It’s baaaaaack. The proposed brand new amendment that makes a mockery out of the First One:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101. The flag stands for a nation with freedoms, including the freedom to burn the flag in protest.
I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action. So I don’t think it’s terribly effective in terms of convincing others. But the Congress…you know, the ones who shall make no law interfering with freedom of expression?…apparently didn’t get the memo.
And hey…all those articles of clothing with the flag adorning it? Notebooks? Forget it. What about decals or bumper stickers, with the image of the American flag getting spattered by mud and dirt. Pull that SUV over, fella…you with that foul bumpersticker and your girlfriend with the stars and stripes bikini top! You’re under arrest courtesy of Congress!
You can’t burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.
You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one’s reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child’s delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from “fire” falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that’s crowded.) There’s no cover here. It’s naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that’s sworn to protect it.
Plus the GOP’s gotta love it because liberals must either embrace the notion–which is antithetical to anyone who has a grasp of free speech, to say nothing of making them indistinguishable from conservatives–or else they must spend countless man hours explaining why they value free expression above cheap political opportunism…and lose the vote of every schmuck who can’t wrap his tiny mind around defending to the death one’s right to express an opinion that that same person may find personally repellant. Puts them in a nice position for the next election.
And, of course, anyone opposed to a flag burning amendment is deemed “out of touch” with the citizenry. You know what? I’d rather be out of touch with the citizenry than out of touch with the concept of free expression.
PAD
UPDATE:
‘Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,’ said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. ‘Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.’
‘If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.’ said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center. –GH
• 
You know, Sen. Patty Murray got dragged over the coals for saying, in essence, that the reason people like Osama bin Laden are popular with the masses and have the effect they do is that they understand the problems that these people are dealing with and make attempts to alleviate those problems. You know, silly stuff like education, food, shelter, healthcare, infrastructure. The US, on the other hand, tends to sort of half-assedly throw money at a problem and then assume it’s taken care of.
Wes Clark made similar comments while running for president. He remarked that Saudi Arabia was the number one recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, and the reason for that was the incredible poverty and disparity of wealth. The vacuum will be filled, and it’s being filled by people who are preaching hatred of America. Sure, we can try and bomb the šhìŧ out of these people, but wouldn’t it make more sense to try and make them not hate us at the same time?
I’m sorry to say that, thanks to the pusilanimous nature of most of the Democrats in the past, the very same thing is happening here. The airwaves are filled with messages of hate and distrust as spread by people like Hannity, Limbaugh and anyone on Fox News (except for Wes Clark), and there is nothing else to combat those messages.
Listen to talk radio recently, Eric!? You can’t disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.
C’mon, Air America is just as guilty of the name calling and demonizing. Yes, the same can be said of many on the right. Yippee!
Let’s just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it’s a win, win.
C’mon, Air America is just as guilty of the name calling and demonizing. Yes, the same can be said of many on the right. Yippee!
First, somebody would actually have to listen to Air America for that to matter.
Let’s just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it’s a win, win.
Ah yes, that horrible ACLU. It’s really terrible for Christians, being a mere 83% of the US population, to express themselves. What with all the churches being torn down and the prayer groups being hauled off to gulags. I hope that one day, Christians will be able to put their religious icons in the public square every Christmas. Or, as Jon Stewart said last night, dare we dream that one day, we could have an openly Christian president? Or perhaps, 43? In succession.
Ah yes, that horrible ACLU.
Great, we agree, I knew you’d come around.
First, somebody would actually have to listen to Air America for that to matter.
Well, that and NPR.
I don’t see how they could get a conviction for flag burning. If the burner did a good job, all the evidence would be destroyed. Unless someone was taking photos close enough that the stars and stripes could be counted, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t a Maylasian or Liberian flag, or some 11-striped, 54-starred banner, which would have no legal protection. Hëll, if this thing were to pass (which is unlikely, even if it makes it through the Senate), I’m going to print up a bunch of burn-safe pseudo-US flags.
Great, we agree, I knew you’d come around.
You what will convince me? If somebody actually does get arrested for being a Christian. And no, I don’t mean a court ordering an end to mandatory school prayers. I mean something that actually prevents a Christian from practicing their faith on their own time, on their own property.
When it comes to the evidence issue, worry about the opposite – say someone burns an obviously fake or pseudo-flag all the way to ash, but a group of people, some with video cameras, witness it and then testify in court that absolutely, that out-of-focus, smokey image on the tv there is a real, honest-to-God American flag. There are rules in place already for evidence that is destroyed as part of the act in committing the crime. As for the folks talking about using fake or “close enough” flags, I’d ask those of you who’ve read the actual amendment as passed so far if it could be interpretted to mean that just making a flag that wasn’t up to code would count as defacing it. Since we’ve already established that the group pushing this through is confusing a symbol for what it actually stands for, could they also attempt to lift it above parody somehow?
Did someone actually make the argument that the people who are behind the Desecration Amendment are insecure about their country?
Utterly silly.
They see America as the best and brightest place on the planet. They think it is self-evident and deserving respect(I tend to agree). They believe those who are ungrateful, disrespectful, cynical, and blind to the wonders of our country should be snapped awake and told to look around.
They just chose a really poor way to do that. Poor, silly, ineffective, expensive and sad… really, really sad…
The burden of proof in the US is on the prosecution to prove a crime has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the flag burner provides a receipt proving they purchased a US Flag Substitute, I don’t care how many witnesses there were. The Defense Attorney will just produce a Flag Substitue and a Real Flag and ask the witnesses under penalty of perjury if they can say with certainty it was a Real Flag.
If you still have any doubts about whether closing Guantanamo is the right thing to do, Jimmy Carter recently cleared that up by demanding that it be closed. With any luck, he’ll try to effect another one of those daring “rescue” attempts. Here’s a foolproof method for keeping America safe: Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible. (Instead of Guantanamo, how about we close down the Carter Center?)
Sen. Ðìçk Durbin says it is reminiscent of the “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.” (He then offered the typical Democrat “if/then” non-apology: i.e., “if my remarks offended anyone,” based on the rather remote possibility any sentient, English-speaking adult who didn’t hate America could have heard them and not been offended.)
Amnesty International calls Guantanamo a “gulag.” Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning “as a human being.” And Sen. Patrick Leahy calls it “an international embarrassment,” as opposed to himself, a “national embarrassment.”
On the bright side, at least liberals have finally found a group of people in Cuba whom they think deserve to be rescued.
In the interests of helping my country, I have devised a compact set of torture guidelines for Guantanamo.
It’s not torture if:
— The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
— Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
— You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
— Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
— It’s comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
— It’s no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.
It turns out that the most unpleasant aspect of life at Guantanamo for the detainees came with the move out of the temporary “Camp X-Ray.” Apparently, wanton homosexual sex among the inmates is more difficult in their newer, more commodious quarters. (Suspiciously, detainees retailing outlandish tales of abuse to the ACLU often include the claim that they were subjected to prolonged rectal exams.) Plus, I hear the views of the Caribbean aren’t quite as good from their new suites.
Even the tales of “torture” being pawned off by the detainees on credulous American journalists are pretty lame.
The Washington Post reported that a detainee at Guantanamo says he was “threatened with sexual abuse.” (Bonus “Not Torture” rule: If it is similar to the way interns were treated in the Clinton White House.)
“Sign or you will be tortured!”
“What’s the torture?”
“We will merely threaten you with horrible things!”
“That’s it?”
“Shut up and do as we say, or we’ll issue empty, laughable threats guaranteed to amuse you. This is your last warning.”
One detainee in Afghanistan told a hyperventilating reporter for Salon that he was forced to stand with his arms in the air for “hours.” Doctor, I still have nightmares about the time I was forced to stand with my arms up in the air …
Others claimed they were forced into uncomfortable, unnatural positions, sort of like the Democrats’ position on abortion. Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!
According to Time magazine, this is how the “gulag of our time” treats the inmates: “The best-behaved detainees are held in Camp 4, a medium-security, communal-living environment with as many as 10 beds in a room; prisoners can play soccer or volleyball outside up to nine hours a day, eat meals together and read Agatha Christie mysteries in Arabic.”
So they’re not exactly raping the detainees with dogs at Guantanamo. (I still think the gift shop T-shirts that say “My dad went to Guantanamo and all I got was this lousy T-shirt” goes too far.)
The only question is: Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? If someone was constantly telling vicious lies about you, would you believe they supported and loved you?
“I love John Doe, and that’s why I accuse him of committing serial rape and mass murder. Oh, he doesn’t do that? Yes, but how dare you say I don’t love John Doe!”
And now back to our regular programming on Air America …
bbayliss – thanks for presenting that good Op-Ed piece by Reggie Rivers. Rivers makes several good points (and not just because, for the record, I’m a huge Denver Broncos fan 😉 ). Why do we “pledge allegience to the FLAG?” The wording would be better as “to the Constitution” or “to the ideals” (while leaving the flag there if you want something to physically salute).
For the record, I agree with PAD’s original posting (and most of those who have replied). The expression of hate for our country which burning the flag represents may be disturbing, or repugnant (or any of a dozen other possible reactions); but the right to express one’s thoughts, in a way which does not harm others or infringe upon their rights, is one of the most important of human rights, and American ideals (as I more or less wrote the last time a censorship topic was raised on the blog).
Right on! Let’s all burn the flag to show our patriotism! And then let’s all piss on Christ to prove we are religious! Excellent logic!
Gary: your friend would deserve a hand even if wasn’t a PAD fan..or if he was *shudder* a Byrne fan:-)
Glenn: Could you please just ban this X-ray clown?
I get that you and Peter are against the idea, but really…it’s one thing to be for people to express their opinions…it’s another to not do anything when someone walks in to your house and pìššëš on your couch.
Michael Norton: Texas Politicians are too busy sticking their noses in sexy cheerleaders? Is there a bar you go to do that?
(Yes, I know the actual case…saw the Daily Show report on it)
Robnn: “I can’t imagine legislating immaturity and stupidity…”
My G-d….I think you’ve just stated the key to saving the future!
Knuckles,
“Setting aside the mockery it makes of the First Amendment”
Unlike, say, “Hate speech” laws and McCain-Feingold, which puts restrictions on POLITICAL SPEECH, whic is, you know, the main reason the First Amendment is in place. Not to defend a crucifix being dipped in urine but to question and interact with the our government and air our political views. Why the hëll aren’t all the First Amendment Absolutists here as upset about that?
“as well as the absolute impossibility of such an amendment being passed”
It is far from absolutely impossible. Hëll, an asteroid crashing and ending all life on earth is within the realm of possibility. Cut down on the hyperbole.
“I’d wager that you are going to see a dramatic increase in flag burning”
Possible, but I sure hope not.
“Hëll, I might even pick up a couple at the dollar store myself just to get things going.”
Now you’re sounding like an áššhølë. If you didn’t have cause to do it before, why be a punk and do it just “to show them” and upset a lot of people for no reason in the process?
Bobb,
“Those IDIOTS!”
What a profound statement.
Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning “as a human being.”
Hey… as most of you might suspect, I’m as left-winged and liberal as they come, but I don’t think Teddy should be the poster-boy for “near drowning.”
Just my opinion.
I wonder – will the people who support this amendment also call for Bush’s arrest the next time he desacrates the flag?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/bushsignsflag.gif
Michael Pullman,
“I happen to know that the best way to get someone to stop doing something that offends you isn’t to make a giant stink and call Mommy and Daddy”
I agree. Unfortunately, many liberals don’t. As evidenced by increased so-called “hates speech legislation”, a work environment in some instances that is so acute to “offending” women that saying “Good morning, good looking” can get you called into the office and that many workplaces ban even a photo of a wife/girlfriend pictured in a bikini because it “creates a hostile work environment”.
So, this has been going on for some time now and is hardly one-sided.
Jerry,
“Brought to you by the same Neanderthal morons that brought you Freedom Fries”.
Oh goodness. Someone who doesn’t agree with conservatives is portraying them as knuckle-dragging cretins.
Yawn.
Is the whole Freedom Fries thing a bit silly? Perhaps. But many people were upset with France and still are. I am one of them. This is how they are voicing their displeasure. Because, as liberals know, symbolism is everything.
” let’s all piss on Christ to prove we are religious”
You pray at the device of his execution, don’t you?
“Is the whole Freedom Fries thing a bit silly? Perhaps. But many people were upset with France and still are. I am one of them.”
Yes, and renaming something that has nothing to do with the country is a good way to show that.
And G-d forbid a soveriegn nation not agree with the US.
or by your logic…you coninue to use Saudi Oil..so you’re happy with them flying planes into our buildings?
You now what? Conservatives, using their usual logic and arguments or even Bush logic, should be all for flag burning. Just think…..
1) How many times have we been told by conservatives that we should be able to do whatever we want to do with our own property and the government should just back off? Pick just about any topic and you can find conservatives using that line against any law or regulation that they don’t like. Well, if it’s my lighter, my yard and my flag then I should be able to exercise my desire to do what I want with them. That’s conservative logic. It’s not harming anyone else, it’s not burning someone else’s property and it costs no one else a thing. Government should back off and butt out.
2) It’s good for the economy. Some far left-wing wackadoo wants to burn the flag to tick off a few conservatives. He does and they do. Well, what can he do with the flag now? It’s gone. He has to GO OUT AND BUY A NEW ONE. He may even think that getting a bigger flag will get a better (in his eyes) response out of the conservatives. Result? He buys a bigger, more expensive flag the next time. He steps up from the $3.00 dime store flag to the $20.00 Wal-Mart flag. The rest of the wackadoo tribe see the foam and the hair pulling from their favorite agitation targets (while ignoring the indifference to their actions from everybody smart enough to see them as the mostly tiny minded twits that they are) and do the same. Result? More flags sold and burnt. Result? More agitation and more sales to create more agitation. Result? More money pumped into the economy, more corporate revenues, more taxes collected and more prosperity and financial security for all Americans. Why, dámņ it, it might even be your patriotic duty to go burn flags!
Now go out there, help out our economy and burn one for the Gipper!
Jerome,
About Freedom Fries:
“Oh goodness. Someone who doesn’t agree with conservatives is portraying them as knuckle-dragging cretins.
Yawn.”
Don’t care if you don’t like the French. Spend all the time you want posting signs in your yard and screaming from the highest hilltop about what dweebs you feel the French to be. You wanna stop buying French products and try to get others to do likewise? Fine by me.
What I think is stupid is that the guys up on The Hill are wasting time and money to do things like that when their job is to tend to the real problems of state. And they did it when there were men on the ground overseas getting shot at and more then a few domestic issues boiling over back here in the states. Gee, it was just so great of them then and now to devote time to such grave issues as french fries and a non-existent epidemic of flag burning when there are really so few real issues or problems to deal with in the foreign and domestic issues department. Don’t you think?
Jerome: First and foremost, I AM an áššhølë. My wife keeps telling me so. Secondly, you misunderstand McCain/Feingold (which I disagree with, by the way). It doesn’t put a limit on political speech, it puts a limit on how quasi-political speech is funded.
Jerome: Now, I’d post more, but I’ve got a few flags to burn, and some beers to drink while I do it. And fûçk everyone who doesn’t like what I do. Seriously. I won’t be burning flags while I’m out, but I will be drinking beers. Me, I don’t think flag burning is an effective way to get your point across, but then again, I don’t live in Jordan.
Jerry: Can I be the knuckle dragging cretin? Because Jerome is just a dip. Cretin is SO much cooler.
Knuckles,
Not for this argument, no. You’ve not, as far as I know, stooped so low as to be an idiot in an elected manner. If you wish to be known as a knuckle dragging cretin at some later date then feel free to ask. I’m sure we can work something out.
“or by your logic…you coninue to use Saudi Oil..so you’re happy with them flying planes into our buildings?”
What? They didn’t fly planes into our buildings. They are suspected of harboring the people who did it however. You wanna gewt pìššëd at the Saudis? Get pìššëd at their crimes against humanity, which are legion. They have things like the religious police. And i don’t get this “Ann Coulter” thing. Is that one of her columns, or someone calling themselves her, or (Please God, no) the Beast herself. Anyway, however it goes down, lets face it. She makes X-ray look middle of the road. I mean, I subjected myself to her last book. After five pages, I was literally standing up and ranting: to thin air, to my poor parents, to whoever was passing on the street. Let us not forget that this….this HARPY called JOSEPH MCCARTHY (AKA America’s answer to Laventry Beria) an “American Hero.”
You wanna gewt pìššëd at the Saudis? Get pìššëd at their crimes against humanity, which are legion
But they’re our allies, part of the “Dictators 4 Life” crowd that Bush has surrounded himself with.
We can’t possibly do the responsible thing and take the Saudi’s to issue over their human rights violations!
Consarn it, Jerry, what’s a guy to do? I try to be an ášš, no knuckle-dragging cretin. I try to talk šhìŧ about áššhëádš who think the First Amendment is nothing more than pillowtalk amongst neocons, no knuckle-dragging cretin. Hëll, I’m this close to saying Howard Dean was my man in the ’04 Primary just so I can stir šhìŧ up amongst these yahoos so I can achieve knuckle-dragging cretin status (for the record, I was PCO for my precinct, and a fervent Wes Clark supporter).
Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the reports of US soldiers being spat at upon returning from Vietnam may be more urban legend than fact.
The posting in the FreeRepublic site would seem to disagree with it being a myth. I know some Vietnam Vets who are now so far to the left that they thought Kerry was WAY too conservative and THEY remember being cursed and spat upon. After seeing how some ROTC people were treated on campus in the 1980s I can only imagine what it must have been like in the 1960s. The arguments used to discredit the vets who report this–like the idea that no hippy would dare do such a thing to a soldier for fear of getting beaten up–are pathetic. I knew a gay gentleman who was about 6’5″ who told me he once got the crap beaten out of him by a bunch of drunk homophobes. Why doubt him? Drunks, gangs and drunken gangs don’t have much to fear, however mighty the target.
On the flag burning amandment, it’s interesting how many major conservatives are aginst it. Adler calls it “an abomination”, Lopez brings up a National Review editorial that castigates politicians who go for frivilous amandments such as this one, Ponnuru leans against it…I guess there must be a lot of folks who want this thing but I’m certainly not one of them.
I did once see a protestor soak a flag in gasoline and light it up–he almost caught his stupid self on fire as well, which would have given everyone in the crowd something to cheer.
I’ve seen arguments both for and against the spitting stories, so as far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out on whether they actually happened (kind of like the way our idiot-in-chief believes the jury is still out on evolution, global warming, gravity, etc).
As for the amendment, this is all just pandering. Probably 99% of all American flag burnings occur outside the US, making the amendment meaningless to them. It’s not surprising that many people confuse the symbol with the ideals it represents, because, as I said people, show any signs of doubt about the neocon agenda, you’ll be fending off hysterical accusations about how you hate America, freedom, apple pie, mom, etc.
Bottom Line: An ammendment against flag burning is unconstitutional and will never happen.
Republican politicians know that by merely mentioning it, all sorts of people will get riled up. The pro’s will be loud and obnoxious while ignoring the con’s quieter, probably more dignified, decents. The pros will then rush to the poles and vote for those wonderful politicians who are saving our great nation from all those godless hippy liberals.
Excuse me while I go get a towel to mop up all this dripping sarcasm.
“The pros will then rush to the poles and vote for those wonderful politicians who are saving our great nation from all those godless hippy liberals.”
One of the many great things about democracy, is that there tends to be a very loud minority. They get everybody all riled up about something, and then, when push comes to vote, they find that a quiet majority wins. That is what happens all the time. Should we speak out against it? Of course. Should we start worrying about making fake flags to burn? No. It has never passed, and it will never pass, because most people, liberal AND conservative, realize that it is a bad thing. People are smart, they realize what is going on. America is not a desperate nation, like Germany in the ’20’s. it is not a repressed nation, like Russia in the 1910’s. We are a happy nation. Sure we have issues. Who doesn’t? We, however, have the means to deal with our issues in a civilized manner. If this amendment did pass, I would be the first to burn a fake, or a real one (what the hëll, jail was good enough for Thearou, and MLK, it’s good enough for me.) Have some faith in the free will and good sense of the American public.
Bottom Line: An ammendment against flag burning is unconstitutional and will never happen.
Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional.
That’s what makes the possibility that it may pass so dangerous.
They get everybody all riled up about something, and then, when push comes to vote, they find that a quiet majority wins.
I wouldn’t call Republicans in this last election a “quiet majority”.
I remember reading a story of an American POW in Vietnam who said his captors showed him a photograph of a man protesting the war by burning an American flag. The Vietnamese officer said, “See, people in your country protest your cause. This proves you are wrong.” He replied, “No. That proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.”
Those in favor of a flag amendment just do not understand that the flag stands for liberty – not fear of liberty.
“Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional.”
Uh actually, it is a matter of freedom of speech. Burning a flag, not just for fun, is protected under this. The people pushing this are just trying to get attention. And you can tell it’s working just by the number of posts here. It’s the same thing they do with abortion. When the political right need attention they bring up some issue that will never pass but is something they know will stir up the loud christian groups. The loud minority can influence a lot of people, distract from other more important/pressing issues, and gum up the media.
The contortions of misapplied and twisted logic you people go through to try and make flag burning into wonderful, patriotic thing are sickening.
Admit it!
The REAL reason you want to preserve legal flag burning is that you hate America.
Flags? We don’ need no steenkin’ flags!!! Except, maybe, for this guy:
“When the Germans occupied Athens in WWII, the Evzone who guarded the Greek flag which flew from the Acropolis, was ordered by the Nazis to remove it. He calmly took it down, wrapped himself in it and jumped to his death.”
http://www.athensguide.com/athacrop.html
So what?
Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for X-Ray:
If it’s not OK to burn the flag, is it still OK to burn books or CDs or records? How’s about Bibles? Just curious…
On a previous thought way back near the start of this thread: There was a big commotion up here in Canada when it was found out that the Canadian flag pins and small flags being passed out by the ruling Liberal majority in the Commons were actually made in China. When push came to shove it was pointed out that the government SAVED a ton of money by having them made there instead of domestically or in the US. Now that’s irony for you.
As to investing in overseas flag companies: Not really necessary, because with the current and increasing spate of Chinese companies offering to buy US and Canadian companies with all the money WE have given THEM (ie our OWN money returned to haunt us!), it’s just a matter of time until the largest Chinese maker of flags and regalia buys the largest North American maker anyway. The irony here of course is that not only are we being eaten up by our own dollars, but it’s being done by a communist regime. Now that oughta get a few Republicans up in arms!
Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for X-Ray: “If it’s not OK to burn the flag, is it still OK to burn books or CDs or records? How’s about Bibles? Just curious…”
——–
Thank you for proceeding your question with a declaration of your sincere hatred for me!
Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to.
However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them.
Hope this answers your question, and again, I thank you for your hatred.
Now that oughta get a few Republicans up in arms!
It won’t.
One of the few things I hated about Clinton’s years in office was that he gave China Favored Nation Status as a trade partner. Yeah, the ball started rolling before Clinton, but he pushed them into a better position into which they could start pushing *us* around.
It opened up the door to alot of the crap we’re dealing with now, and going to have to deal with down the road.
And no, I’m not sure the Republicans care. Or the Democrats.
Big business and the Republicans go hand in hand, but companies like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are falling over themselves to help the Chinese with censorship on the internet.
It’s appalling.
I’ve been more-or-less following this whole X-Ray thing since the last controversy involving him, and I’m hoping after I make these four comments (some which may have been brought up previously) I’ll leave the whole thing alone:
1. What happened to the shroud? Didn’t we get it back from Dee?
2. X-Ray is simply trying to attract attention to himself, and it’s quite possible – regardless whether or not he is informed of whatever subject he addresses/responds to – he adds his input for that reason. This is merely his latest attempt. Readers should simply refer to comment #1.
3. I would, however, consider the verb “policing”. Maybe I’m taking this too seriously, and I certainly don’t want to impose on PAD, but I wouldn’t like it if my life were subjected to such a thing, and he should be chided for making such a claim. Yeah, this guy (X-Ray) is under the illusion he’s some kind of self-appointed overseer of the world, but this could definitely reach a limit to one’s tolerance.
4. Go out and see the world, X-Ray. There’s plenty in life to enjoy, so relax. Life’s too short to spend “policing” everyone. You give us the image of one huddled at a computer every waking moment of one’s life. Or perhaps you give us that image to attract more attention to you.
That’s it on this subject for me, unless someone has an intelligent point worth responding to.
“Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for….”
Y’know what, Joe? I hate smoking rooms in hotels. So I make sure never to stay in one. Why bother asking a question that, like a smoking room, is going to leave a stench?
“I would, however, consider the verb “policing”. Maybe I’m taking this too seriously, and I certainly don’t want to impose on PAD, but I wouldn’t like it if my life were subjected to such a thing, and he should be chided for making such a claim.”
My life is subjected to no such thing, Peter. Just because the Village Idiot says he’s doing something doesn’t make it so. In fact, if he says something that’s pretty much a guarantee that it’s NOT so. You ARE taking him too seriously. I responded ages ago to the only two things he’s said worth responding to, and he’s said nothing meaningful since. “Policing?” Please. A chicken can claim it’s an eagle, but in the end it’s just a dumb cluck going off half-cocked.
PAD
I like spike. You like spike. Everybody likes spike for president.
I’m still counting. The haughty Peter David just responded to me for the 13th time after declaring he was “donne” with me.
He can’t help himself.
He likes to call me names!
But nothing Peter David says can damage or defame me, because no one takes what he says about anything seriously.
I’m against the flag burning amendment. It’s a feel good excuse for people to parade around saying how patriotic they are. And, just as display of the flag is speech, in that it makes a statement about one’s belief in one’s country, so is it speech when someone burns the flag. Now, when I see people in foreign countries burn the US flag, I get really steamed, but it still is speech. Speech, in the US, is protected by the Constitution, and very few exceptions to protected speech should be made.
**Let’s just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it’s a win, win.**
Well, there’s a bit of silliness. The ACLU has not stopped private citizens from saying God, except as part of government-led exercises. In fact, the ACLU has been a notable force for protecting the rights of Christians to spread the word and worship. If you get your information with the ACLU from folks who want religion to the a government service, you may have missed where the ACLU defends a church from the government: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142
You may have missed where they protected the right of Christian students to include biblical material in their yearbook quotes: http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159
And the folks who try to demonize the ACLU in the midst of ranting about students who were suspended for handing out candy canes with religious messages on them probably don’t want you to know the truth: that the ACLU, far from wanting to see the students suspended, actually worked for their defense.
They’ve defended evangelists’ rights to work on the sidewalks of The Strip in Las Vegas, fought zoning laws that stood in the way of new Christian churches, stood up for students handing out religious literature at school, and protected the right of a Christian church to run their ads on the Boston subways.
If you want to support religious freedom, then you should be supporting the ACLU.