Burning American Flag....

[EverCurious]

Actually I think Trump knew damn well that Hillary had suggested the same thing back in 2005 so he was yanking their chain knowing they'd have a hissy...

That said, as much as I do really dislike seeing folks burn the flag in protest, it's supported by free speech (by SCOTUS ruling even) so it's gotta be allowed. :/

 

[Ame®icano]

I understand your question.....................and if I want to post with........................................then I'll do so....................

I said it's not the same thing......................Again.........I repeat....................I state my opinions and beliefs openly.........I don't like all the PC BS.

I don't believe in same sex marriage.............which sure as hell doesn't mean that I'm burning them at the stake..............and I don't agree with burning the flag...Many have died for this country.........and the Flag represents or nation..........and burning it is pissing on the people who have fought and died for it............If you don't agree..........THEN SO BE IT..................

If your upset.........the basement is open for complaints still.

I don't like the PC BS either. I respect that opinion, but I do not respect any man that will not defend the weak from harm.

I used to be against same sex marriage. I grew up to realize it was just plain bigotry that put me in that place.

I don't agree with burning our flag... but to be honest IMO the democrats have despoiled it. But yes, you burn it in front of me you better run as I will defend it. I understand and respect your feelings about the flag... I hold them as well. Let's say i'm conflicted because of what the democrats, republicans, and in particular this POTUS has done to this country. I don't respect your decision to defend cloth while not defending flesh merely because you think that flesh is sinful. What did jesus say about throwing stones? What did he do? Did he defend the lady? Respect is earned no?

I said I don't agree with them getting married.................That is my belief.................We disagree there.......

That is not saying that I'd stand by and watch a weak person getting his brains beat out. Even if he or she is something I don't agree with........It is not the same............and if you think I'm attacking the weak because I don't agree. Then so be it.

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?

To me being called a bigot..............means................ I don't agree with it..................If you think it's wrong for me to disagree with it.............That's your problem and not mine.

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?

I don't support pedophilia and necrophilia. Am I a bigot?

Using your own words, here... It's no different really than the prior groups who were bigoted against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, etc.

 

[Ame®icano]

Actually I think Trump knew damn well that Hillary had suggested the same thing back in 2005 so he was yanking their chain knowing they'd have a hissy...

That said, as much as I do really dislike seeing folks burn the flag in protest, it's supported by free speech (by SCOTUS ruling even) so it's gotta be allowed. :/

Of course he knew.

He's trolling the people who simultaneously supported Hillary and condemn him for proposing a law Hillary supported.

He is turning the left inside out by exposing their hypocrisy. People will see others burn the flag out of protest and be offended by their own side. Others will catch on to the hypocrisy of the left and abandon it.

Those who don't, like these hardcore commies here, will be left behind.

 

[initforme]

PrProtesting is a form of patriotism in my mind...the mind of an american white 78 year old retired heterosexual married former business owner. To heck with the flag waving freaks.

 

[Ame®icano]

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have defended that flag, many have died doing so.

when you burn it, you're pissing on their sacrifice.

Umm... I don't think so. Many have died defending the country. The piece of cloth... not so much.

IMO we are a nation divided. We should have two flags. One for the piece of shit socialists that want to destroy it from within and another for the people who love America.

One for the piece of shit socialists that want to destroy it from within

They have one.

and another for the people who love America.

So do we

You must be one of those bigoted piece of shit so called christians.

As far I know, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the parts of the same amendment. Defending one and attacking the other doesn't make sense. As agnostic, I don't care about religion, at all.

And what you said above, is too, a bigotry.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually I think Trump knew damn well that Hillary had suggested the same thing back in 2005 so he was yanking their chain knowing they'd have a hissy...

That said, as much as I do really dislike seeing folks burn the flag in protest, it's supported by free speech (by SCOTUS ruling even) so it's gotta be allowed. :/

Of course he knew.

He's trolling the people who simultaneously supported Hillary and condemn him for proposing a law Hillary supported.

He is turning the left inside out by exposing their hypocrisy. People will see others burn the flag out of protest and be offended by their own side. Others will catch on to the hypocrisy of the left and abandon it.

Those who don't, like these hardcore commies here, will be left behind.

Hillary proposed making flag burning illegal and having people lose citizenship if they do so?

I've only seen a little bit about it, but my understanding is that the law Hillary Clinton endorsed involved flag burning as an incitement to violence or terrorism, whereas Trump said simply that flag burning should be illegal and potentially cause a person to lose their citizenship. Not quite the same.

 

[initforme]

If it does become illegal then I will have to seriously think about burning one. Or two. In my backyard of course.

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

SCOTUS declared that burning the flag is form of speech, and we have to accept that it is? So is yelling "fire" in the theater, but is not allowed.

It was 5-4 decision, one vote away from changing the position, and I hope someday they'll overturn it.

If someone wants to protest the government, it can be done without burning the flag. Is protest somehow stronger if flag is burning? Uhm, no? Only people who hate this country are burning our flag, real American never does it.

Actually, considering how much more reaction protesters seem to get when they burn the flag, I'd say that yes, the protest is stronger or more effective when the flag is burned. The point is usually to be controversial, in-your-face, contentious, and burning the flag certain seems to work as far as getting people to talk about a protest or feel riled up about it.

One does not need to hate the country to burn the flag.

 

[Ame®icano]

PS-------when he burns the American flag-----do I get to burn a koran?

... or a church?

 

[Ame®icano]

If you want to burn an American flag, do it the right way.

I saw it on one of those learning channels and they showed how to do it properly.

First.............cut the stripes off one by one, and burn them each before you cut off the next one.

Next, burn the whole blue part of the flag, that has all 50 stars at one time.

That is how you burn a flag.

That's how you burn the flag you respect.

Those leftist loons respect nobody, especially the country under it's flag.

I voted unacceptable. Because to me it is.

 

[Ame®icano]

Hillary proposed making flag burning illegal and having people lose citizenship if they do so?

I've only seen a little bit about it, but my understanding is that the law Hillary Clinton endorsed involved flag burning as an incitement to violence or terrorism, whereas Trump said simply that flag burning should be illegal and potentially cause a person to lose their citizenship. Not quite the same.

You assumed I have no clue.

Not endorsed, she co-sponsored.

I'll spell it out for you:

"The [Flag protection act of 2005] would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both."

That's from the wiki page. Trump "suggested" jail time or citizenship removal. The tweet is not considered a law, not even a policy, and as much I know, the citizenship removal is unconstitutional (**see below). But he (or Bannon) knew leftists would take off and run with it. It's hypocritical to argue against this when Hillary proposed something similar. It's also hypocritical to say Trump is an idiot who tweets nonsense but you act like this tweet is a serious policy proposal.

** Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a federal case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that it was unconstitutional for the government to revoke the citizenship of a U.S. citizen as a punishment.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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

SCOTUS declared that burning the flag is form of speech, and we have to accept that it is? So is yelling "fire" in the theater, but is not allowed.

It was 5-4 decision, one vote away from changing the position, and I hope someday they'll overturn it.

If someone wants to protest the government, it can be done without burning the flag. Is protest somehow stronger if flag is burning? Uhm, no? Only people who hate this country are burning our flag, real American never does it.

Actually, considering how much more reaction protesters seem to get when they burn the flag, I'd say that yes, the protest is stronger or more effective when the flag is burned. The point is usually to be controversial, in-your-face, contentious, and burning the flag certain seems to work as far as getting people to talk about a protest or feel riled up about it.

One does not need to hate the country to burn the flag.

I agree, it's getting someones attention.

On the other hand, if someone needs to burn the flag to get attention, maybe that someone shouldn't protest, since message itself is not strong enough. Maybe that's the reason why leftists are burning flags...

 

[Montrovant]

Hillary proposed making flag burning illegal and having people lose citizenship if they do so?

I've only seen a little bit about it, but my understanding is that the law Hillary Clinton endorsed involved flag burning as an incitement to violence or terrorism, whereas Trump said simply that flag burning should be illegal and potentially cause a person to lose their citizenship. Not quite the same.

You assumed I have no clue.

Not endorsed, she co-sponsored.

I'll spell it out for you:

"The [Flag protection act of 2005] would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both."

That's from the wiki page. Trump "suggested" jail time or citizenship removal. The tweet is not considered a law, not even a policy, and as much I know, the citizenship removal is unconstitutional (**see below). But he (or Bannon) knew leftists would take off and run with it. It's hypocritical to argue against this when Hillary proposed something similar. It's also hypocritical to say Trump is an idiot who tweets nonsense but you act like this tweet is a serious policy proposal.

** Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a federal case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that it was unconstitutional for the government to revoke the citizenship of a U.S. citizen as a punishment.

It is not hypocritical to be OK with criminalizing burning the flag as an incitement to violence while being opposed to criminalizing burning the flag in any sort of protest. Yes, they are similar, in that the flag is burned in both cases. That doesn't mean there isn't a big difference between the two ideas.

Of course a tweet isn't the same as a policy proposal. That doesn't mean a person can't consider the tweet by Trump asinine, or indicative of a dangerous mentality.

Personally, I think he just doesn't have a filter between his surface thoughts and his mouth (or fingers, in this case).

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

SCOTUS declared that burning the flag is form of speech, and we have to accept that it is? So is yelling "fire" in the theater, but is not allowed.

It was 5-4 decision, one vote away from changing the position, and I hope someday they'll overturn it.

If someone wants to protest the government, it can be done without burning the flag. Is protest somehow stronger if flag is burning? Uhm, no? Only people who hate this country are burning our flag, real American never does it.

Actually, considering how much more reaction protesters seem to get when they burn the flag, I'd say that yes, the protest is stronger or more effective when the flag is burned. The point is usually to be controversial, in-your-face, contentious, and burning the flag certain seems to work as far as getting people to talk about a protest or feel riled up about it.

One does not need to hate the country to burn the flag.

I agree, it's getting someones attention.

On the other hand, if someone needs to burn the flag to get attention, maybe that someone shouldn't protest, since message itself is not strong enough. Maybe that's the reason why leftists are burning flags...

If the message behind a protest were strong enough (or widely accepted enough, at least), protests would not be necessary at all, whatever form they might take. The point of protest is that, in the mind of the protester, something needs to be changed, but not enough people either know about or care about whatever it is to have changed it yet.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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

SCOTUS declared that burning the flag is form of speech, and we have to accept that it is? So is yelling "fire" in the theater, but is not allowed.

It was 5-4 decision, one vote away from changing the position, and I hope someday they'll overturn it.

If someone wants to protest the government, it can be done without burning the flag. Is protest somehow stronger if flag is burning? Uhm, no? Only people who hate this country are burning our flag, real American never does it.

Actually, considering how much more reaction protesters seem to get when they burn the flag, I'd say that yes, the protest is stronger or more effective when the flag is burned. The point is usually to be controversial, in-your-face, contentious, and burning the flag certain seems to work as far as getting people to talk about a protest or feel riled up about it.

One does not need to hate the country to burn the flag.

I agree, it's getting someones attention.

On the other hand, if someone needs to burn the flag to get attention, maybe that someone shouldn't protest, since message itself is not strong enough. Maybe that's the reason why leftists are burning flags...

If the message behind a protest were strong enough (or widely accepted enough, at least), protests would not be necessary at all, whatever form they might take. The point of protest is that, in the mind of the protester, something needs to be changed, but not enough people either know about or care about whatever it is to have changed it yet.

Finally someone worth the conversation.

It could be that something has changed but they can't accept it, because they're whining bitches that cry foul every time they don't get a trophy. All I was saying, if you don't have a message, or message is wrong, burning flag wont help you spread it.

 

[Montrovant]

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

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

SCOTUS declared that burning the flag is form of speech, and we have to accept that it is? So is yelling "fire" in the theater, but is not allowed.

It was 5-4 decision, one vote away from changing the position, and I hope someday they'll overturn it.

If someone wants to protest the government, it can be done without burning the flag. Is protest somehow stronger if flag is burning? Uhm, no? Only people who hate this country are burning our flag, real American never does it.

Actually, considering how much more reaction protesters seem to get when they burn the flag, I'd say that yes, the protest is stronger or more effective when the flag is burned. The point is usually to be controversial, in-your-face, contentious, and burning the flag certain seems to work as far as getting people to talk about a protest or feel riled up about it.

One does not need to hate the country to burn the flag.

I agree, it's getting someones attention.

On the other hand, if someone needs to burn the flag to get attention, maybe that someone shouldn't protest, since message itself is not strong enough. Maybe that's the reason why leftists are burning flags...

If the message behind a protest were strong enough (or widely accepted enough, at least), protests would not be necessary at all, whatever form they might take. The point of protest is that, in the mind of the protester, something needs to be changed, but not enough people either know about or care about whatever it is to have changed it yet.

Finally someone worth the conversation.

It could be that something has changed but they can't accept it, because they're whining bitches that cry foul every time they don't get a trophy. All I was saying, if you don't have a message, or message is wrong, burning flag wont help you spread it.

That's true. Of course, honest protesters obviously think they have a valid message.

 

[HappyJoy]

The flag is a symbol and people have the right to deface it.

You sure sound like an expert in doing so.

I don't know, maybe you should try to have an actual conversation about the topic next time.

 

[irosie91]

is there something about the word INANIMATE that confuses you?

Your existence.

your response makes no sense-----the issue is the term INANIMATE-----I suggested that it is legal to burn anything which one OWNS---
which is INANIMATE---(meaning not a living thing-----more specifically not a living animal)
what does "YOUR EXISTENCE" have to do with the assertion?

Your post which I responded to did not include the description of INANIMATE.

oh---that's the danger of jumping into a conversation in the middle

I responded to your post. If you don't know how to communicate properly, do not blame others for your problem.

your post is rude and vulgar

 

[Skull Pilot]

unacceptable or acceptable as "freedom of speech"?

It's not really speech it's more like an unintelligible grunt but protected nonetheless

 

[EverCurious]

For the record, as I forgot to mention it in my earlier post, if you have a flag in need of proper disposal find your local Boy Scouts.