I have a thought experiment I just came up with, folks, and I apologize if this has been done and I've been beaten to the punch.

Imagine, if you will, a bright, sunny afternoon in Washington, DC. A man with a megaphone and an American flag on a pole behind him stands in front of the Washington Monument, or the Capitol, or what have you (pick a scene). He gives an impassioned speech about how much he loves living in America, and how great it is that we have a document like the Constitution that protects our rights. He continues going on about liberty and the symbolism of the flag, and how great the Constitution is, when he finally takes a lighter out of his pocket and sets the flag on fire, being certain prior to this that nobody was unsafely nearby, and proceeds to sing The Star-Spangled Banner. He continues for a short while about how freedom is so much more powerful than any other ideal, and finally terminates his speech.

Assuming he had checked with all fire codes prior to this demonstration, and was not in violation of those, how should he be treated under the law? Should the law make any distinction between this and a person who burns the flag out of hatred? And, finally, do you consider the former a display of patriotism or in poor taste?

Assuming he had checked with all fire codes prior to this demonstration, and was not in violation of those, how should he be treated under the law?

The same as if he'd not burned it. Nothing.

But then, if he were allowed to do so without some flag worshiping "patriotic" citizen physically assaulting him or screaming at him to 'get the fuck out' of America, it would mean *free speech* is still fully permitted in America. Which it rarely is.

Should the law make any distinction between this and a person who burns the flag out of hatred?

Not in my view.

Interestingly, all those people who rail about how senseless it is to have *hate crime* legislation on the books would --if they were to be consistent-- have to answer -- "No"-- also.

And, finally, do you consider the former a display of patriotism or in poor taste?

Neither.

It would just be a citizen expressing his views.

Assuming he had checked with all fire codes prior to this demonstration, and was not in violation of those, how should he be treated under the law?

He should be treated no differently than anyone else who burns a flag.

Should the law make any distinction between this and a person who burns the flag out of hatred?

In my opinion, there shouldn't be any law against flag burning. I don't think we have the right to not be offended.

And, finally, do you consider the former a display of patriotism or in poor taste?

Patriotic.

Borg! I thought we had an agreement you wouldn't tell people about my Thursday morning gallivanting! Though you got the song wrong, it's not the "Star Spangled Banner," it's "God Bless America", you silly.

I would consider this fellow to be somewhat odd (at best). It would be no different than if a man stood up and gave great platitudes about his wife and the proceeded to burn a portrait of her.

Would I personally care that he burned the flag? No. Would I consider him a bit "off kilter"? Yes.

I would consider this fellow to be somewhat odd (at best). It would be no different than if a man stood up and gave great platitudes about his wife and the proceeded to burn a portrait of her.

Would I personally care that he burned the flag? No. Would I consider him a bit "off kilter"? Yes.
You seem to be missing some subtle undertones of irony and symbolism that such an act would represent. When I came up with that, I thought to myself that the message here is awfully concise, but not immediately obvious.

I see no difference between burning a flag and making one into casual wear. It's disrespectful either way. However, as an american, i think you have the right to do either without the threat of harm if you so choose.








In my opinion, there shouldn't be any law against flag burning. I don't think we have the right to not be offended.
Im wondering how you feel a racist should be treated if they shouted out a racial slur you didnt agree with? Do you believe that if he/she gets their ass whipped it was deserved?

As an Irishman visiting DC watching this spectacle Id ask the man
'what happend that hurts so much man,what happened to YOUR America'.

You seem to be missing some subtle undertones of irony and symbolism that such an act would represent. When I came up with that, I thought to myself that the message here is awfully concise, but not immediately obvious.
No, I understand the irony, I just fail to see the point. Look again at my analogy to the portrait of a wife. A man would be free to burn it, but would it be wise to do so? One could (and should) be allowed to do whatever one wants to a piece of cloth... what may be questioned is why. To prove a point? To show how "free" he is? I find this exercise to be silly. Why not piss on the flag, or defecate on it? Even better... you could piss on it, shit on it, then soak it in gasoline and light it! That's patriotic, right?

Irony is its own purpose.

No, I understand the irony, I just fail to see the point. Look again at my analogy to the portrait of a wife. A man would be free to burn it, but would it be wise to do so? One could (and should) be allowed to do whatever one wants to a piece of cloth... what may be questioned is why. To prove a point? To show how "free" he is? I find this exercise to be silly. Why not piss on the flag, or defecate on it? Even better... you could piss on it, shit on it, then soak it in gasoline and light it! That's patriotic, right?
Sure, but that's belaboring the point.

Im wondering how you feel a racist should be treated if they shouted out a racial slur you didnt agree with? Do you believe that if he/she gets their ass whipped it was deserved?

My mindset is if a person is shouting out a racist slur, he or she is obviously trying to instigate something. So, I try not to give those people what they want. But, that's just me and I understand why most other people wouldn't take my approach.

I don't see the point behind burning flags. I would not do so.

Of course I don't think there should be any laws against it, no matter the thought behind it.

I am skeptical of your awfully concise, but not immediately obvious subtle undertones.

It goes without saying that I will need photographic evidence of this 'so called ironic and symbolism-laden patriot' burning the flag.
Photos or videos, which have not been digitally altered.
PROOF, that the whole thing was not conjured up by either some oil-thirsty Godz-n-gunz cabal, or tree-hugging limp-wristed coven of thespians and leftist effete snobs!!

Otherwise you are a liar, Borghunter!!
Liar!!
:rant:

Sorry.
I kinda got caught up in the stereotypically-polarized standard that passes for political debate here, and found myself both overwhelmed and conflicted.

Please, carry on.
:hug:

Nothing should be done to the man but then again, nothing should be done to a person who espouses hatred for the United States and then proceeds to burn the American flag.

Freedom of speech must extend to speech the majority finds odious or it isn't really freedom.

There should be no penalties for burning or desicrating the American flag.

just a piece of cloth. burn all the flags you want.

Looks like we all agree that flag burning should be allowed...

Looks like we all agree that flag burning should be allowed...
Surprisingly so. This thread will only get interesting when someone comes in and says it shouldn't be.

Nothing should be done to the man but then again, nothing should be done to a person who espouses hatred for the United States and then proceeds to burn the American flag.

Freedom of speech must extend to speech the majority finds odious or it isn't really freedom.

There should be no penalties for burning or desicrating the American flag.

What an exceedingly rare stance for a rightwinger.

Of the conservatives I know personally, I'd hazard a guess that less than 1 in 20 would say --- "Yeah, let whoever wants to burn the U.S. flag in public. It's just freedom of speech. I don't have any problem with it".

You still think of me as a right winger, Freethinker.

I'm actually a freethinker, probably more of one than you.

I have no problem with legalized prostitution, legalized drug use, abolishing the death penalty, freedom of speech, legalized pornography and a host of other things conservatives usually find anathema. In those areas I am decidedly liberal.

I do have a problem with abortion, calling crimes hate crimes, welfare for those who can but do not work, forced union contributions and other favorite causes of liberals. In those areas I am decidedly conservative.

There is, or at least should be no one size fits all political philosophy. We should form our own opinions and then find candidates who most closely agree with the majority of them.

To be totally conservative or totally liberal is to be totally hidebound.

I have burned at least five or six American flags in my lifetime.

Each and every time, it was because the flag had become worn, faded, torn, or rendered by the outside elements, 'no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country'.

US Flag Code. TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 8(k) states:

"The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning"

An older neighbor years ago advised me to remove the blue field of white stars from the rest of the flag with a sharp pair of scissors, and then to burn the flag components in a campfire or fireplace in a dignified manner, and with the utmost respect.

The old gentleman was a veteran of WWII, and I always respected his opinion in such matters. Out of respect for him, and for the flag, I have carried out this tradition ever since.

You may scoff and ridicule my reverence for the flag, and for my tribute to an old friend, but it is what it is.
I would no more disrespect the flag than I would insult the memory of my mother.

(Does this make me a 'rightwinger'?)
If you consider a fellow who accords the flag this much respect, but on the other hand supports a woman's right to abort her unborn fetus a rightwinger, then go ahead and use that term if it brings you comfort.

I also owns guns, respect the environment, regularly volunteer to clean up the local wetlands, and I deliver meals-to & build handicap ramps-for the underprivileged. Classic rightwinger attributes, I guess.

Borg, in response to your original questions:
* Assuming he had checked with all fire codes prior to this demonstration, and was not in violation of those, how should he be treated under the law?
The law is quite clear, this fellow has not committed any crime.

* Should the law make any distinction between this and a person who burns the flag out of hatred?
That would be an extremely difficult law to enforce.

* And, finally, do you consider the former a display of patriotism or in poor taste?
I would consider it a very curious display of questionable taste.
I suppose that if I saw that person burning the American flag in public in that manner, I would most likely shake my head, but would move on about my business.

I have a thought experiment I just came up with, folks, and I apologize if this has been done and I've been beaten to the punch.

Imagine, if you will, a bright, sunny afternoon in Washington, DC. A man with a megaphone and an American flag on a pole behind him stands in front of the Washington Monument, or the Capitol, or what have you (pick a scene). He gives an impassioned speech about how much he loves living in America, and how great it is that we have a document like the Constitution that protects our rights. He continues going on about liberty and the symbolism of the flag, and how great the Constitution is, when he finally takes a lighter out of his pocket and sets the flag on fire, being certain prior to this that nobody was unsafely nearby, and proceeds to sing The Star-Spangled Banner. He continues for a short while about how freedom is so much more powerful than any other ideal, and finally terminates his speech.

Assuming he had checked with all fire codes prior to this demonstration, and was not in violation of those, how should he be treated under the law? Should the law make any distinction between this and a person who burns the flag out of hatred? And, finally, do you consider the former a display of patriotism or in poor taste?
as long as it's his flag, and everything else is kosher, he's free to be a dumbass.

You may scoff and ridicule my reverence for the flag, and for my tribute to an old friend, but it is what it is.
I would no more disrespect the flag than I would insult the memory of my mother.

Ok.

As for me, I would no more be inclined to ""show reverence for" a piece of cloth that happened to be red and white striped with stars on it than I would a piece of denim cloth on a rack at a dime store.

No problem with your having "reverence" for it. Just different perspectives for different people.

"Revering" a piece of cloth, IMO, comes under the category of superstition, no matter how you slice it..........and I personally have no superstitions, and want nothing to do with them.

If you consider a fellow who accords the flag this much respect, but on the other hand supports a woman's right to abort her unborn fetus a rightwinger, then go ahead and use that term if it brings you comfort.

I can tell you in complete honesty that there is nothing about observing the fact that a huge segment of the people in America are *rightwingers* and that they espouse a *rightwing* political ideology that will ever "bring me comfort".

In any way.

Nothing.

I'm secure enough to feel no harm is being done by burning a flag.

What bothers me about flag burning is that it is the most base, un-clever form of speech ever designed and yet some people find it so profound. Just sad.

On the brighter side.....
EVAKIAN, don't leave again.

Actions speak louder than words.

Actions speak louder than words.What exactly is the "speak".
Is the burner against the war, NAFTA, the border fence, Harry Reid's son's lobbying, the President, fuel taxes or what?

I think many flag-burners are more enamored of the attention and perceived profundity than they are passionate and knowledgeable about a cause.

Actions speak louder than words.
DB, that's something wives say to their husbands when they come home late.

I'm sure Brooks and I are not alone in that we find a speech addressing greivances against the United States by City Hall more potent than buying a butane lighter at the 7/11 to burn Old Glory by the town mini-mall.

As long as it is illegal to burn a cross it should be illegal to burn a flag. A lot of people get just as upset seeing a flag burning as people get seeing a cross burning. And really, isnt that why burning a cross is illegal? Because it upsets people?

What exactly is the "speak".

Depends on the context of the action.
You know that.

:rolleyes:

The flag burning man is not a patriot, nor is his action in burning the flag patriotic.

The guys at Valley Forge were patriots. The guys at Normandy were patriots. The guys at Antietam were patriots.

The flag burning guy is a lazy, attention seeking prick.

End of story.

but but but, Jefferson said the highest for of patriotism was dissent!

but but but, Jefferson said the highest for of patriotism was dissent!

LOL, and that comes from a guy who enjoyed the comforts of Monticello sclepping around the house in a raggedy bathrobe talking to his pet crow while other guys froze their ass off at Valley Forge.

The guys at Valley Forge were patriots. The guys at Normandy were patriots. The guys at Antietam were patriots.
Or they were just some guys after money or an adventure.
The flag burning guy is a lazy, attention seeking prick.
Suddenly fighting in the military is what makes one a patriot?

but but but, Jefferson said the highest for of patriotism was dissent!
Right, because the words of Jefferson and other founding fathers only are important when they fit with your horrifying worldview.

1.Or they were just some guys after money or an adventure.

2.Suddenly fighting in the military is what makes one a patriot?

1. The Continentals weren't paid, Evak. Some got bounty land after the War. But what if we'd lost?

2.More so than whipping out a Zippo and setting a cloth on fire.

Well Im anti-militaristic, but I find burning a nations flag offensive.

1. The Continentals weren't paid, Evak.
So a rabble of British colonists fighting for liberation from Britain is the same as a flag-waving asshole from Mississippi who lives in 2007?

Also, the men in the civil war and WW2 that you mentioned, were volunteers that were paid. When their motivations aren't so noble, why paint them up like gods?

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."-Oscar Wilde

Ren - What you said about Jefferson made me laugh. :lolhit: I didn't know he had a pet crow that he talked to...

Evakian speaks like a typical sheltered american with to much time on his hands and a high speed internet connection.

Also, the men in the civil war and WW2 that you mentioned, were volunteers that were paid. When their motivations aren't so noble, why paint them up like gods?



Which begs the question--exactly what does a person do for dough?
Some rob banks, some are clerks, some are factory workers, some are soldiers.
The men and woemn who put their lives on the line for money--but why should they not be paid?--are the true patriots.

I say again--any dolt can set a fire.

Ren - What you said about Jefferson made me laugh. :lolhit: I didn't know he had a pet crow that he talked to...

It may have been a magpie. :)

I say again--any dolt can set a fire.
Any dolt can be in the armed forces. Just look at our resident simian trav.

Any dolt can be in the armed forces. Just look at our resident simian trav.
remind me to bring revisit this when Nappy's here to defend himself.:cool:

The guys at Valley Forge were patriots. The guys at Normandy were patriots. The guys at Antietam were patriots.


No, those guys were all soldiers.
Not every soldier is a patriot.

Any dolt can be in the armed forces. Just look at our resident simian trav.

Any dolt but Evakian who would not last 5 minutes away from his mommy or his keyboard.

No, those guys were all soldiers.
Not every soldier is a patriot.

But every protestor is?

But every protestor is?

No, not every protestor is either.

:rolleyes:

The men and woemn who put their lives on the line for money--but why should they not be paid?--are the true patriots.
Why? The Founding Fathers considered the military a necessary evil, not an organization to be admired. Just look at the wording of the Second Amendment.

Why? The Founding Fathers considered the military a necessary evil, not an organization to be admired. Just look at the wording of the Second Amendment.

I interpret it as "necessary"... not as an "evil", nor do I see anything that would proclude the military from being admired.

Ah the Founding Fathers-what would they know eh :rolleyes:

I interpret it as "necessary"... not as an "evil", nor do I see anything that would proclude the military from being admired.
Then why does the Second Amendment tacitly say that the people should have guns in order to balance the power of the militia, i.e. the military? Not to mention the personal writings of folks like Thomas Jefferson.

Then why does the Second Amendment tacitly say that the people should have guns in order to balance the power of the militia, i.e. the military?
Possibly to keep from having a military "state"?

Not to mention the personal writings of folks like Thomas Jefferson.
It's Founding FatherS... not just TJ.


Without the continental army and militias... it would have been a rather short revolution... :lolhit:

Possibly to keep from having a military "state"?
That, and to grant the citizens the right to violently overthrow the government if necessary. Which would mean fighting against the militia. Do you see where I'm going with this?
It's Founding FatherS... not just TJ.
Perhaps you should examine what prepositions I used in that sentence, and where I used them. It might assist you in divining the meaning of what I wrote.

Hint: I'm talking about the word "like".
Without the continental army and militias... it would have been a rather short revolution... :lolhit:
You don't honestly believe that you can compare the present military to the continental army, do you? That's a terrible comparison, as that army was rebelling against something. Ours is not, and it would be far more apt to compare them to the redcoats.

I do not believe George Washington would think of a military as "evil", and we all know George Washington was the greatest founding father of all.

Then why does the Second Amendment tacitly say that the people should have guns in order to balance the power of the militia, i.e. the military?

This is interesting.

You've interpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment entirely differently than how I thought it was meant.

You seem to think it means -- "The populace at large needs to own their own guns in case they have to confront the militia....the military"

I read it as meaning -- The populace at large needs to own their own guns in case they should ever be called upon to become part of the militia....the military".

I'm sure the Founding Fathers thought they were phrasing the wording in that amendment in a way that was entirely unambiguous. Seems they didn't make it as clear as they should have.

Not arguing with you....just an observation.

I do not believe George Washington would think of a military as "evil", and we all know George Washington was the greatest founding father of all.
"To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff." —George Washington, Letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem (24 September 1776)

I think George Washington knew better than anyone just how evil militaries really were, considering that he was fighting against one for years. They're the muscle of the King, the method the government uses to impose its will upon the people. However, he also saw the necessity of having a military, as demonstrated by this quote:

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress (8 January 1790).

The enforcement of a government's sovereignty is incredibly evil, because by its nature it must restrict freedom and grant a few people an extraordinary amount of power. However, it would be even more evil to live somewhere where none exists, because it would be anarchical and in general a giant mess. The idea that the military is intrinsically "good" is mere propaganda fed to people who no longer carry with them the spirit of rebellion. People thinking the government is "good" is the reason we are headed toward things like socialized medicine, why I cannot carry a concealed weapon in the state of Illinois, and why our government tortures people, admits to it, and admits that it sees nothing wrong with it...and the people who said and did this are not tossed in jail for the rest of their lives.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." As quoted in The Cry for Justice: An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest (1915) Edited by Upton Sinclair, p. 305.

That, and to grant the citizens the right to violently overthrow the government if necessary. Which would mean fighting against the militia. Do you see where I'm going with this?
That is one interpretation... which one is the one that the FF wanted I do not know.

Perhaps you should examine what prepositions I used in that sentence, and where I used them. It might assist you in divining the meaning of what I wrote.

Hint: I'm talking about the word "like".
OK, there. Since when did you become such a condecending prick? All the FF were "like" TJ? You are a smart guy and I have had much respect for your thoughts and ideals, but when I question your "interpretation" of something I get "hints" about English grammar? Nice job.

You don't honestly believe that you can compare the present military to the continental army, do you? That's a terrible comparison, as that army was rebelling against something. Ours is not, and it would be far more apt to compare them to the redcoats.
What comparison am I making? That the constitution and the amendments said that the military is evil? That is your analysis, not mine.

As far as your "thought experiment" goes... it seems you were only looking for someone to balk at the idea of flag burning. Burn all the flags that you can afford to buy. Hell, heat your house with them if that is what floats your boat. I won't get mad (or even care... to be honest).

It's all a matter of respect, and I take it you don't think my opinion deserves any.

Fair enough.

This is interesting.

You've interpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment entirely differently than how I thought it was meant.

You seem to think it means -- "The populace at large needs to own their own guns in case they have to confront the militia....the military"

I read it as meaning -- The populace at large needs to own their own guns in case they should ever be called upon to become part of the militia....the military".

I'm sure the Founding Fathers thought they were phrasing the wording in that amendment in a way that was entirely unambiguous. Seems they didn't make it as clear as they should have.

Not arguing with you....just an observation.
Most people interpret it that way. I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled if they found out that people don't see it the way they intended. It becomes much more clear if you read it without that first comma--which is how it was originally written. The grammar is a bit weird, because those who wrote it were borrowing a little from Latin grammar, but I think it's quite clear that "militia" is supposed to stand in stark contrast to "the People".

OK, there. Since when did you become such a condecending prick? All the FF were "like" TJ? You are a smart guy and I have had much respect for your thoughts and ideals, but when I question your "interpretation" of something I get "hints" about English grammar? Nice job.
It was quite clear I was not referring to just Thomas Jefferson. I was citing an example.
What comparison am I making? That the constitution and the amendments said that the military is evil? That is your analysis, not mine.
Actually, the Founding Fathers said, in many different places, how evil government was. They were, at their hearts, libertarians. Granted, they were libertarians only to white male property-owners, but that's more a commentary on how far we have come.
As far as your "thought experiment" goes... it seems you were only looking for someone to balk at the idea of flag burning.
Of course I was. Debate is most fun when you have people who disagree. Such as now; I'm enjoying this. I was quite surprised when I got a thread full of people who pretty much agreed.
It's all a matter of respect, and I take it you don't think my opinion deserves any.

Fair enough.
On the contrary, I value any opinion from anyone who is willing to give it. And for what it's worth, I'm not suggesting that those in the military do not deserve our thanks--quite the contrary, it is precisely because their job description is fairly evil that they do deserve thanks. I sure as hell don't have the testicular fortitude to be in any sort of military, unless I had a job in Washington, DC.

"To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff." —George Washington, Letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem (24 September 1776)



I have a feeling you took this quote out of context. he was probably speaking in literal tactical or stategic terms, not in grand ideas of a future US government.



"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress (8 January 1790).



This I agree with, and is something the Europeans can not seem to grasp.

I have a feeling you took this quote out of context. he was probably speaking in literal tactical or stategic terms, not in grand ideas of a future US government.
If it was taken out of context, don't blame me. I took it from Wikiquote.

Any dolt but Evakian who would not last 5 minutes away from his mommy or his keyboard.
True, one time she left me for six minutes and I didn't know how to get my hot pocket out of the microwave...I went to bed hungry.

Boohoo. :(

More like you couldn't find your ass with two hands and a map.

Then why does the Second Amendment tacitly say that the people should have guns in order to balance the power of the militia, i.e. the military? Not to mention the personal writings of folks like Thomas Jefferson.
Do you people not know the difference between military and militia? The militia are the people. Having the people armed as a potential militia balances the power of the military (and obviously the government).

You don't honestly believe that you can compare the present military to the continental army, do you? That's a terrible comparison, as that army was rebelling against something. Ours is not, and it would be far more apt to compare them to the redcoats.

Compare our modern day Army to the Recoats--the British Regulars?
How is there a comparison?
Is our Army fighting to control and maintain a government (Iraq) that was ours to begin with?

PS. Our Revolutionary Militias by and large got their butts beat in every single skirmish in which they went up against the British Army with the exception of one battle--Hannah's Cowpens. In that battle, they were mainly used as a diversionary force with the Continentals coming in later. We won that battle.

Compare our modern day Army to the Recoats--the British Regulars?
How is there a comparison?
Is our Army fighting to control and maintain a government (Iraq) that was ours to begin with?
This is dangerous territory Ren.
In 1776 killing a Redcoat would have been seen as doing a terrorist act,
yet less than 200 years later,the decendants of those rebels would defend the British Empire, explain that one.

Basically whoever is in charge makes the claim about who is a terrorist and who aint-its only a label.

This is dangerous territory Ren.
In 1776 killing a Redcoat would have been seen as doing a terrorist act,
yet less than 200 years later,the decendants of those rebels would defend the British Empire, explain that one.

Basically whoever is in charge makes the claim about who is a terrorist and who aint-its only a label.

I can only explain it by saying that we have always been closely allied with Mum--the British Empire. Sometimes that's been a good thing, sometimes not.
We fought the Revolution to break away but in truth nothing changed. Witness the Federalist party of post -Revolutionary times--- Our very government and laws are based upon theirs and the Magna Carta especially.

I still don't understand why Borg compared our Army in Iraq with Regulars tho. Are we killing wounded soliders? Driving civilians into the forest ( desert) to freeze and die?

Where is Banastre Tarleton??????????????

PS. Our Revolutionary Militias by and large got their butts beat in every single skirmish in which they went up against the British Army with the exception of one battle--Hannah's Cowpens. In that battle, they were mainly used as a diversionary force with the Continentals coming in later. We won that battle.

...and many militia members would "quit and go home" if the battle was not going well or they lost desire (a nice way of saying chickened out). That is why you need a trained military.

Then why does the Second Amendment tacitly say that the people should have guns in order to balance the power of the militia, i.e. the military? Not to mention the personal writings of folks like Thomas Jefferson.

Not to be rude, but what exactly did ole Massa Tom know first hand about the military?
Nothing.

...and many militia members would "quit and go home" if the battle was not going well or they lost desire (a nice way of saying chickened out). That is why you need a trained military.

Right--many had farms, livestock to take care of. I'm not blaming them. Their kin were starving.

I still don't understand why Borg compared our Army in Iraq with Regulars tho. Are we killing wounded soliders? Driving civilians into the forest ( desert) to freeze and die?

Where is Banastre Tarleton??????????????

...and don't forget, Usama Bin Laden starring as General LaFayette.;)

Hmmm--wonder who Nathan Hale is..................

Not to be rude, but what exactly did ole Massa Tom know first hand about the military?
Nothing.
Ah, the words of the Founding Fathers only come in handy when they fit your worldview, I see.

Is this becoming a trend?

We seem to be split into differet camps, those who feel the military is necessary to protect the country and the Constitution, those who feel the military is evil, those like Borghunter who are overly impressed with what they see as their suuperior intelligence and those like Evakian who are simply little snot noses who add little of substane to the conversation.

We are the only modern day country that has never had a military overthrow of our government. And we never will. The huge huge majority of our soldiers protect and abide by our Noble Constitution, taking as their example the standard set by the Great General Washington.

Huzzah to George, who was considered almost as a god by the common soldier, a favor not granted to Massa Tom, who was all talk, no action.

Ah, the words of the Founding Fathers only come in handy when they fit your worldview, I see.

Is this becoming a trend?

Exactly what is my worldview, Evak?

Here's a hint--my own Favorite founding father isn't Jefferson, in case that wasn't clear, but rather Nathanael Greene.

Who's yours and why?

We seem to be split into differet camps, those who feel the military is necessary to protect the country and the Constitution, those who feel the military is evil, those like Borghunter who are overly impressed with what they see as their suuperior intelligence and those like Evakian who are simply little snot noses who add little of substane to the conversation.
"those who feel the military is necessary to protect the country and the Constitution" Well this sure isn't a slanted way to present their position in favorable light. :rolleyes:

It's as if people who feel we spend too much attention and money on our military means they don't want to "protect the country and the Constitution" AT ALL. Nice way to spin it to make yourself feel superior and morally "right".

By the way, you too are overly impressed with your perceived "superior intelligence" and you tend to act like a little snot nose daily. I find it funny how you were hoping college would change me -- when it never changed you. But I wouldn't expect you to see that -- you're too blind.

We are the only modern day country that has never had a military overthrow of our government. And we never will.

That would require some degree of separation between the military and government to begin with.
Thats the whole point of having a civilian commander in chief.


The huge huge majority of our soldiers protect and abide by our Noble Constitution, taking as their example the standard set by the Great General Washington.

The vast majority of Americans, including our soldiers, do not know enough about the Constitution to know whether it is being violated... as evidenced by the last 8 years.


Huzzah to George, who was considered almost as a god by the common soldier, a favor not granted to Massa Tom, who was all talk, no action.

LOL! George was a great man, but the power of words should not to be underestimated. Good Tom was also a giant of a man in his own way, just as was Thomas Paine.

"I am a proud Liberal" - George Washington

"I hope to ever see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." - George Washington

LOL! George was a great man, but the power of words should not to be underestimated. Good Tom was also a giant of a man in his own way, just as was Thomas Paine.



He was also an inventor of many many things, few of which actually worked.

He also so abided by our Constitution that he attempted to have the First Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court , John Jay, tried for TREASON.
Yep, he was great --at turning a pretty phrase--like most politicians.

oops, my bad, not john Jay, but john Marshall, who presided over the trial of aaron burr.

"I am a proud Liberal" - George Washington
Am I going to have to make a point about classical liberalism again? Saying you were a liberal in the 1700s is roughly equivalent to saying that you're a libertarian now. Classical liberals believed in minimum government intrusion in the economy and in the sovereignty of a person over his own body (meaning that they didn't want the government making any laws preventing a person from harming themselves).

He was also an inventor of many many things, few of which actually worked.

How many things have you invented?


He also so abided by our Constitution that he attempted to have the First Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court , John Jay, tried for TREASON.

Which seemed tame after John Adam's Alien and Sedition Acts.


Yep, he was great --at turning a pretty phrase--like most politicians.

One has to actually grasp the meaning behind the "pretty phrases" to be able to fully appreciate them.

Am I going to have to make a point about classical liberalism again? ).

Yes. I missed the original point and you have been on a good roll lately with passionate postings.

Yes, one does have to actually understand the meaning of the phrase.

And without the soldiers to back them up, they would not count for anything.:bighug:

Well this sure isn't a slanted way to present their position in favorable light. :rolleyes:

It's as if people who feel we spend too much attention and money on our military means they don't want to "protect the country and the Constitution" AT ALL. Nice way to spin it to make yourself feel superior and morally "right".

By the way, you too are overly impressed with your perceived "superior intelligence" and you tend to act like a little snot nose daily. I find it funny how you were hoping college would change me -- when it never changed you. But I wouldn't expect you to see that -- you're too blind.


Dear Overdose,

I guess college didn't change you. You are still the same silly little ass you were before you enroled.

I never suggested those who dislike the military don't love their country or want to keep it safe, but only that they see the military as an evil and not necessary for that protection. As happens so frequently you have missed the entire thrust of what was posted.

Perhaps your time would be better spent listening to a Madona cd.

How many things have you invented?





I have actually invented 2 things. One is a combination knife and fork, the other is a revolving thingy to put in yr fridge so you don't have to spill crap all over your nice clean Frigidaire.
wow, somebody put my face on the nickel.

Am I going to have to make a point about classical liberalism again?

Apparently so.
:)


Saying you were a liberal in the 1700s is roughly equivalent to saying that you're a libertarian now. Classical liberals believed in minimum government intrusion in the economy and in the sovereignty of a person over his own body (meaning that they didn't want the government making any laws preventing a person from harming themselves).

You have to understand that back then, they had no concept of the Federal Government as we know it, or the kind of Middle Class that you and I grew up in, or the Multinational Corporations that now make up more than half of the largest 100 economies in the world. They saw Democratic government backed by public wealth as a balance to the power of Royalty and inherited power.

Is Evak gonna tell us who his favorite Founding Father is?????

Rendova,

Evakian's favorite Founding Father is Benedict Arnold. Oh, wait, he changed sides, didn't he. I guess that means Evakian has no favorite Founding Father.

You have to understand that back then, they had no concept of the Federal Government as we know it, or the kind of Middle Class that you and I grew up in, or the Multinational Corporations that now make up more than half of the largest 100 economies in the world. They saw Democratic government backed by public wealth as a balance to the power of Royalty and inherited power.
So? If you're suggesting that they would be modern liberals if they lived now, that's quite the shaky argument. What you're really proving is what my point was in the first place - it's silly to inject comments like that from the past into discussions today, because all the words mean different things.

I have actually invented 2 things. One is a combination knife and fork,

You invented the Knork?
Thats really cool!
http://www.maxiaids.com/ProdImages/16T009.jpg

the other is a revolving thingy to put in yr fridge so you don't have to spill crap all over your nice clean Frigidaire.

A Lazy Susan for the fridge? Thats cool. We had one of those in our fridge when I was a kid. You invented that? Must have been a long time ago.


wow, somebody put my face on the nickel.

Well, have you also helped found a nation?
Ever been an ambassador to anywhere?
Have you ever published anything?

Do something like that and then we can talk, but I don't know if you can jump right to the nickel.
I mean, geez, you have to free some slaves just to get on the penny!

Rendova,

Evakian's favorite Founding Father is Benedict Arnold. Oh, wait, he changed sides, didn't he. I guess that means Evakian has no favorite Founding Father.

I kinda have sympathy for ole Benedict. He was a great soldier from a fine old family. Too bad he turned traitor. If he hadn't, he'd be ranked right up there with George. He was actually a better General than George too.

He turned traitor because of his gold digging wife. His last request was that he be buried in his Continental uniform. He said his greatest regret was losing the friendship of General Washington.

He really is a tragic character.

Do something like that and then we can talk, but I don't know if you can jump right to the nickel.
I mean, geez, you have to free some slaves just to get on the penny!
:lolhit: Ren just has a sore spot for Jefferson. With her penchant for genealogy, I wouldn't be surprised if he got in an argument with one of her ancestors or something...

Favorites from the Revolutionary War period...

Though not a founding father... I have always been partial to Francis Marion. He DID successfully lead a group of rag-tag militia effectively (and the British absolutely abhorred the man and his tactics).

You invented the Knork?
Thats really cool!
http://www.maxiaids.com/ProdImages/16T009.jpg



A Lazy Susan for the fridge? Thats cool. We had one of those in our fridge when I was a kid. You invented that? Must have been a long time ago.



Well, have you also helped found a nation?
Ever been an ambassador to anywhere?
Have you ever published anything?



Those others stole my stuff!
Now i know how Nikola Tessla felt....

To answer your other questions

No, no, and no. But in all fairness, I'm also not a bankrupt spendthrift either. :D

So? If you're suggesting that they would be modern liberals if they lived now, that's quite the shaky argument.

If, hypothetically, I were to try to make the argument that all of them would be, you are right, that would be a very shaky argument.
However, it is extremely reasonable to assume that some to many of them would be.


What you're really proving is what my point was in the first place - it's silly to inject comments like that from the past into discussions today, because all the words mean different things.

I understand your point but liberals still share basic fundamental principles with our forefathers, like the principle of human rights and the principle of expanding freedom. If you read the writings of and about Thomas Paine, James Madison or Thomas Jefferson, you will see they shared many of the same values as today's liberals.

No, no, and no. But in all fairness, I'm also not a bankrupt spendthrift either. :D

Picking on Alexander Hamilton now, eh? :)

Favorites from the Revolutionary War period...

Though not a founding father... I have always been partial to Francis Marion. He DID successfully lead a group of rag-tag militia effectively (and the British absolutely abhorred the man and his tactics).

The "Swamp Fox" is SOOOO cool. My son loves him. They say the character of "Benjamin Martin" in the movie "The Patriot" is modeled on him, and we have a Marion County, Indiana, named for him.