Burning American Flag....

[Pogo]

1. These supposed Authoritarians, what or who's Authority are they defending with this hypothetical beating of an Anti-American?

Excellent question. I myself posed the same question to those same authoritarian goons. I asked for a link to any SCOTUS ruling that said physical assault was a valid form of free speech.

I got crickets on that question.

Is there a Crickets clause in the Constitution? I can't find it.

2. Re:bigot. No, I don't get the idea. Being pissed off that some asshole is burning an American flag indicated nothing negative about someone.

But threatening to visit physical assault upon them did. That's the conclusion of that point that somehow you stopped short of.

3. But your description is not accurate.

Of course it is. It's MY point -- how could it not be accurate? If it typed out wrong --- I'd change it until it's right.

4. Funny you didn't post the whole sentence. "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

And you'll notice which one gets top billing, and which one is an afterthought. The direct object: "flag". The supporting cast doesn't even appear onstage until a following sentence.

And that's because it was written as a marketing ploy, literally. To sell flags to schools.
So if we pledge to any idea, ultimately we pledge to crass commercialism. Be proud.

You'll also notice that you're whining about not quoting the entire point ---- which is exactly what you just did above in point 2.

Oops.

1. So they are NOT authoritarians. So, your description of them is inaccurate. As I said, you seem to just be choosing words with negative connotations, not ones that actually fit.

So they are. See #4.

authoritarian

[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uh n, uh-thor-]

adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:
authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

2. of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people

3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:
an authoritarian parent.
noun

4.a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.
​

Know what's cool?

Learning how English works.
Try some today.

2. NOpe. Being pissed off to the point of violence still in no way indicates that they might not have been willing to tolerate any/most/all other differences of opinion.

"Other" differences of opinion are utterly irrelevant here. You seem desperate to change the subject. Why might that be?

3. YOu are describing other people, and you are just picking words based on being negative, not accurate.

They're both. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

4. Mentioning what a symbol symbolizes is hardly an "Afterthought".

It is when it gets second billing. The thing comes right out and says "I pledge allegiance to the flag". "And by the way, gimme a side order of the country for which it stands". It doesn't say, "I pledge allegiance to the United States and by the way, that flag thing too". And again, that's because it was written to sell flags.

Know what's cool?
Learning how English works.

 

[RKMBrown]

I never figured Brown as a gay guy..............Just making assumptions........................He's hard core for the current issue............

Not gay.. but I do have a gay brother in law. Hard core? I'm hard core on liberty, period. Authoritarians who want to push their religious views on others... piss me off hard core. And yes I'm christian. Salty... but christian nonetheless.

I have a problem with someone demanding that I agree with you on my opinions. I'm not the only one in this country who disagrees with it either. California, a VERY LIBERAL STATE, passed via election forcing the court battle over it............It would get even worse results in a nation wide voting on it............More disagree with you than agree with you in this country...............

Again, PC BS................I don't agree so you must tell me to ...........aka call me a bigot.

Where did I demand you agree with me?
You are a bigot, by the definition of the word. Embrace it cause that's what you are. You are bigoted against gays... plain and simple.

As for your California example.... that was a long time back. If that vote was held today it would be flip/flopped by a large margin.

But still.. here you are again pushing that the majority should have the right to harm minority groups... That makes you a bully.. An Authoritarian.. throwing rocks. In my eyes you are a coward.

Doubt the flip flop. And doubt that your argument would hold water if it were put to a national vote...............

The record stands that the majority of California voted against it...........It took the Courts to flip their opinions.........
If it came up to a vote, I'd vote against gay getting married.............as would most of America...............Again, it is my opinion and your calling me names CHANGES NOTHING FOR ME........................

Does it make you feel better now................So your brother is gay...........aka brother n law is gay............

You're wrong. The nation flip floped on this subject. Just like they flip flopped on racism. Once most people realize they are being hateful bigots they change course. Other people don't. Just like you are likely to remain a gay bashing bigot.. other people have remained racist even though the bulk of the population has stopped being racist bigots.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Pretty simple for me.

Two consenting adults say they love each and want to get married. You won't defend their right to get married if they are "gay.." right? If not then you are not defending the weak... you are defending the majority's power to harm those two consenting adults.

You don't have to be gay to defend their right to get married.

If you don't think consenting adults should have the right to get married... well all least your being consistent. But if you do believe heteros have said right but gays do not.. well then you are a bigot who will not defend the weak from harm no?

Since you're making this about marriage rights... The courts in their supreme wisdom were just as discriminating as the person you're accusing of discrimination.

Why shouldn't all mature willing companions be allowed to form marriage groupings however they feel?

It's their life and if they choose to have more than one partner or someone or something they choose to form a marriage bond with, so long as all involved are mature willing companions, that's their business and not the governments or yours.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business and only take note of who's formed a bond with whom for whatever purposes they feel they need that info for without issuing a license for such.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Burning [the] American Flag...."

...is a form of speech entitled to First Amendment protections.

And as such, should be tested to the limit and often.

 

[RKMBrown]

Pretty simple for me.

Two consenting adults say they love each and want to get married. You won't defend their right to get married if they are "gay.." right? If not then you are not defending the weak... you are defending the majority's power to harm those two consenting adults.

You don't have to be gay to defend their right to get married.

If you don't think consenting adults should have the right to get married... well all least your being consistent. But if you do believe heteros have said right but gays do not.. well then you are a bigot who will not defend the weak from harm no?

Since you're making this about marriage rights... The courts in their supreme wisdom were just as discriminating as the person you're accusing of discrimination.

Why shouldn't all mature willing companions be allowed to form marriage groupings however they feel?

It's their life and if they choose to have more than one partner or someone or something they choose to form a marriage bond with, so long as all involved are mature willing companions, that's their business and not the governments or yours.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business and only take note of who's formed a bond with whom for whatever purposes they feel they need that info for without issuing a license for such.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I agree that all consenting adults should be able to enter into the marriage grouping of their choice. Plural / gay ... whatever.

That said for obvious reasons children, siblings, parent/child etc., and animals are not consenting adults.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The radical left brought the issue to the Supreme Court and the court ruled that burning the Flag is covered by the 1st Amendment. Case freaking closed.

Its a damn shame the right doesn't care as much about our constitution and the absolutely sacrosanct as they do about a piece of fabric that probably came from China.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Nah.. if you don't support gay marriage but do support heterosexual marriage, then by definition of the word.. you are a bigot. That's just a plain fact. It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against jews, blacks, etc. It's outright bigotry against gay people. No?

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah.. if you don't support gay marriage but do support heterosexual marriage, then by definition of the word.. you are a bigot. That's just a plain fact. It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against jews, blacks, etc. It's outright bigotry against gay people. No?

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

Nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to join bigamists with homosexuals.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Pretty simple for me.

Two consenting adults say they love each and want to get married. You won't defend their right to get married if they are "gay.." right? If not then you are not defending the weak... you are defending the majority's power to harm those two consenting adults.

You don't have to be gay to defend their right to get married.

If you don't think consenting adults should have the right to get married... well all least your being consistent. But if you do believe heteros have said right but gays do not.. well then you are a bigot who will not defend the weak from harm no?

Since you're making this about marriage rights... The courts in their supreme wisdom were just as discriminating as the person you're accusing of discrimination.

Why shouldn't all mature willing companions be allowed to form marriage groupings however they feel?

It's their life and if they choose to have more than one partner or someone or something they choose to form a marriage bond with, so long as all involved are mature willing companions, that's their business and not the governments or yours.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business and only take note of who's formed a bond with whom for whatever purposes they feel they need that info for without issuing a license for such.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I agree that all consenting adults should be able to enter into the marriage grouping of their choice. Plural / gay ... whatever.

That said for obvious reasons children, siblings, parent/child etc., and animals are consenting adults.

NO.

Children and animals are NOT "consenting adults".

Sheesh.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

To me, while it just a piece of fabric, it is our nation's flag, and in my opinion, if you are wanting to make some kind of statement, there are a million other ways to make that statement. What difference will burning anything make?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The difference is, burning a flag in some countries will get you shot, hanged, imprisoned and/or disappeared because they do not have the freedoms afforded us by the First Amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

Pretty simple for me.

Two consenting adults say they love each and want to get married. You won't defend their right to get married if they are "gay.." right? If not then you are not defending the weak... you are defending the majority's power to harm those two consenting adults.

You don't have to be gay to defend their right to get married.

If you don't think consenting adults should have the right to get married... well all least your being consistent. But if you do believe heteros have said right but gays do not.. well then you are a bigot who will not defend the weak from harm no?

Since you're making this about marriage rights... The courts in their supreme wisdom were just as discriminating as the person you're accusing of discrimination.

Why shouldn't all mature willing companions be allowed to form marriage groupings however they feel?

It's their life and if they choose to have more than one partner or someone or something they choose to form a marriage bond with, so long as all involved are mature willing companions, that's their business and not the governments or yours.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business and only take note of who's formed a bond with whom for whatever purposes they feel they need that info for without issuing a license for such.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I agree that all consenting adults should be able to enter into the marriage grouping of their choice. Plural / gay ... whatever.

That said for obvious reasons children, siblings, parent/child etc., and animals are consenting adults.

NO.

Children and animals are NOT "consenting adults".

Sheesh.

I meant ... not consenting adults. blush...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Nah.. if you don't support gay marriage but do support heterosexual marriage, then by definition of the word.. you are a bigot. That's just a plain fact. It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against jews, blacks, etc. It's outright bigotry against gay people. No?

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

Nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to join bigamists with homosexuals.

They have to follow the Constitution for guidance just as Congress does. The 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act applied to all minorities not just the blacks. Therefore any ruling the courts desire to make regarding marriage should apply to all mature willing companions and not just the SSM crowd.

The court ruling was discrimination at it's finest when they ruled that only a special minority group, namely the SSM crowd, would be granted marriage rights...

It violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and proves that the courts, those that supported the their ruling, are nothing more than a bunch of bigots.

Until this is rectified I'm against allowing SSM.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah.. if you don't support gay marriage but do support heterosexual marriage, then by definition of the word.. you are a bigot. That's just a plain fact. It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against jews, blacks, etc. It's outright bigotry against gay people. No?

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

Nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to join bigamists with homosexuals.

They have to follow the Constitution for guidance just as Congress does. The 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act applied to all minorities not just the blacks. Therefore any ruling the courts desire to make regarding marriage should apply to all mature willing companions and not just the SSM crowd.

The court ruling was discrimination at it's finest when they ruled that only a special minority group, namely the SSM crowd, would be granted marriage rights...

It violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and proves that the courts, those that supported the their ruling, are nothing more than a bunch of bigots.

Until this is rectified I'm against allowing SSM.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Bad idea.. The bigamists just need to sue and fight for their rights like the gays did. I would have respected the gays more had they invited bigamists. But alas the lawyers working for the gays were not being paid by bigamists. And to be honest I don't think the bigamists see themselves as gay either.. so...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Pretty simple for me.

Two consenting adults say they love each and want to get married. You won't defend their right to get married if they are "gay.." right? If not then you are not defending the weak... you are defending the majority's power to harm those two consenting adults.

You don't have to be gay to defend their right to get married.

If you don't think consenting adults should have the right to get married... well all least your being consistent. But if you do believe heteros have said right but gays do not.. well then you are a bigot who will not defend the weak from harm no?

Since you're making this about marriage rights... The courts in their supreme wisdom were just as discriminating as the person you're accusing of discrimination.

Why shouldn't all mature willing companions be allowed to form marriage groupings however they feel?

It's their life and if they choose to have more than one partner or someone or something they choose to form a marriage bond with, so long as all involved are mature willing companions, that's their business and not the governments or yours.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business and only take note of who's formed a bond with whom for whatever purposes they feel they need that info for without issuing a license for such.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I agree that all consenting adults should be able to enter into the marriage grouping of their choice. Plural / gay ... whatever.

That said for obvious reasons children, siblings, parent/child etc., and animals are consenting adults.

NO.

Children and animals are NOT "consenting adults".

Sheesh.

I meant ... not consenting adults. blush...

I was very specific in specifying mature willing companions so no you can't marry a child.....

On the other hand I have no problem if your seeing-eye dog is mature and happy with you. It's none of my business what kind of relationship you and your mature willing companion wish to form.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Nah.. if you don't support gay marriage but do support heterosexual marriage, then by definition of the word.. you are a bigot. That's just a plain fact. It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against jews, blacks, etc. It's outright bigotry against gay people. No?

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

Nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to join bigamists with homosexuals.

They have to follow the Constitution for guidance just as Congress does. The 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act applied to all minorities not just the blacks. Therefore any ruling the courts desire to make regarding marriage should apply to all mature willing companions and not just the SSM crowd.

The court ruling was discrimination at it's finest when they ruled that only a special minority group, namely the SSM crowd, would be granted marriage rights...

It violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and proves that the courts, those that supported the their ruling, are nothing more than a bunch of bigots.

Until this is rectified I'm against allowing SSM.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Bad idea.. The bigamists just need to sue and fight for their rights like the gays did. I would have respected the gays more had they invited bigamists. But alas the lawyers working for the gays were not being paid by bigamists. And to be honest I don't think the bigamists see themselves as gay either.. so...

They shouldn't have too. The argument by the SSM crowd has always been that marriage is for all mature willing companions. Therefore the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act should apply to all mature willing companions no matter how they wish to form their marriage.

Anything less is discrimination and bigotry.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Old Rocks]

[

Unacceptable in all situations and circumstances. Do it in front of me and there will be consequences for you.

Really? Consequences, eh? Egad, you are more stupid than I thought.

I have participated in many flag burnings.

Destroying Worn-Out Flags

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It might be best if we went back to discussing flag burning and leave out comparing it to other issues.

Some people appear not to know how the our government, the 14th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act works.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Anathema]

Really? Consequences, eh? Egad, you are more stupid than I thought.

I have participated in many flag burnings.

Destroying Worn-Out Flags

That's nit what we're talking a out and you know it. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah.. if you don't support gay marriage but do support heterosexual marriage, then by definition of the word.. you are a bigot. That's just a plain fact. It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against jews, blacks, etc. It's outright bigotry against gay people. No?

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

Nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to join bigamists with homosexuals.

They have to follow the Constitution for guidance just as Congress does. The 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act applied to all minorities not just the blacks. Therefore any ruling the courts desire to make regarding marriage should apply to all mature willing companions and not just the SSM crowd.

The court ruling was discrimination at it's finest when they ruled that only a special minority group, namely the SSM crowd, would be granted marriage rights...

It violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and proves that the courts, those that supported the their ruling, are nothing more than a bunch of bigots.

Until this is rectified I'm against allowing SSM.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Bad idea.. The bigamists just need to sue and fight for their rights like the gays did. I would have respected the gays more had they invited bigamists. But alas the lawyers working for the gays were not being paid by bigamists. And to be honest I don't think the bigamists see themselves as gay either.. so...

They shouldn't have too. The argument by the SSM crowd has always been that marriage is for all mature willing companions. Therefore the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act should apply to all mature willing companions no matter how they wish to form their marriage.

Anything less is discrimination and bigotry.

*****SMILE*****

What you're mistaken about is thinking the SCOTUS job is to write legislation and invent reasons to add people of other groups to a lawsuit. The people that filed the grievance were gays... not bigamists. You can't force the gays to invite bigamists into their grievance ... nor can you force bigamists to join the homosexuals.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The only discrimination I see is the bigotry of the courts in refusing to ask for clarification from the legislative branch when the issue of which mature willing companions should be allowed to marry without violating the 14th Amendment.

When they allowed SSM without opening marriage to all mature willing companions so they could form marriage groups as they chose they violated the 14th Amendment and the way the judicial system and our government operates.

It was their responsibility to ask for clarification on an issue that affects a number of minority groups.

It's neither the governments or yours as to who or how many people I wish to form a marriage group with so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

*****SMILE*****

Nonsense. It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to join bigamists with homosexuals.

They have to follow the Constitution for guidance just as Congress does. The 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act applied to all minorities not just the blacks. Therefore any ruling the courts desire to make regarding marriage should apply to all mature willing companions and not just the SSM crowd.

The court ruling was discrimination at it's finest when they ruled that only a special minority group, namely the SSM crowd, would be granted marriage rights...

It violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and proves that the courts, those that supported the their ruling, are nothing more than a bunch of bigots.

Until this is rectified I'm against allowing SSM.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Bad idea.. The bigamists just need to sue and fight for their rights like the gays did. I would have respected the gays more had they invited bigamists. But alas the lawyers working for the gays were not being paid by bigamists. And to be honest I don't think the bigamists see themselves as gay either.. so...

They shouldn't have too. The argument by the SSM crowd has always been that marriage is for all mature willing companions. Therefore the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act should apply to all mature willing companions no matter how they wish to form their marriage.

Anything less is discrimination and bigotry.

*****SMILE*****

What you're mistaken about is thinking the SCOTUS job is to write legislation and invent reasons to add people of other groups to a lawsuit. The people that filed the grievance were gays... not bigamists. You can't force the gays to invite bigamists into their grievance ... nor can you force bigamists to join the homosexuals.

The argument used in court by the SSM crowd was that mature willing adults should be allowed to marry as they choose.....

Are you now saying that bigamists are not mature willing companions?

*****SMILE*****