Burning American Flag....

[RKMBrown]

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.

View attachment 50134

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*****

No i said the opposite. Accusing me of saying the opposite of what I said makes you look like a moron.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well, if there is a first amendment right for a private citizen to burn the flag, then reason requires that there is a first amendment right for a private citizen to kick the hell out of those burning the American Flag.

No, reason doesn't.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

View attachment 50134

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*****

No i said the opposite. Accusing me of saying the opposite of what I said makes you look like a moron.

Isn't that the argument that they used to justify the ruling that they are mature willing adults in this thread and during the court ruling?

Yes I do believe it was.

So instead of calling me a moron just answer the question instead of displaying your discrimination for all to see.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Bob Blaylock]

unacceptable or acceptable as "freedom of speech"?

Seems a perfect application of a saying popularly (but probably incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire—“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Assuming, of course, that the flag that one chooses to burn is one's own property,and not someone else's; and that the burning is done in a safe and controlled manner that doesn't pose a danger to other individuals or property; I cannot stand against a person's right to burn his own flag. I don't even need the First Amendment and any concept of free speech to take this position; just a recognition of one's right to do what he will with his own property.

I disagree, of course, with the message that one would typically be intended to send by burning a flag in a disrespectful manner,but now that gets into the First Amendment.

It seems to me, also, that there's an inappropriate sort of nationalistic idolatry in caring too much about the flag itself. The words of the Pledge of Allegiance notwithstanding, my allegiance is not to an inanimate piece of fabric, but it this nation, its people, and the principles upon which it was founded. The flag is a symbol of these things, but it is not these things themselves.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

View attachment 50134

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*****

No i said the opposite. Accusing me of saying the opposite of what I said makes you look like a moron.

Isn't that the argument that they used to justify the ruling that they are mature willing adults in this thread and during the court ruling?

Yes I do believe it was.

So instead of calling me a moron just answer the question instead of displaying your discrimination for all to see.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I answered the question twice. I have no idea why you feel you need to keep asking me the same question. Short term memory loss?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Attempting to gain some sort of point by siting idolatry might apply to Christians due to the Ten Commandments...

Doesn't mean it applies to everyone who posts here because not everyone considers themselves Christian.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Syriusly]

unacceptable or acceptable as "freedom of speech"?

Anyone even doing that anymore?

Allowable as freedom of speech but that doesn't mean it can't be criticized.

I think it depends on the circumstances- doing it to protest the actions of the United States government is legitimate- doing it to attack American veterans is not.

But its as allowable as bible or koran burnings.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

View attachment 50134

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*****

No i said the opposite. Accusing me of saying the opposite of what I said makes you look like a moron.

Isn't that the argument that they used to justify the ruling that they are mature willing adults in this thread and during the court ruling?

Yes I do believe it was.

So instead of calling me a moron just answer the question instead of displaying your discrimination for all to see.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I answered the question twice. I have no idea why you feel you need to keep asking me the same question. Short term memory loss?

Then you agree that the bigamists and any other mature willing companions should be able to pick up their marriage licenses without bother because if they can't then the 14th Amendment is being violated.

Otherwise any minority group that isn't black has received minority benefits when they shouldn't have since the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act was only enacted for the blacks and their court cases.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Asclepias]

unacceptable or acceptable as "freedom of speech"?

Acceptable.

 

[Correll]

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.

1. They aren't hypothetically committing violence in the name of some Authority, but in the name of respect for America. So, that is not accurate.

2. Because the word you used "bigot" means they would be intolerant of "ideas". Being intolerant of a single Act of Disrespect does not mean that they are intolerant in any other fashion.

3. No, they are not accurate.

4. It was not second billing. That is your spin, and you have offered no support that it is seen that way by the hundreds of millions who have said it and meant it.

 

[Buzz Jenkins]

Bonzi, you must be one lonely fucker. Is your old husband impotent?

You have pretty much have to allow flag burning as protected speech under the first amendment. However, it is in extremely poor taste to do this. It is like a sort of symbolic cannibalism. It is probably possible to construe our rights so widely that they will override our freedom. It is like inviting a bunch of fucking Nazis to Temple. As some point the exercise of these liberties could become so toxic that it undermines and jeapordizes the underlying fundamental freedoms.

 

[Pogo]

1. They aren't hypothetically committing violence in the name of some Authority, but in the name of respect for America. So, that is not accurate.

You're reading it inside-out.
What makes them authoritarians is not "what they act in the name of". That's irrelevant. What makes them authoritarian is the value system that tells them free speech may legitimately be manifest through assault. Involuntary administration of an opinion by means of physical force -- the operative term there is "force" -- the polar opposite of Liberalism, regardless what the issue is or who it's "in the name of".

2. Because the word you used "bigot" means they would be intolerant of "ideas". Being intolerant of a single Act of Disrespect does not mean that they are intolerant in any other fashion.

You're still mired in this bizarre concept that a bigot must by definition be bigoted against everything. That's not even possible. It makes no sense.

One could for example be for whatever reason bigoted against Catholics but have no problem with blacks.

3. No, they are not accurate.

Dood. It's MY POINT. You don't get to tell me what my opinion is. If it weren't accurate I wouldn't be posting it.

4. It was not second billing. That is your spin, and you have offered no support that it is seen that way by the hundreds of millions who have said it and meant it.

Read the text and tell me in what order it shows up. Which gets mentioned first and directly, and which is an afterthought inserted after the conjunction "and". Wellsir, that tells you what the priorities are. And that makes it fetishism.

And again -- this can't be ignored -- the reason it's written that way is that it was written to SELL FLAGS. It's advertising copy -- literally. That's part of what makes it distasteful, once you peel back the surface layer of pure fetishism. I don't know about you but I don't cotton to being used to make somebody else money.

And it's also significant that the only other country in the entire world that even has such a pledge is the Philippines -- which was our colony. Nobody else engages in it. It's a commodity fetish, born of crass commercialsm, and its waste product is the jingoist herd mentality that leads to the assault fantasies posted voluntarily earlier here, and acted out in the real world. And that --- thought control at the end of a fist -- is the antithesis of what this country and its First Amendment stand for.

-- Which makes this picture of the original flag salute eloquent:

 

[Correll]

1. They aren't hypothetically committing violence in the name of some Authority, but in the name of respect for America. So, that is not accurate.

You're reading it inside-out.
What makes them authoritarians is not "what they act in the name of". That's irrelevant. What makes them authoritarian is the value system that tells them free speech may legitimately be manifest through assault. Involuntary administration of an opinion by means of physical force -- the operative term there is "force" -- the polar opposite of Liberalism, regardless what the issue is or who it's "in the name of".

2. Because the word you used "bigot" means they would be intolerant of "ideas". Being intolerant of a single Act of Disrespect does not mean that they are intolerant in any other fashion.

You're still mired in this bizarre concept that a bigot must by definition be bigoted against everything. That's not even possible. It makes no sense.

One could for example be for whatever reason bigoted against Catholics but have no problem with blacks.

3. No, they are not accurate.

Dood. It's MY POINT. You don't get to tell me what my opinion is. If it weren't accurate I wouldn't be posting it.

4. It was not second billing. That is your spin, and you have offered no support that it is seen that way by the hundreds of millions who have said it and meant it.

Read the text and tell me in what order it shows up. Which gets mentioned first and directly, and which is an afterthought inserted after the conjunction "and". Wellsir, that tells you what the priorities are. And that makes it fetishism.

And again -- this can't be ignored -- the reason it's written that way is that it was written to SELL FLAGS. It's advertising copy -- literally. That's part of what makes it distasteful, once you peel back the surface layer of pure fetishism. I don't know about you but I don't cotton to being used to make somebody else money.

And it's also significant that the only other country in the entire world that even has such a pledge is the Philippines -- which was our colony. Nobody else engages in it. It's a commodity fetish, born of crass commercialsm, and its waste product is the jingoist herd mentality that leads to the assault fantasies posted voluntarily earlier here, and acted out in the real world. And that --- thought control at the end of a fist -- is the antithesis of what this country and its First Amendment stand for.

-- Which makes this picture of the original flag salute eloquent:

1. By definition Authoritarians support Authority. The Patriots in question are not. THey are simply defending a symbol of America.

2. Except it's not "Catholics" that these supposed "bigots" have a problem with, it's anyone doing this one act. Note how there has been no need for either of us to discuss what the supposed "opinion" was that hypothetical flag burner was motivate by.
Because it doesn't matter.

3. No, you are describing people. That your description is inaccurate is my point.

4. I don't care if we are the only ones who have a Pledge of Allegiance. If you cannot distinguish between Patriotism and Jingoism that is your issue, not mine.

5, Yes. Before the Nazis, that type of salute was not seen as bad. Historical pictures taken of non-nazis using that salute before Nazis look bad to us now. You do know that as that picture was taken well before wwii, that those children are not Nazis, right? Soooo, you are just posting that for an emotional impact as a substitute for rational argument?

 

[jasonnfree]

I voted unacceptable. If the USA's that bad that you have to burn the flag, then maybe it's time to look for another country to live in. I think many republicans would be happy living elsewhere, since they see nothing wrong with their republican politicians signing pledges to multibillionaire to not raise taxes. Republicans met with private citizens to plot how to obstruct Obama in anything he did back in 2009, and seem like this was cool with the republican voters who really hate this country whenever a republican is not installed in the white house.

 

[IsaacNewton]

unacceptable or acceptable as "freedom of speech"?

Offensive but acceptable. I think by rule if the flag touches the ground you are supposed to burn it anyway. So anyone that wants to burn the flag can just drop it on the ground first and no one can say a damn thing either way.

What is much more offensive than burning the flag is the empty shells of human beings who pretend to be ultra-patriots and hide behind the flag so they can fleece the American people. That's offensive. And if they do it while claiming to represent Jeezus its hideously worse.

 

[Correll]

unacceptable or acceptable as "freedom of speech"?

Offensive but acceptable. I think by rule if the flag touches the ground you are supposed to burn it anyway. So anyone that wants to burn the flag can just drop it on the ground first and no one can say a damn thing either way.

What is much more offensive than burning the flag is the empty shells of human beings who pretend to be ultra-patriots and hide behind the flag so they can fleece the American people. That's offensive. And if they do it while claiming to represent Jeezus its hideously worse.

Do you really find the burning of the Flag offensive, or do you not care?

Do you consider yourself a Patriot?

NOt an "ultra-patriot" what ever that means, just a Patriot.

 

[Pogo]

1. By definition Authoritarians support Authority. The Patriots in question are not. THey are simply defending a symbol of America.

The authoritarians in question absolutely are. They're operating on the intoxication of their own authority. What makes them authoritarian is their belief that they can enforce their opinions at the end of a fist. That makes it involuntary. If the only reason a flag-burner refrains from burning a flag is that he'll get stomped by an authoritarian thug, then said thug has only made his point under physical threat -- he has failed to win hearts and minds. And that means he got his way via authoritarianism. His own. Exactly the same as the bigger kid who beats you up for your lunch money. He's an authoritarian too.

"Patriot" doesn't even apply here. That goes to the underlying motivations, and it's not only subjective, it's irrelevant to the method of enforcement, which is, again, authoritarianism. And that's bullshit.

Ultimately that motivation, whether you call it patriotism or something else, is an Appeal to Emotion fallacy as noted earlier. That's all it is and that's all it can be, as an abstract symbol. You can't play the role of that authoritarian thug as posted in this thread, without first being self-enslaved to that emotion. And that's bullshit too.

2. Except it's not "Catholics" that these supposed "bigots" have a problem with, it's anyone doing this one act. Note how there has been no need for either of us to discuss what the supposed "opinion" was that hypothetical flag burner was motivate by.
Because it doesn't matter.

"Catholics" was an example picked out of thin air. Your bizarre stance is that in order to be a bigot, one must be bigoted against everything. Which is inherently absurd.

3. No, you are describing people. That your description is inaccurate is my point.

And again it's MY point, so you don't have a say in it.
Opinions by definition cannot be "right" or "wrong". I say it's accurate. You write your own opinion.

4. I don't care if we are the only ones who have a Pledge of Allegiance. If you cannot distinguish between Patriotism and Jingoism that is your issue, not mine.

Actually I just did. I spelled it out in gory detail. And the distinction is more at between patriotism and fetishism -- which is what flag worship is. Idolatry.

5, Yes. Before the Nazis, that type of salute was not seen as bad. Historical pictures taken of non-nazis using that salute before Nazis look bad to us now. You do know that as that picture was taken well before wwii, that those children are not Nazis, right? Soooo, you are just posting that for an emotional impact as a substitute for rational argument?

The rational arguments were already made. I'm simply saying the parallel is eloquent. Those are American schoolchildren, submitting to the same kind of authoritarian bullshit that the Nazis used. The idea is to see what they have in common. Again, the commonality is an authoritarian-enforced fetishism.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

1. By definition Authoritarians support Authority. The Patriots in question are not. THey are simply defending a symbol of America.

They are supporting authority, which is blatantly obvious to anyone with more than a second grade education. Just because it's authority you happen to approve of doesn't change that fact.

I don't care if we are the only ones who have a Pledge of Allegiance. If you cannot distinguish between Patriotism and Jingoism that is your issue, not mine.

It's generally totalitarian regimes that hold flags in such high regard and punish people for desecrating them.

 

[Correll]

1. By definition Authoritarians support Authority. The Patriots in question are not. THey are simply defending a symbol of America.

The authoritarians in question absolutely are. They're operating on the intoxication of their own authority. What makes them authoritarian is their belief that they can enforce their opinions at the end of a fist. That makes it involuntary. If the only reason a flag-burner refrains from burning a flag is that he'll get stomped by an authoritarian thug, then said thug has only made his point under physical threat -- he has failed to win hearts and minds. And that means he got his way via authoritarianism. His own. Exactly the same as the bigger kid who beats you up for your lunch money. He's an authoritarian too.

"Patriot" doesn't even apply here. That goes to the underlying motivations, and it's not only subjective, it's irrelevant to the method of enforcement, which is, again, authoritarianism. And that's bullshit.

Ultimately that motivation, whether you call it patriotism or something else, is an Appeal to Emotion fallacy as noted earlier. That's all it is and that's all it can be, as an abstract symbol. You can't play the role of that authoritarian thug as posted in this thread, without first being self-enslaved to that emotion. And that's bullshit too.

2. Except it's not "Catholics" that these supposed "bigots" have a problem with, it's anyone doing this one act. Note how there has been no need for either of us to discuss what the supposed "opinion" was that hypothetical flag burner was motivate by.
Because it doesn't matter.

"Catholics" was an example picked out of thin air. Your bizarre stance is that in order to be a bigot, one must be bigoted against everything. Which is inherently absurd.

3. No, you are describing people. That your description is inaccurate is my point.

And again it's MY point, so you don't have a say in it.
Opinions by definition cannot be "right" or "wrong". I say it's accurate. You write your own opinion.

4. I don't care if we are the only ones who have a Pledge of Allegiance. If you cannot distinguish between Patriotism and Jingoism that is your issue, not mine.

Actually I just did. I spelled it out in gory detail. And the distinction is more at between patriotism and fetishism -- which is what flag worship is. Idolatry.

5, Yes. Before the Nazis, that type of salute was not seen as bad. Historical pictures taken of non-nazis using that salute before Nazis look bad to us now. You do know that as that picture was taken well before wwii, that those children are not Nazis, right? Soooo, you are just posting that for an emotional impact as a substitute for rational argument?

The rational arguments were already made. I'm simply saying the parallel is eloquent. Those are American schoolchildren, submitting to the same kind of authoritarian bullshit that the Nazis used. The idea is to see what they have in common.

1. A lot of word salad trying to redefine Authoritarian. I'll stick with the dictionary thank you.

2. Hence my use so quote marks around "catholic", and my point on how we have had no discussion about the opinion or even the group the hypothetical flag burners are motivated by or member of. It is the action that is important. Can one be bigoted against an action? NOt that I am aware.

3. An opinion can certainly be wrong. YOu are arguing that my opinion is wrong. I am arguing that your opinion is wrong.

4. Try again, with less spin and more data.

 

[Correll]

1. By definition Authoritarians support Authority. The Patriots in question are not. THey are simply defending a symbol of America.

They are supporting authority, which is blatantly obvious to anyone with more than a second grade education. Just because it's authority you happen to approve of doesn't change that fact.

I don't care if we are the only ones who have a Pledge of Allegiance. If you cannot distinguish between Patriotism and Jingoism that is your issue, not mine.

It's generally totalitarian regimes that hold flags in such high regard and punish people for desecrating them.

1. The flag is not a symbol of a Government or an Authority, but of a nation.

2. Well, I haven't tried burning too many nations flags around their citizens, so I can't state with any authority what would happen if I did, even for None Totalitarian regimes.