CAPITOL HILL - The House votes today on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban desecration of the flag.

The issue has come up in Congress on a regular basis ever since the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

Supporters of the amendment, like Georgia Congressman Phil Gingrey, say that "to burn a flag is to disrespect America."

Opponents say the amendment isn't needed, noting that flag burning incidents are few and far between.

Congressman Gary Ackerman says the amendment would infringe on free speech. He says the reason the American flag is different is because "it stands for burning the flag."

While the proposed amendment has always passed the House, it has never gotten the two-thirds vote needed to get through the Senate.

Some fools are more worried about the flag than the constitution.

I find it disgusting that while our consituion is being torn apart that these idiots would even bother with this rediculous issue. It has been addressed time and time again and has always been dumped by the senate. You'd think that with all that is going on today that our congress would have more important things to worry about. But then, they are republicans. What else would one expect. The state of the union is not their top priority.

It's just another red, white and blue smokescreen to rally the neo-uber-patriots.

you have to be a real ignorant asshole to want to stop people from burning the US flag.

Originally posted by Travh20
you have to be a real ignorant asshole to want to stop people from burning the US flag.
Yep, you got it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

burn a US flag, get a Free Speech medal, burn a rainbow flag sybolizing gay pride, go to jail for hate crime

If this passes, first thing I'm doing is burning a flag.

just make sure it isnt a rainbow flag

I don't know if you are watching the House on C-SPAN right now. Gene Taylor, a conservative Democrat from Mississippi who happens to support the amendment, is offering motions to recommit that would change the amendment to a balanced budget amendment, an amendment protecting medicare, an amendment protecting social security and so on. The point he is making is that while he supports the flag amendment, there are more important things to deal with.


In my opinion, the amendment is ridiculous. They are saying it's ok to burn a flag to retire it but not to make a statement. Doesn't that get into the realm of thoughtcrimes?

hate crimes are thought crimes. I am not saying you support hate crime legislation but most people who do also support the right to burn a flag in protest. I wasnt joking when I said you are a hero for bruning a US flag but would go to jail for burning a rainbow flag. If you got 10 people burning a US flag the news would make then out to be patritic, brave citizens not afraid to use their first ammendment rights , and we would hear how important it was and blah blah blah, if you get 10 guys burning a rainbow flag you would hear the biggst outcry of fake concern you had ever heard, and how horrible it was and how we must protect agasint this sort of action. The word christian would be carelessly thrown in the mix with the rainbow flag burners too. This is the world we live in.

just make sure it isnt a rainbow flag
I'd burn one of those too, but I have gay neighbors. Jail is a lot better than getting my ass kicked by a guy with biceps as big around as my head.

Nobody who's burning an American flag is doing so out of hate, it's purely a shock and awe tactic to get people to look your direction so you can then try and make your point. I find tactics such as that moronic, it doesn't get people to pay attention to your point at all, it's more detrimental to your cause, same thing with rioting during protests, it defeats the purpose and puts your cause in a bad light. Burning a flag rarely ever works, but to outright ban it directly stampedes on freedom of speech and expression.

burn a US flag, get a Free Speech medal, burn a rainbow flag sybolizing gay pride, go to jail for hate crime

Burn whatever flag you want. If its your flag and you are not creating a fire hazard, then you have the right to do it no matter how much it upsets someone else.

If you got 10 people burning a US flag the news would make then out to be patritic, brave citizens not afraid to use their first ammendment rights

I've never seen that. Its usually shown on the news as part of some war protest along with a bunch of other stupid people with bandanas covering their faces and destroying public property. I've never seen it used to portray them as patriotic.

The desperate atempt to somehow aquaint gay rights with the american flag being burned is silly. Please don't derail the thread. If you want to make nasty remarks about gays and equal rights open a thread of your own up and post all the nasty remarks you want.

LOL, OK echo. I forgot all things said about gays must be positive and equal to the most revered institutions and struggles in our history. thanks for making my case. echo would be the first one out there trying to stop someone from burning the revered rainbow flag. she would problaby use the US flag to extinuish the rainbow flag.

There are a number of people who get upset when someone burns a flag but say nothing when someone burns a cross

ya and those people are idiots

Hmm, sounds like the same argument regarding American flags and Rainbow flags...

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, OK echo. I forgot all things said about gays must be positive and equal to the most revered institutions and struggles in our history. thanks for making my case.

I don't care if you say nasty things about gays. Juast don't do it on a flag burning thread. Make your own thread and scream all you want about how terrible they are.

echo would be the first one out there trying to stop someone from burning the revered rainbow flag. she would problaby use the US flag to extinuish the rainbow flag.

You are dead wrong on this one trav. I could care less if someone burned a flag, as long as it wasn't harming my property. Burn all the rainbow flags you want.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Hmm, sounds like the same argument regarding American flags and Rainbow flags...


good point, isnt cross burning illegal?

good point, isnt cross burning illegal?
Oh wow, apparently it is. Well that's bullshit.

Cross burning is illegal? Wow, that is just one more example of how the christian wingnuts have seeped their superstitions into our government and laws.

Originally posted by Echo2
Cross burning is illegal? Wow, that is just one more example of how the christian wingnuts have seeped their superstitions into our government and laws.

:rant:

you know echo, no matter what the outcome of the cross burning law, you blame the evil Christians. if it stayed legal, you would say the Christians support such things as cross burning and racism so they kept it legal! now it illegal and the Christians are the ones who did it to pollute America!! you really are un fucking believable you know that? your hatred of christiany transcends all other levels of hatred known to man. it really is pathetic.

The amendment might not be that bad.


`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.

Here is a good start...

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/Photos/bushsignsflag.gif

Originally posted by Travh20
:rant:

you know echo, no matter what the outcome of the cross burning law, you blame the evil Christians. if it stayed legal, you would say the Christians support such things as cross burning and racism so they kept it legal!

Wrong. Your attempts to read my mind have failed again.

now it illegal and the Christians are the ones who did it to pollute America!! you really are un fucking believable you know that? your hatred of christiany transcends all other levels of hatred known to man. it really is pathetic.

Wrong again, better take some more mind reading lessons.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Hmm, sounds like the same argument regarding American flags and Rainbow flags...

I am not sure about this. Historically, burning the American flag has been used as a form of protest (usually about a specific policy or action). Cross burning, historically, was used as a direct threat. Usually against individuals who had no recourse to the law. It often accompanied a violent action against said individuals or at the very least, the threat of a violent action.

Originally posted by Echo2
Cross burning is illegal? Wow, that is just one more example of how the christian wingnuts have seeped their superstitions into our government and laws.
You're joking, right? The people who put that movement through are the overly concerned liberal types who care nothing for freedom of expression, and everything for the protection of a black person's feelings. You think that was a "Christian Wingnut" move? If anything, it directly relates to what Trav was saying about burning a "rainbow flag". It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were made illegal to protect the feelings of gay people, whereas burning the American flag is protected by free speech. Sad, but it is the direction our country is heading.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You're joking, right? The people who put that movement through are the overly concerned liberal types who care nothing for freedom of expression, and everything for the protection of a black person's feelings. You think that was a "Christian Wingnut" move? If anything, it directly relates to what Trav was saying about burning a "rainbow flag". It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were made illegal to protect the feelings of gay people, whereas burning the American flag is protected by free speech. Sad, but it is the direction our country is heading. Great post Prae...everything you said was spot on. Especially the last sentence.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Oh wow, apparently it is. Well that's bullshit.

Agreed, although I'm pretty sure in order to pass Constitutional muster they had to be very specific as to when it would be illegal, i.e. when you do it in front of a black person's house.

Originally posted by Echo2
Cross burning is illegal? Wow, that is just one more example of how the christian wingnuts have seeped their superstitions into our government and laws.

It's illegal because it was a common tactic used by the KKK, not because of Christian wingnuts. Nice try, though.

Originally posted by Idioteque
The amendment might not be that bad.


`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.

Here is a good start...

It's stupid no matter what, but your point is well taken. A lot of "true patriots" who would get bent out of shape about a flag burning run around with American flag underwear with skidmarks, faded and torn American flags sticking out of their car windows, and of course the American flag bandana tied around their nasty hair.

Originally posted by Blibblob
...it's purely a shock and awe tactic to get people to look your direction so you can then try and make your point. I find tactics such as that moronic, My thoughts exactly, except I don't even think there is always a point they are trying to make.

What bothers me is that by calling this speech, we are saying this is what passes for political discourse in this enlightened age. Read Lincoln's letters, or even civil war soldiers' letters and see how far we've sunk.

The Republicans love freedom unless it runs counter to their terms and conditions.
They have been successful in nationalizing house elections, so now they are trying to nationalize and federalize every issue (or non-issue) however local, whether it's marriage, flag burning or med. cannabis. These matters have zip to do w/ commerce, but shit if these jagoffs aren't trying to impose their will on us anyway.
If the states have a collective brain cramp and ratify this affront to freedom of expression and the right to protest against one's nation and his gov't, we will take a giant step closer to totalitarianism.
Somewhere, Orwell is saying, "Told you."

Originally posted by lovejones
The Republicans love freedom unless it runs counter to their terms and conditions.
Lmao - and it's a good thing the Democrats don't, ay?

good point, isnt cross burning illegal?

I'm not an expert on the law, but I would assume that the burning of a cross is not illegal.

I think what is illegal about the act known as "cross burning" is the fact that its usually done in someone else's front yard as an attempt to intimidate or threaten them.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I'm not an expert on the law, but I would assume that the burning of a cross is not illegal.

I think what is illegal about the act known as "cross burning" is the fact that its usually done in someone else's front yard as an attempt to intimidate or threaten them.

The US Supreme Court ruled on the case of Black v. Virginia on April 8, 2003. This case was brought before them challenging the constitutionality of a Virginia statute banning cross-burning when such burning is an attempt to intimidate a person or group of persons. The Supreme Cort ruled that while the state had the right to ban cross-burning as an act of intimidation, the statute itself was overbroad in it's inclusion of the final sentence.

The statute:

“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of
persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public
place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

“Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group
of persons.”

The Supreme Court thus struck down the law as it was written.

From their opinion:

The prima facie evidence provision, as interpreted by the jury instruction, renders the statute unconstitutional.... As construed by the jury instruction, the prima facie provision strips away the very reason why a State may ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate. The prima facie evidence provision permits a jury to convict in every cross-burning case in which defendants exercise their constitutional right not to put on a defense. And even where a defendant like Black presents a defense, the prima facie evidence provision makes it more likely that the jury will find an intent to intimidate regardless of the particular facts of the case. The provision permits the Commonwealth to arrest, prosecute, and convict a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself.

It is apparent that the provision as so interpreted “ ‘would create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas.’ ” The act of burning a cross may mean that a person is engaging in constitutionally proscribable intimidation. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in core political speech. The prima facie evidence provision in this statute blurs the line between these two meanings of a burning cross. As interpreted by the jury instruction, the provision chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that a State will prosecute–and potentially convict–somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.

As the history of cross burning indicates, a burning cross is not always intended to intimidate. Rather, sometimes the cross burning is a statement of ideology, a symbol of group solidarity. It is a ritual used at Klan gatherings, and it is used to represent the Klan itself. Thus, “[b]urning a cross at a political rally would almost certainly be protected expression.” Indeed, occasionally a person who burns a cross does not intend to express either a statement of ideology or intimidation. Cross burnings have appeared in movies such as Mississippi Burning....

The prima facie provision makes no effort to distinguish among these different types of cross burnings. It does not distinguish between a cross burning done with the purpose of creating anger or resentment and a cross burning done with the purpose of threatening or intimidating a victim. It does not distinguish between a cross burning at a public rally or a cross burning on a neighbor’s lawn. It does not treat the cross burning directed at an individual differently from the cross burning directed at a group of like-minded believers. It allows a jury to treat a cross burning on the property of another with the owner’s acquiescence in the same manner as a cross burning on the property of another without the owner’s permission.....

It may be true that a cross burning, even at a political rally, arouses a sense of anger or hatred among the vast majority of citizens who see a burning cross. But this sense of anger or hatred is not sufficient to ban all cross burnings. As Gerald Gunther has stated, “The lesson I have drawn from my childhood in Nazi Germany and my happier adult life in this country is the need to walk the sometimes difficult path of denouncing the bigot’s hateful ideas with all my power, yet at the same time challenging any community’s attempt to suppress hateful ideas by force of law.” The prima facie evidence provision in this case ignores all of the contextual factors that are necessary to decide whether a particular cross burning is intended to intimidate. The First Amendment does not permit such a shortcut.

The entire ruling can be read here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/virginiavblack.html

Here we go again with the right wing trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us while the country rots from within.

unemployment, health care, out/insourcing, illegal immigration, environmental decay, infrastructure decay, all child left behind, ist ammendment in jeopardy, Social Security ...

These are the issues we need to concentrate on ... not flag burning.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Here we go again with the right wing trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us while the country rots from within.

unemployment, health care, out/insourcing, illegal immigration, environmental decay, infrastructure decay, all child left behind, ist ammendment in jeopardy, Social Security ...

These are the issues we need to concentrate on ... not flag burning.
-----------------------------------------------


These listed problems, are part of the reason a person would consider burning a flag in protest.

Originally posted by lovejones

They have been successful in nationalizing house elections, so now they are trying to nationalize and federalize every issue (or non-issue) however local, whether it's marriage, flag burning or med. cannabis. These matters have zip to do w/ commerce, but shit if these jagoffs aren't trying to impose their will on us anyway.

Flag burning is not a local issue because it implicates the First Amendment freedom of speech. If it's in the Constitution, it's a federal issue, regardless of whether it involves commerce.

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.
For a very long time it's been illegal to make socks, blankets, etc. out of American flag patterns. "Patriots" don't want to hear that because then they lose money.



My thoughts exactly, except I don't even think there is always a point they are trying to make.
There is. Whether or not an intelligent human being can understand it, that's a different story.

What bothers me is that by calling this speech, we are saying this is what passes for political discourse in this enlightened age. Read Lincoln's letters, or even civil war soldiers' letters and see how far we've sunk.
It's still free speech. It doesn't matter how far we've sunk, it still classifies as free speech. I would perfer that we could give speeches or write letters in newspapers, but that doesn't work anymore. Mass media and entertainment has gotten in the way, nobody wants to watch an actual debate and nobody wants to read an intellectual discorse on human nature and what people are doing wrong. They'd rather watch and participate in riots and protests, they'd rather watch the circus we call "debates" today, they'd rather read Drudge's inane comments.

the difference between flag burning and cross burning is that burning a cross in someones yard is a threat of violence. burning a rainbow flag could be seen in a similar light, and quite frankly, seems to come from a place of hate. burning an american flag is usually something violent anarchists do to get media attention. its not really a threat of violence or an act of hatred towards a particular group of people, but an expression of dissatisfaction with an organization, namely the government. and although i don't thnk burning za rainbow flag should be illegal, i also dont think its right. i have problems with protesting people, but not organizations.

I just wonder at what point an action became speech.
I understand verbal, hand signals and written words as speech.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember the Constitution saying freedom of action.
A lot of actions seem to be covered under the blanket of freedom of speech.

If, I rush up into the White House and demand to talk to Bush, is a violation of freedom of speech a defense, after they arrest me?
I think not. Probably would be charged under one of the trespass laws. Yet, to me, I was expressing my freedom of speech on taxpayer property.
I would like to barge right into his quarters and ask him why he is not securing the borders of the U.S. and why he has forgotton the real needs of Americans.
I want to know when this mess in Iraq, Bosnia, Afgan, South Korea, and dozens of other places where American lives are at risk, are going to end.

I want to know why we must meddle in the lives of so many other people all over the world. When are the problems at home going to be addressed? I want these answers.

I want to know why the profits of big business is placed above the families of America.

But, I cannot face these people and ask these questions.
I cannot barge into congress and ask "when are you bastards going to face the realities of the working American."
Yet, I have freedom of speech.
I call myself a patriotic American, but if I thought burning a flag would help, I would pull a truck load up to the steps of the White House and burn them, but it would accomplish nothing.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Brooks: What bothers me is that by calling this speech, we are saying this is what passes for political discourse in this enlightened age. Read Lincoln's letters, or even civil war soldiers' letters and see how far we've sunk.

Blib: It's still free speech. It doesn't matter how far we've sunk, it still classifies as free speech. I would perfer that we could give speeches or write letters in newspapers, but that doesn't work anymore.

WHY doesn't it work anymore? Because we accept the diminution. You're extremely intelligent and you just throw up your hands and accept that it's too late (though I will say that you're doing your part by staying informed, writing well, and not using the stupid IM shorthand). Accept flag burning as constitutional but not as an acceptable form of speech - you're better than that.

WHY doesn't it work anymore? Because we accept the diminution. You're extremely intelligent and you just throw up your hands and accept that it's too late (though I will say that you're doing your part by staying informed, writing well, and not using the stupid IM shorthand).
It's because modern society perfers entertainment to pretty much anything else. This can be blamed entirely on technology, from radios to television society has gradually moved into prefering the simplistic entertainment that cartoons and sitcoms provide. I don't know about you, but I think it's quite pointless to try and change those attitudes of people and it's better to find a way to work with it. It's stupid to stoop to the level of fudimentalists and refuse to adapt to a moving society instead of finding ways to work with it. That does not, however, mean that you have to actually participate with a society you disagree with in order to find and exploit ways to work with their current attitudes.

Accept flag burning as constitutional but not as an acceptable form of speech - you're better than that.
I accept it as a form of expression that should not be restricted at the same level speaking out isn't.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b] It's stupid to stoop to the level of fudimentalists and refuse to adapt to a moving society instead of finding ways to work with it. People who make a difference know when to stoop and when to resist. I think we stoop when we call this speech.

People who make a difference know when to stoop and when to resist. I think we stoop when we call this speech.
Okay, the correct term would be expression and what the supreme court rulings are based off of. It has been determined that freedom of expression falls with freedom of speech and thusly both are protected under the constitution. And I really don't see any difference between what they are trying to do and an act of tyranny. Burning a flag doesn't hurt you.

I don't know if this news has been posted earlier but:
Amendment passed in the House (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/22/congress.flagburning.ap/)

If this amendment passes, will a US flag and a cross be the only two items it is flat out illegal to burn? Why only these two items? Why not make a law that says you can't burn anything, or do anything, that is in an attempt to threaten or harrass someone.

Trav mentioned the difference in the treatment of a person burning a US flag compared to a person burning a rainbow flag. There should not be a difference. So, where is the Constitutional amendment to stop rainbow flag burning?

Originally posted by dnamertz
If this amendment passes, will a US flag and a cross be the only two items it is flat out illegal to burn? Why only these two items? Why not make a law that says you can't burn anything, or do anything, that is in an attempt to threaten or harrass someone.

Trav mentioned the difference in the treatment of a person burning a US flag compared to a person burning a rainbow flag. There should not be a difference. So, where is the Constitutional amendment to stop rainbow flag burning? Yeah, because a rainbow flag holds the same signifigance as our nations flag. :rolleyes:

BTW....a case could be made that somoene is "threatened" by any action you could imagine. Im sure some people feel "threatened" when their neighbors burn leaves in the fall. Should that be the same as burning our nations flag?

Should that be the same as burning our nations flag?
If we're going to bow to this tyranical peice of legislature that directly contradicts the first amendment of this country, then I don't think our flag has that much meaning anymore, because it's representing a country that's lost its meaning.

Originally posted by Blibblob
If we're going to bow to this tyranical peice of legislature that directly contradicts the first amendment of this country, then I don't think our flag has that much meaning anymore, because it's representing a country that's lost its meaning.
And I agree, but then again, as Dna pointed out - there are exceptions to the rule (reference cross burning). If certain things are made illegal, then all things should be as well.

And I agree, but then again, as Dna pointed out - there are exceptions to the rule (reference cross burning). If certain things are made illegal, then all things should be as well.
Because our rights are stepped on once, it's perfectly okay to step on them a hundred more times in an attempt to be "fair"?

Originally posted by Brooks
People who make a difference know when to stoop and when to resist. I think we stoop when we call this speech.
Why? Because it's hateful, venemous, and reprehensible speech? It is indeed that, but it's making a statement, i.e. speech. And regardless of what we or the government think of the speech that burning the flag represents, it is still speech.

And I will never vote for a politician who votes in favor of this amendment. By trying to protect the flag, they are traitors to the very ideals the flag represents. If this amendment manages to pass, the flag becomes worthless. If that language is added to the Constitution, then it's shown that there are exceptions to the First Amendment when the speech becomes too strong and hateful to be tolerated. It shows that America is more concerned about political correctness and taste than our very core liberties and what ideals this country was founded upon. Prohibiting, by law, the burning of the flag is worse than burning the flag. Without "liberty and justice for all" to be the symbol of the flag, the flag is nothing.

As distasteful as I personally find any desecration of our nations' flag, I cannot support an amendment banning such.

I am glad we have all of these patriots in here telling us that desecrating the flag means you really love it. man, its like 1984 all over again. In fact, if you want to stop people burning the flag, you are not as patriotic as those who burn it. kind of like echos reasoning that if you never kiss a man you are somehow more gay then a man who has. I tell you what, save it for your school teacher. burning the flag is a slap in the face to those who have served and died under it, period. if you want to burn it go ahead, but dont expect everyone to stand up and cheer like you are some sort of patritot. You will probably wind up getting your ass kicked.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am glad we have all of these patriots in here telling us that desecrating the flag means you really love it. man, its like 1984 all over again. In fact, if you want to stop people burning the flag, you are not as patriotic as those who burn it. kind of like echos reasoning that if you never kiss a man you are somehow more gay then a man who has. I tell you what, save it for your school teacher. burning the flag is a slap in the face to those who have served and died under it, period. if you want to burn it go ahead, but dont expect everyone to stand up and cheer like you are some sort of patritot. You will probably wind up getting your ass kicked.
Name one person in here who said that burning the flag makes one a patriot. Go on, I dare you.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Because our rights are stepped on once, it's perfectly okay to step on them a hundred more times in an attempt to be "fair"?
What I mean to imply is that it's sad. Burning crosses should be no more illegal than burning the American flag. The point is there are people out there who don't give a rat’s ass about rights if exercising them happens to offend someone. There is a growing tendency in this country to be of a "fuck America" mindset, which welcomes people to burn her flag and piss on her history, while recognizing her so-called "tyranny" as being on par with Nazi Germany - however, burn a cross...go to jail. If you burn a rainbow flag, you're not making "enlightened" social commentary - you're a hater. By today's standards, it's okay to be a hater of America, it's history, the people who believe in it, and it's what it has given us all, but don't you dare step on someone's feelings when exercising the same supposed rights that allow you to burn our country's flag, or your "hateful" ass is going down.

well if you are honoring the ideals laid out by the founding fathers by burning the flag you are a patriot. if you try and stop people from burning it you are somehow unamerican. so, if you burn it you are a true american and true americans are patriots. Of course this would only apply to US citizens.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Why? Because it's hateful, venemous, and reprehensible speech? It is indeed that, but it's making a statement, i.e. speech. And regardless of what we or the government think of the speech that burning the flag represents, it is still speech.


Borg, I'm not in favor of this amendment. I'm not even being political here. I just see this as another sign of the end of eloquence.

The original flag burner's act was accompanied by a pretty good statement (I didn't agree with it, but it was pretty well written). Would anyone listen without the arson? Probably not. Like Blob said, we prefer simplistic entertainment. That's what bothers me.

So how many uber-patriots are gonna desecrate the flag this fourth of july by eating cake off of it, blowing their nose on it and keeping their naughty bits secure with it?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
So how many uber-patriots are gonna desecrate the flag this fourth of july by eating cake off of it, blowing their nose on it and keeping their naughty bits secure with it?
Are you talking about American flag prints, like tablecloths, shorts, and handkerchiefs?

There is a difference, you know...

Oh is there? Do tell...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Are you talking about American flag prints, like tablecloths, shorts, and handkerchiefs?

There is a difference, you know...

A difference in intent, but getting your nasty skidmarks all over your American flag underwear is just as nasty as burning it.

So Trav, are you in favor of the amendment, or do you just not like flag burners (which everyone here seems to agree with)?

On the fourth of July a lot of people wear shirts with an American flag print. If they're drinking and eating while standing, which undoubtedly they'll be doing if they attend a parade or BBQ, and they spill something on it, I doubt the hardest of generals in our military would view that as flag desecration. Tablecloths - same thing...it's called a theme, not political commentary. Undies - well hell, I have no idea why someone would want those, but as Lionel said - there is a notably different intent.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yeah, because a rainbow flag holds the same signifigance as our nations flag. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that depend on your personal perspective?

Flags, even the US flag, hold different meanings for different people. Trav believes that if someone burns a flag for any reason it's a "slap in the face to those who have served and died under it, period." He's entitled to that opinion, but that means if I burn a flag on the front lawn of the local V.F.W. halll on the anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, that holds the same meaning as if I were to burn a flag outside the WTO headquarters to protest US economic policies abroad. The only statement Trav would see was a slap in the face. I think there's a difference beteween these two acts, and I think that flag burning can be a legitimate form of political protest, albeit an unpleasant one.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
A difference in intent, but getting your nasty skidmarks all over your American flag underwear is just as nasty as burning it.
If this is a problem for you, then might I suggest purchasing babywipes? I know you've probably got them lying around somewhere - put 'em to use.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Wouldn't that depend on your personal perspective?
While your statement does hold some truth, it really shouldn't - at least not in that scenario.

We used a giant flag as a drop-cloth when we were painting things. Does this count as desecration?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
We used a giant flag as a drop-cloth when we were painting things. Does this count as desecration?
First of all, when a flag touches the ground, it should be burned or buried anyway. Secondly, if you used an actual flag like this, then yes, it's desecration. Essentially, you used it with the same intent you would a tarp. Do I really need to say that it's in poor taste??? Might as well use it to wipe your ass when you're done shitting on different portion of it.

BTW....a case could be made that somoene is "threatened" by any action you could imagine.

Now we're close to getting into a debate about whether someone is "threatened" by an action that someone else didn't intend to be threatening, or whether the person commiting the action intended to be threatening. In sexual harrassment cases I've always thought guilt should depend on whether the person was intending to harrass, not whether a person felt harrassed by something that was never intended to be harrassing. Laws such as this flag burning amendment should be the same way, because if we go by the fact that "someone is offended by it" then that could apply to any thing, not just flags and crosses.

burning the flag is a slap in the face to those who have served and died under it, period.

I'm sure it is, but how is that an argument for making it illegal? "Slap them back in the face" by burning a tye-dye T-shirt or a Jane Fonda DVD, but do we need this amendment?

if you want to burn it go ahead, but dont expect everyone to stand up and cheer like you are some sort of patritot.

Are you comparing being against this amendment to "standing up and cheering" flag burners? How did you get so confused?

Now I'm hearing that the GOP wants to ram this thing thru because it's "popular." They're trying to ride the post 9/11 wave of patriotism. The Senate might even pass it this time!
So what if it's popular? It's the wrong thing to do!
Ask the conservative Sup. Court. Remember the '89 ruling?
Oh, but if we amend the Const., it'll be constitutional!
That still won't make it right! Slavery was once popular, too. So was prohibition. Please, if there's a God, let sanity prevail. Protect our liberties from these zealots.

How many amendments have there been so far...26? So out of all the things that have needed to be changed about this country since the founding fathers created it, this is one of the 27 most important things that needed to be amended (assuming it passes)???

Originally posted by dnamertz
How many amendments have there been so far...26? So out of all the things that have needed to be changed about this country since the founding fathers created it, this is one of the 27 most important things that needed to be amended (assuming it passes)???

I do agree with you but there are 27 Amendments...

Amendment XXVII - Congressional pay increases. Ratified 5/7/1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Wouldn't that depend on your personal perspective?

Flags, even the US flag, hold different meanings for different people. Trav believes that if someone burns a flag for any reason it's a "slap in the face to those who have served and died under it, period." He's entitled to that opinion, but that means if I burn a flag on the front lawn of the local V.F.W. halll on the anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, that holds the same meaning as if I were to burn a flag outside the WTO headquarters to protest US economic policies abroad. The only statement Trav would see was a slap in the face. I think there's a difference beteween these two acts, and I think that flag burning can be a legitimate form of political protest, albeit an unpleasant one. So if i were to burn a rainbow flag to show my disagreement with homosexuality, you would support me in my endeavors?

Originally posted by HaVoK
So if i were to burn a rainbow flag to show my disagreement with homosexuality, you would support me in my endeavors?

Not at all, but that's not the point...the point is I don't think you should be arrested for burning any flag.

So if i were to burn a rainbow flag to show my disagreement with homosexuality, you would support me in my endeavors?

I would not support you either, just like I would not support anyone burning a US flag.

Originally posted by HaVoK
So if i were to burn a rainbow flag to show my disagreement with homosexuality, you would support me in my endeavors?

No, but I wouldn't demand you be arrested, and I'd defend you against the raging mob of gays and lesbians.

Originally posted by HaVoK
So if i were to burn a rainbow flag to show my disagreement with homosexuality, you would support me in my endeavors?
I would not agree with your statement.

I would, however, defend your right to make that statement.

Fair enough answers from everyone. Thanks.

It was the perfect time for it, yet not a single one of you quoted Voltaire?

voltaire should be banned

Hehe, if any of you have time, I suggest listening to Jello Biafra's Ban Everything (http://jellobiafra.sleepdeprived.ca/mp3s/Ban_Everything.mp3) speech. I couldn't find a transcript, sorry.

What I want to know is...if my local/ state government decides that it would be in the best interest to take my property that I paid for and poured my blood, sweat and tears into for a dollar amount that I deem unfair and lower than I feel it's worth, for some rich developer, who made significant campaign contributions, to put up another half vacant strip mall, am I allowed to burn the flag in protest or is that being too "un-American"?

why would you burn a flag down if they built a strip mall over your house instead of burning down the strip mall or the developers house? hell, if your going to do it at least do it up right.

I don't want to be a "terrorist". I just want to keep what is mine.

Flag burning could be a thing of the past after the House of Representatives get through hollering at each other. Who is more patriotic; Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
Meanwhile House subCommittees and Committee chairs (all Republicans) prepare more tax breaks for the big oil cartels. More tax cuts for big corporate America. Higher taxation on the working people and more deregulation and safety rollbacks.
Gotta respect the huge amounts of money they are getting. They can hire and fire you in one blink of their shady eye.
So dont burn our flag or we will take all your welfare away and give it to the rich and teach you a lesson in history.

Flag burning could be a thing of the past after the House of Representatives get through hollering at each other. Who is more patriotic; Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
Meanwhile House subCommittees and Committee chairs (all Republicans) prepare more tax breaks for the big oil cartels. More tax cuts for big corporate America. Higher taxation on the working people and more deregulation and safety rollbacks.
Gotta respect the huge amounts of money they are getting. They can hire and fire you in one blink of their shady eye.
So dont burn our flag or we will take all your welfare away and give it to the rich and teach you a lesson in history.

First of all, when a flag touches the ground, it should be burned or buried anyway. Secondly, if you used an actual flag like this, then yes, it's desecration. Essentially, you used it with the same intent you would a tarp. Do I really need to say that it's in poor taste??? Might as well use it to wipe your ass when you're done shitting on different portion of it. So then your distinction is whether or not its an actual flag thats being burned? I'm sure a bit of shit gets wiped on American flag boxers and I'm sure they always get thrown on teh ground. People eating cake are using the flag for the same intent as a plate but you just said that perfectly acceptable.

So what you are really talking about here is thought crime. It's not the act or even the intent (ie:to clean up a mess) but the attitude with which it is done. So tell me genuis, how you gonna distiguish the "good flag desecraters" from the "bad" ones?

A pair of boxer shorts are not a flag. A picture of a flag on a shirt is no more a flag than a concert T-shirt is actually Bruce Springsteen.

Originally posted by Brooks
A pair of boxer shorts are not a flag. A picture of a flag on a shirt is no more a flag than a concert T-shirt is actually Bruce Springsteen.
Exactly. I personally thought it was a pretty simple concept, but I guess not...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Exactly. I personally thought it was a pretty simple concept, but I guess not...

Ah, but a flag is no more the United States than flag underwear is a flag. So why does burning the flag create such problems? It's not harming the United States. It's a symbol of the country, not the country itself.

wow, symbols of symbols, this is getting deep

So then the exact difference is whether or not it was meant to be tied to a pole or not? The only thing that makes a flag so sacred is that it was manufactured to be a 'flag'?

While were talking about flags heres a funny story:
http://www.nypress.com/18/23/news&columns/paulkrassner2.cfm

"I only regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country."
-- Abbie Hoffman

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
The only thing that makes a flag so sacred is that it was manufactured to be a 'flag'?


I never cease to be amazed by the fact that people get so worked up over a piece of cloth of a certain design.

Its official. the HoR would rather burn the constitution than a peice of cloth.

Click on the flag (http://www.esquilax.com/flag/burn5.html)

the flag burning site - http://www.esquilax.com/flag/index2.html

from the website, witness Americas wanna be fascism -

"People are still getting arrested in the US for flag desecration, even though such laws are unconstitutional. The tend seems to be that the sheriff arrests you, you spend a few nights in jail, the prosecutor drops the charges, and you get to go home. Here are some recent examples:"

freethinker sez:

"I never cease to be amazed by the fact that people get so worked up over a piece of cloth of a certain design."

Really? I find that hard to believe. Somewhere in your experience is an emotional attachment to an emblem of some sort.

Originally posted by es347fan
freethinker sez:

"I never cease to be amazed by the fact that people get so worked up over a piece of cloth of a certain design."

Really? I find that hard to believe. Somewhere in your experience is an emotional attachment to an emblem of some sort.

Ok.

Let us say for the sake of argument that I do have (although I cannot offhand think of what it possibly might be) a very fleeting attachment to an 'emblem' of some sort.

I would never become violently angry if some person I do not know ---someone I have never met before, someone I have zero attachment to ---- chooses to burn a similar **emblem**.

To become angry over such a thing would be, IMO, mindless superstition of the worst sort imaginable

I'm sure there was a time when you weren't so thick headed. It takes experiences to become as flat as you present. However, even a family coat of arms would qualify.

Originally posted by es347fan
I'm sure there was a time when you weren't so thick headed.

Translated into non-bullshit:--- "I simply cannot address the issue you've raised and still remain loyal to the GOP-supported mantra of -- "The Rightwing is perfect in all ways''. Instead, I'll just cover my eyes and pretend everything is perfectly fine, thus maintaining face while dodging the embarrassment of having to argue the issue in question."

Originally posted by es347fan
It takes experiences to become as flat as you present. However, even a family coat of arms would qualify.

ROTFL.

Feeling all gooey and prideful over a personal "coat of arms" is total horseshit to me.

The entire idea of *transmissible nobility* is utterly repulsive to me....as it no doubt is to any thinking person.

You're so full of shit.

Originally posted by es347fan
You're so full of shit.

Translated into non-bullshit:--- "I simply cannot address the issue you've raised and still remain loyal to the GOP-supported mantra of -- "The Rightwing is always right'. Instead, I'll just cover my eyes and proclaim --"You're so full of shit"--- in response and pretend everything is perfectly fine, thus maintaining face while dodging the embarrassment of having to argue the issue in question."

Originally posted by Freethinker
I never cease to be amazed by the fact that people get so worked up over a piece of cloth of a certain design.

and i never cease to be amazed that YOU get worked up over a book being flushed down the toilet, which happens to have the word "quoran" on it....

same thing

nuff said.