considered a representative of the state in this context but not a student. Of course I believe that a valedictorian of any religion should be able to exercise their freedom of speech, not just this christian.
My youngest graduated from highschool in 2001. We all found it sad, but amusing, that in the speech of his classes valedictorian he gave "thanks to the one whose name he was not allowed to say but that it rhymed with beezus".
-
Lukster I reiterate. Try entering a highschool, Junior high or elementary school campus when you have no justifiable reason to be there and watch what happens.
The school is operated by the state.
Yes it is and as such is fully constrained from anything related to religion particularly in a state sanctioned and provided function like a graduation.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Lukster I reiterate. Try entering a highschool, Junior high or elementary school campus when you have no justifiable reason to be there and watch what happens.
The school is operated by the state.
Yes it is and as such is fully constrained from anything related to religion particularly in a state sanctioned and provided function like a graduation.
Try not entering one when you have a reason to be there.
Some would have all of us as "members" of the "state" and therefore not entitled to freedom of speech when it comes to religion. Don't buy into it.
-
thud... you claim that we can't make an act illegal based soley on the fact that it might offend people to the point of violence (incite a riot) because the offended may be the ones that are wrong.
I would tend to agree but that is not the way things are.... You can't wave the stars and bars (confederate flag) at a naacp rally or burn a cross at a kkk rally.
Burning a flag is an act that could very easily cause a riot. I would say on a more personal level... in smaller groups it could be considered an insult by people and be the just cause for starting a fight.
lazs
-
I understand your practical point, mine was initially theoretical, on the other hand it is not uncommon for kkk protesters to have a rally under police protection while simultaneously opposing protesters do the same, also under police supervision.
As far as I know there are typically a lot of provocative signs and banners present at such events as well as lots of flammable chants and shouts.
These are also allowed (I assume as free speech?) but are apparently completely legal. Same goes for those idiots who desecrate GI funerals, totally wrong in a moral sense, but legal. Riot-inciting and bannable are quite different in practice I'm afraid.
Above may apply to things as flag burning as well.
On a personal note, I don't believe in a ban, though I think using it as a form of protest is a dumb, nondescript and empty means of expression that only negates any arguments that they may have.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... burning the flag is not speech. It is an act. It is an expression of an idea but it is not speech. It is an act that can be benign or... meant to incite.
It is no more protected under free speech than cross burning or cartoons of watermellon eating colored people. It is an act meant to incite riot or assault. In that respect it can be restricted. If the act causes people be offended to the point of violence then it is wrong..
Not to mention.... I know of very few cities where it is legal to burn anything without a permit.
Freedom of expression is allowed in the U.S. and should be but expression meant to incite violence should not be.
On the other hand... some speech is outlawed for some and not for others. That is a real violation of free speech.
lazs
I would like to offer you a helmet. This will be somewhat of a help while your beating your head against the wall.
I agree with you , but arguing anything anymore with the Left side and sometimes the right , will just lead to a massive headache.
I do wish you the best of luck though and Advil or Tylenol for the headache your bound to get.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... burning the flag is not speech.
lazs
yada yada blah blah blah...
That wasn't a speech either, or even words, but it made a point.
-
Burning a flag is an act that could very easily cause a riot. I would say on a more personal level... in smaller groups it could be considered an insult by people and be the just cause for starting a fight.
How many riots have we had over burning flags?
OTOH, should the government succeed in codifiing the display of the flag, how many handsomehunk deputies will be writing tickets for having a flag displayed incorrectly. How many 'stops' will be made for unapproved bumber stickers?
We need laws for flag etiquette a damn sight less than we need helmet laws.
-
IIRC way back when the flag burning thing started some of the flag burners got their butts kicked by fellow Americans, that happened to be present, for doing so.
The courts got involved. Flag burning became free speech. The people that repsonded to the flag burning with physical violence also lost in court.
IMHO under the circumstances, and taking into consideration what our flag means to some, a violent reaction is not only understandable BUT they are expressing their viewpoint, they are expressing themselves, in this case IMHO physical violence could be construed as protected under the 1st amendment as a right of freedom expression!
IMHO The burning of the flag is a form of violence. Mental perhaps, but IMHO it is a form of violence.
Thus IMHO certain forms of violence are ALREADY protected. So why not a violent response?
Isn't there somewhere within our laws, or legal system, that states a person only has to take so much?
-
are you serious?
-
Originally posted by wrag
IIRC way back when the flag burning thing started some of the flag burners got their butts kicked by fellow Americans, that happened to be present, for doing so.
The courts got involved. Flag burning became free speech. The people that repsonded to the flag burning with physical violence also lost in court.
IMHO under the circumstances, and taking into consideration what our flag means to some, a violent reaction is not only understandable BUT they are expressing their viewpoint, they are expressing themselves, in this case IMHO physical violence could be construed as protected under the 1st amendment as a right of freedom expression!
IMHO The burning of the flag is a form of violence. Mental perhaps, but IMHO it is a form of violence.
Thus IMHO certain forms of violence are ALREADY protected. So why not a violent response?
Isn't there somewhere within our laws, or legal system, that states a person only has to take so much?
Hi Wrag:) :aok on your post
-
I believe Free Speech is Freedom of Expression.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
Or.. from somebody on the other side of the spectrum:
"Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection. -- Colin Powell"
Living Document, or not?
Do the words of the constitution mean something different? Or do they mean exactly what they say?
Choose now Hang. You can't have it both ways.
-
Originally posted by Furious
are you serious?
Me?
Yes I am.
IMHO nothing is free. Yet the courts have given those who wish to insult perhaps even spit on those who died bearing that flag a FREE PASS. To freely trash what that flag stands for or at one time stood for. The claim is it's aimmed at our government. Sorry I don't buy that and never did. IMHO it's aimmed at we the people. IMHO if you want to burn that flag in the presence of certain we the people then you really should be prepared for the reaction, the consequnces. For I seriously doubt you will go unscathed.
Wasn't that long ago there was a line that one crossed with expectations of a reaction. Some times even a violent reaction. Usually if one received some lumps for crossing that line the matter was finished. Now its court. I wish to say that I also believe there were times in our past when physical violence was abused, unnessasary, unneeded.
Somewhere along the way physical violence has become a NO NO.
Never mind that all through nature every second something is KILLING something in order to stay alive.
I submit, that violence is a part of us all, a valid part.
Do I wish to promote that violence? Do I wish to see it? Do I wish to preform it?
Not particalurly (ugh gotta get a spell checker LOL). But I do very much want those that may be considering commiting violence upon me or my family to fully understand I will react in the same manner. I also wish it understood that I have values that I will defend. With violence if such is made necassary by those that would violate them. With what is appropriate considering the situation aka no more then what is required.
I am of the opinion that violence is, and always has been, a part of every civilization.
Where does this garbage of a civilized society shall NOT have, or be, violent come from. IMHO that kinda garbage only places us in a position of DISADVANTAGE with the rest of the world.
Why?
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
and.....
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
and............
"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist
and..............
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." —Robert Heinlein
so I will say this ............................. . violence is here. It has always been here.
It will not go away because we want it to.
It will no go away because we ask it to.
It will not obey if we order it to NOT BE, to NOT EXIST.
Should we FEAR it? HIDE from it? RUN from it?
WHY?
Am I free if I must do this?
Or does the violence somehow have greater freedom then I?
But it MIGHT seek another if it has FEAR. If it KNOWS we understand it, and EMBRACE it, and that we will SHARE it with others if necassary, it may reconsider seeking us out. In fact it may actually choose to become dormant in our presence.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Where does this garbage of a civilized society shall NOT have, or be, violent come from. IMHO that kinda garbage only places us in a position of DISADVANTAGE with the rest of the world.
I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so...
-
So then, basically... what you're saying is that each and every one of us should embrace our internal psycho?
...and what? We should just go around thumpin' folks because it's in our nature?
Christ... WTF kind of argument is that?
Just for starters....
The act of burning a flag is saying to the government: "We're not down with you." Earth, wind, cloth and fire.
That's all it is. Big deal.
So the spectacle of the government huddling together, wasting enormous amounts of man-hours to create legislation that would squash the criticism of itself is elementary school drama-queen stuff. Totally retarded.
How can a government possibly be more insecure than to have to piddle around with the criticism of itself in the form of flag burnings - which average out to one incident per year?
OOH NOOO! DON'T CRITICISE ME!...... or we'll make laws to outlaw it.
Boo frikken hoo.
One flag burning incident per year
One.
Education, health care, the fiasco that is the Iraq war, energy policy, an out of control defecit...... takes a back seat to FLAGS?
Get ahold of your sweet selves.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Living Document, or not?
Do the words of the constitution mean something different? Or do they mean exactly what they say?
Choose now Hang. You can't have it both ways.
Jezzus grapefruit, son; who's the college student here, enh?
-
Originally posted by Thud
I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so...
Hmmm......... apparently there is a lack of communication here........... If the section quoted is taken within the context of what I posted hmmm...............
OK how about you explain where, or how, you came up with the above interpretation using what I posted?
(Waiting for the classic grab one line and take it out of context approach, wonder if it will happen?)
-
Originally posted by Nash
So then, basically... what you're saying is that each and every one of us should embrace our internal psycho?"
No... apparently that is what you wish I was saying?
"...and what? We should just go around thumpin' folks because it's in our nature?"
IMHO this statement is quite a leap beyond what I posted.
"Christ... WTF kind of argument is that?"
IMHO this statement is quite a leap beyond what I posted. that is NOT my argument. Is this an attempt to try and make it my argument? You feel a need to curse now? What exactly does Christ have to do with it?
"Just for starters....
The act of burning a flag is saying to the government: "We're not down with you." Earth, wind, cloth and fire.
That's all it is. Big deal."
So now you are deciding for everyone what an action means, or should mean to them? You are saying people must disregard the history and meaning of the flag? Are you saying they must surrender their beliefs to your definition? I wonder.... do you know, are you aware? ..... what many believe to be the meaning of the red strips? .... how about the white strips? ...... the blue field? Is it possible that for many the flag does NOT represent our government? Is it possible that for many the flag represents the shed blood, the wounds suffered, those that died?
"So the spectacle of the government huddling together, wasting enormous amounts of man-hours to create legislation that would squash the criticism of itself is elementary school drama-queen stuff. Totally retarded."
Apparently you are unaware of who it is that wants this amendment. Because IMHO the government doesn't really care. The government is responding to pressure placed upon it by a poriton of "we the people". And you calling it an attempt by the government to squash criticism of the government does not make it so.
"How can a government possibly be more insecure than to have to piddle around with the criticism of itself in the form of flag burnings - which average out to one incident per year?"
I say again, it is not the government that seeks this, it is a portion of "we the people" that seeks this. And I say again, that many disagree with your definition that the flag represents the government.
OOH NOOO! DON'T CRITICISE ME!...... or we'll make laws to outlaw it.
FYI many do not consider that action of burning the flag as criticism of government.
Boo frikken hoo.
One flag burning incident per year
One.
Education, health care, the fiasco that is the Iraq war, energy policy, an out of control defecit...... takes a back seat to FLAGS?
Get ahold of your sweet selves.
I edited this to add this one line that I somehow overlooked..... historicaly many did not consider burning the flag as criticism of government, most believed that burning the flag of another countries to be insult to that country, or more correctly and insult to the people of that country.
IMHO a countries flag does not represent that countries government, except perhaps in the case of a dictatorship or such, but it's people.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Hmmm......... apparently there is a lack of communication here........... If the section quoted is taken within the context of what I posted hmmm...............
OK how about you explain where, or how, you came up with the above interpretation using what I posted?
(Waiting for the classic grab one line and take it out of context approach, wonder if it will happen?)
I interpreted your post as a complaint against the marginalizing / removal of violence from modern society, hence my response above.
If my synopsis is incorrect, please accept my apology and explain what you did mean by the post in question.
-
Originally posted by Thud
I interpreted your post as a complaint against the marginalizing / removal of violence from modern society, hence my response above.
If my synopsis is incorrect, please accept my apology and explain what you did mean by the post in question.
I interpreted your post as an oversimplification of my earlier post that also SEEMS to disregard/ignore much of the content of that post.
IMHO your synopsis is incorrect. Please see the line above and reread my original post.
And your above post does NOT explain how you arrived at your earlier posted conclusion, and I'm pretty sure I asked how you arrived there. It only says you arrived. I'm really curious HOW you arrived at the statement you made earlier regarding my post? Perhaps even what form of reasoning was used.
Just a little aside here .....I have often wonder if some actually read a post for it's content rather then for what they can use to attack others? It SEEMS most often that this is NOT the case.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Jezzus grapefruit, son; who's the college student here, enh?
You didn't choose.
-
LOL.. oh, yes I have. And so have you. We chose wisely. ;)
-
Oh, I know you've chosen. I just want you to say it out loud for everyone to see.
That way, any statement you ever make in the future should be in line with what you choose. Or we will mercessly insult you for it.
-
I can take it. ;) But, thanks for your concern. :aok
-
Originally posted by wrag
I interpreted your post as an oversimplification of my earlier post that also SEEMS to disregard/ignore much of the content of that post.
IMHO your synopsis is incorrect. Please see the line above and reread my original post.
OK, I'll give it another try, somewhat more elaborate this time and it may have been somewhat provocative to shove your entire post's contents into a oneliner but I'll correct that one here. Let's disect your inital post:
(P1): "Flag-burning does not address the government but the people. Thus the people can legally be insulted / attacked."
(P2): "While actions led to reaction (possibly violent) in the past now it results in legal action". With some sidenotes.
(Loose sentences + P3): "Violence has been de facto removed from society, while if violence is perpetrated it should and will be answered in the same manner, contradicting the banning / marginalizing mentioned above."
(P4): "This 'unnatural' removal of violence from society puts us at a disadvantage against the rest of the world." (Unsupported by any practical considerations but instead...)
(Quotes): Underlining the points made in P4.
(P5 / Conclusion): "Violence cannot be negated in the way it is currently shut-out from society since it will seek one out regardless. Therefore one should accept its presence and both have and demonstrate the will to use it while therefore it may refrain from seeking one out and thus be negated after all."
Sorry, but taking all the contents of your post into account I still don't see anything more to it than I previously expressed. I interpret it as a claim against a society where many acts are unjustly not answered with appropriate measures (read violence under certain conditions).
The concept of legal action as reaction / measure / sanction seems to be often insufficient in your view (P2). Translated into tangible actions this seems compatible with my conclusion that you advocated violence as a means of reacting to violence within society, outside of the judcial system.
If so this will result in a society that I described in my initial conclusion and this is how I arrived there.
On your last paragraph, I view this as no more than an elaborate way to promote being violent at one point to underline your willingless to be violent so third parties will no longer be violent because of your willingnes to be violent hence no violence materializes at all.
Reminds me of the statement so ubiquitous after WWI: "This war has been so horrid that mankind will forever refrain from it."
Just a little aside here .....I have often wonder if some actually read a post for it's content rather then for what they can use to attack others? It SEEMS most often that this is NOT the case.
Why this comment? The post before you added a post scriptum predicting that just one sentence would be highlighted. Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me.
BTW, I don't believe that I attacked you in any sense in my replies on your large post, just explained why I think that its angle has unwanted consequences, 'attack'?.
-
Originally posted by Thud
I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so...
America is not Africa nor an Arab country. IMHO you're comparing apples to oranges. Further history is refered to in the post. Here there was a time when it was acceptable to respond to violence with violence, even expected. It might even be said it is becoming so again in some areas of the U.S.
NOTE: Thud it is apparent to me that it is possible you do not understand the nature of my post and it is also possible, being in Europe, that you do not understand American History.
This part of your statement is what???? It is IMHO inaccurate regarding my post, ignores much of what was said in my post.
"I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario."
Where do I say such in my post? Please point out the location of such a statement.
-
Originally posted by Thud
OK, I'll give it another try, somewhat more elaborate this time and it may have been somewhat provocative to shove your entire post's contents into a oneliner but I'll correct that one here. Let's disect your inital post:
(P1): "Flag-burning does not address the government but the people. Thus the people can legally be insulted / attacked."
(P2): "While actions led to reaction (possibly violent) in the past now it results in legal action". With some sidenotes.
(Loose sentences + P3): "Violence has been de facto removed from society, while if violence is perpetrated it should and will be answered in the same manner, contradicting the banning / marginalizing mentioned above."
(P4): "This 'unnatural' removal of violence from society puts us at a disadvantage against the rest of the world." (Unsupported by any practical considerations but instead...)
(Quotes): Underlining the points made in P4.
(P5 / Conclusion): "Violence cannot be negated in the way it is currently shut-out from society since it will seek one out regardless. Therefore one should accept its presence and both have and demonstrate the will to use it while therefore it may refrain from seeking one out and thus be negated after all."
Sorry, but taking all the contents of your post into account I still don't see anything more to it than I previously expressed. I interpret it as a claim against a society where many acts are unjustly not answered with appropriate measures (read violence under certain conditions).
The concept of legal action as reaction / measure / sanction seems to be often insufficient in your view (P2). Translated into tangible actions this seems compatible with my conclusion that you advocated violence as a means of reacting to violence within society, outside of the judcial system.
If so this will result in a society that I described in my initial conclusion and this is how I arrived there.
On your last paragraph, I view this as no more than an elaborate way to promote being violent at one point to underline your willingless to be violent so third parties will no longer be violent because of your willingnes to be violent hence no violence materializes at all.
Reminds me of the statement so ubiquitous after WWI: "This war has been so horrid that mankind will forever refrain from it."
Why this comment? The post before you added a post scriptum predicting that just one sentence would be highlighted. Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me.
BTW, I don't believe that I attacked you in any sense in my replies on your large post, just explained why I think that its angle has unwanted consequences, 'attack'?.
Originally posted by Thud
I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so...
America is not Africa nor an Arab country. IMHO you're comparing apples to oranges. Further history is refered to in the post. Here there was a time when it was acceptable to respond to violence with violence, even expected. It might even be said it is becoming so again in some areas of the U.S.
NOTE: Thud it is apparent to me that it is possible you do not understand the nature of my post and it is also possible, being in Europe, that you do not understand American History.
This part of your statement is what???? It is IMHO inaccurate regarding my post, ignores much of what was said in my post.
"I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario."
Where do I say such in my post? Please point out the location of such a statement.
Now to your response listed above.
Your P1 ..... the flag in this nation it one time represented the PEOPLE and not the government. Further it has a history and a reason for every portion that goes into making it a flag. It is not dipped in salute to anyone, or to any country. Do you know why?
Your P2 .... hmm well you sort of understand it there. This is changing though. The castle doctrine which was during the time I was a child, not written into law, was understood by all as being in effect. During the late 60s and 70 much changed, and did so IMHO rapidly. Much of what was then understood by most all but not necassarily written was brought into question or thrown out because it wasn't written. Now the Castle Doctrine which was understood by the courts, lawyers, etc. Is being written into LAW in some area of this country.
Your P3 .... hmmm..... to me what I see here is a ?rewording? of what I said into a different form? Not sure it even comes close to what I said. I tend to think it matches what YOU THINK I said? For me it just doesn't quite fit.
Your P4 .... You SIR have inserted words I did NOT use, in several places in your post, and IMHO changed the meaning of what I said and FURTHER, and IMHO of greater interest, you have placed quotes around them as if these words were takin from my post. I must ask here is this a deliberate misquote. Do you normally take such liberties with the words of others?
The quotes say quit well what I consider to be truth.
Your P5 ..... Part of this is sort of ?accurate???? HMMMM..... I'm thinking here that a concept I am speaking about is perhaps cultural? To me the wording you have chosen suggest that you understand only part of what I was trying to express. Perhaps the failing lies with me?
and this.............
"Sorry, but taking all the contents of your post into account I still don't see anything more to it than I previously expressed. I interpret it as a claim against a society where many acts are unjustly not answered with appropriate measures (read violence under certain conditions).
The concept of legal action as reaction / measure / sanction seems to be often insufficient in your view (P2). Translated into tangible actions this seems compatible with my conclusion that you advocated violence as a means of reacting to violence within society, outside of the judcial system.
If so this will result in a society that I described in my initial conclusion and this is how I arrived there."
meaning this........
"I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario.
Ever wondered why many African and Arab countries did fail to develop a solid economic, governmental and social structure? Because there violence is still an accepted or at least commonplace means of communication. If you want the US to plunge back to that level, your idea above is a surefire way to do so..."
Has already been answered. I would like to add that I find the first part...
'I'm afraid that if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement the US will be much more at a disadvantage than in your scenario."
oversimplification and somewhat misdirecting and IMHO shows either a deliberate misunderstanding, or a ????????????
"if everyone starts beating up everyone else at every sign of disagreement"
........ perhaps you will explain this? Where or what in my post suggest this to you? It's almost an insult? Was such intended?
" Just a little aside here .....I have often wonder if some actually read a post for it's content rather then for what they can use to attack others? It SEEMS most often that this is NOT the case.
Why this comment? "
And this statement made by me... "(Waiting for the classic grab one line and take it out of context approach, wonder if it will happen?)".... equates to this.....
"The post before you added a post scriptum predicting that just one sentence would be highlighted. Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me."
......... in your mind? So then you did not see this part? ...... "wonder if it will happen?" Predicting??????
HMMMMMM..............
"Just a little aside here .....I have often wonder if some actually read a post for it's content rather then for what they can use to attack others? It SEEMS most often that this is NOT the case."
........ does this perhaps fit now? Are you attempting to say something here SIR?
"Consistently trying to discredit ones reponse before it has been given seems somewhat passive-aggressive to me."
are you assuming the statement was aimmed at you? Are you qualified to even suggest to anyone reading my postings what my mental state or condition is? passive-aggressive????