New Avatar

It is indeed against the law in this country to burn our flag ( unless done by an honorgaurd in the proper ceramony) fly ANY OTHER flag Higher than our own, and many others.
Click to expand...

The "rules" set forth in the United States Flag Code are not laws, they are simply guidelines (suggestions) for treating the flag with respect. Such a law as passed by the Congress could not exist, as it would be directly contradictory to the modern understanding of the First Amendment, which concludes that expression is covered under the free speech provision. That's why whenever the 'flag burning' debate appears, it take the form of demanding a constitutional ammendment -- that's the only way there could ever be a law that effects how you treat the flag (but no such ammendment exists now, nor is it likely ever to actually be passed).

The flag represents our unique ability to express whatever idea we want -- the fact that it can be desecrated with impunity is, in my mind, an ultimately positive concept: in order to disrespect the flag, you must make tacit admission about the greatness of the system that allows you to do so. You're not protesting anything by burning the flag - you're proving how free it makes you.

to be somewhat egoticious. Furthermore, while the US is "bringing freedoms to coutries that need'em" the government is chipping away at our own freedoms subtly. I find this a little weird, don't you? I'm saying this not in hopes of sparking a flame war, but rather to provide a more moderate perspective and maybe learn something myself.
Click to expand...

Eh, this is more generic internet arguing than it is a legitimate debate. Balancing freedom versus security goes back as far as civilization itself, and one of the things that makes the American system interesting is how it is built around a complex set of balances that allow it to swing both ways in an extraordinary manner -- mixing this with generic super-current political rhetoric is silly, as there's been no marked shift in either direction lately, no actual change in the system.
 
Lt.Death100, appologies, won't happen again.

LOAF, I agree with what you're saying however, I think my problem (which I left for the most part unstated in my prior comments) has more to do with the frequency and extent of the current administration's deceptions. I have little problem with slightly diminished privacy in exchange for a little more security. Again, my problem has to do with pushing the balance and then lying about it. That said, it seems like my comments earlier were underinformed and not terribly well thought out. I appologize for that.

I was intrigued by LOAF's comments about what flag-burning accomplishes. Not sure I'd seen it that way before.
 
A peom by Father Dennis Edward O'Brien "It is the Soldier" covers my thoughts
on flag burning and disrespect to the flag in general pretty well .
The American Legion has a fairly comprehesive site on Flag courtisey .
Very few things can cause a more heated and irrational debate than
showing the flag discourtisey .
Both sides of such a disscusion will be emotional , rarely rational .
It's a good way to get attention , and cause a lot a shouting and anger .
I don't belive it's the best way to express your views or convience others .
 
Hmm, I don't really get the "disgraced flag" or insult from this picture. Its the flag flying upside down...not on fire or adorning a toilet or something like that. To me it just appears some idiot tied it to the flagpole upside down...the picture is a testament to the stupidity of the gentleman who created it. (Or at least that's my invented backstory to it...having an imagination is fun).

As for the debate over the first amendment, I support the right to freedom of speech and the right to make controversial statements, however what's "good for the goose is good for the gander" so if someone wants to make a statement by burning a flag, etc no one better complain when others make "politically incorrect" statements about the person who burned the flag etc.
 
To me it just appears some idiot tied it to the flagpole upside down...the picture is a testament to the stupidity of the gentleman who created it. (Or at least that's my invented backstory to it...having an imagination is fun).
Click to expand...

The flag picture from his avatar is from an immigration protest at Montebello High School in southern California. I'm not sure how it makes much of an avatar, unless the original poster thinks the CIC has anything to do with immigration law.

As for the debate over the first amendment, I support the right to freedom of speech and the right to make controversial statements, however what's "good for the goose is good for the gander" so if someone wants to make a statement by burning a flag, etc no one better complain when others make "politically incorrect" statements about the person who burned the flag etc.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the great thing about it -- you then have as much right to complain about the people who are complaining about you as they do to then complain about how you're complaining about them for complaining about you for complaining in the first place. It's a widening circle that's protected by the highest law as far as it can progress.

LOAF, I agree with what you're saying however, I think my problem (which I left for the most part unstated in my prior comments) has more to do with the frequency and extent of the current administration's deceptions.
Click to expand...

Eh, again, you're just stuck in the middle of the ordinary political process. Each side yelling that the other is lying about something isn't anything unique. In terms of the larger debate, the things you're told to think about have almost nothing to do with whatever moral issue has been used to motivate you. All the arguing about the President pursuing a war in Iraq and wiretapping Americans and so forth isn't because the Democrats have some problem with war or because they feel there's been some terrible infringement of human rights -- it's because he hasn't involved congress. The balancing of power between the executive and the legislature under the constitution is the classic debate in American politics, and nearly everything here is part of that same knife-fight that's been going on for two hundred years.

Every administration ever is going to spend much of its time lying... I mean, that's the classic joke about campaign promises right there. From Lincoln insisting he won't interfere with slavery to FDR promising not to involve the country in World War 2, the president's job is not to tell us the truth (and there's plenty of negative ones, too, which somewhat compete with the idea that there's anything unique going on today -- from Reagan lying about supplying weapons to rebels to all that nonsense about Clinton).

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that much of the angry e-teen i-rhetoric about the current president has more to do with righteous indignation over the fact that he *doesn't* lie in the manner we've become accustomed to -- he's happy to insist he has the war power and can do whatever he wants, and is completely unapologetic about things people don't like.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Eh, again, you're just stuck in the middle of the ordinary political process. Each side yelling that the other is lying about something isn't anything unique. In terms of the larger debate, the things you're told to think about have almost nothing to do with whatever moral issue has been used to motivate you. All the arguing about the President pursuing a war in Iraq and wiretapping Americans and so forth isn't because the Democrats have some problem with war or because they feel there's been some terrible infringement of human rights -- it's because he hasn't involved congress. The balancing of power between the executive and the legislature under the constitution is the classic debate in American politics, and nearly everything here is part of that same knife-fight that's been going on for two hundred years.

Every administration ever is going to spend much of its time lying... I mean, that's the classic joke about campaign promises right there. From Lincoln insisting he won't interfere with slavery to FDR promising not to involve the country in World War 2, the president's job is not to tell us the truth (and there's plenty of negative ones, too, which somewhat compete with the idea that there's anything unique going on today -- from Reagan lying about supplying weapons to rebels to all that nonsense about Clinton).

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that much of the angry e-teen i-rhetoric about the current president has more to do with righteous indignation over the fact that he *doesn't* lie in the manner we've become accustomed to -- he's happy to insist he has the war power and can do whatever he wants, and is completely unapologetic about things people don't like.
Click to expand...


I think I would agree with that entire summary 100%. Every president for well over a century now have lied or "submerged" the truth in a multitude of ways. I think there is valid reasons for that as well but truly that is a different debate.

Despite the low current approval ratings for President Bush I think historians will prove to be very kind to him in the record books.
 
The reason I find this picture of the flag irratating ,
is that the flag is to be flown inverted when the instalation that it is being flown
from is in dire need of assistance . (i.e. help now or we die)
The fact that it is displayed in this manner to "make a point" is disrespectful .
I wish I could belive it was an idiotic mistake , but I don't.
Whoever raised the flag in this manner knew flag protocal ,
and did it diliberately .
 
Wait... so we shouldn't complain about stuff that isn't good because it's been that way for a long time? :confused:
 
No , we should complain .
We should not say " it's never been this bad before ! " .
We should have an informed discussion .
 
Wait... so we shouldn't complain about stuff that isn't good because it's been that way for a long time?
Click to expand...

Well, if I had to address the masses I would say that we need to have a better grasp of the entire situation before we complain. Simply parroting one side's uneven rhetoric isn't nearly as smart as we've all decided it must be. Everyone who's running around screaming that this is the end of the world because Bush lied about the headline du jour needs to understand that they're being told to think that way for a reason other than they assume. If, with that understood and the I'm-raging-against-the-machine! element taken away, then I think continuing such an argument is completely noble.

I'm certainly all for the right to complain (that was, after all, implicity in my comments on the flag...) -- but I think it's sad that we have college students raging about impeaching the president when the actual argument they're being used as pawns towards is about constitutional issues that they don't know about or understand.

Keep in mind some of my examples in the post you're replying to, though - are we worse off for the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves and that FDR was trying to figure out how to enter the war with Germany? The blanked idea that "THEY LIED!" means something is wrong is a terribly unrealistic, simplified way to look at things - it is very frequently absolutely necessary to distort the truth in order to pursue some other goal, and this is something we've tacitly acknowledged as part of the executive's job for as long as the country has been around.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Well, if I had to address the masses I would say that we need to have a better grasp of the entire situation before we complain. Simply parroting one side's uneven rhetoric isn't nearly as smart as we've all decided it must be. Everyone who's running around screaming that this is the end of the world because Bush lied about the headline du jour needs to understand that they're being told to think that way for a reason other than they assume. If, with that understood and the I'm-raging-against-the-machine! element taken away, then I think continuing such an argument is completely noble.

I'm certainly all for the right to complain (that was, after all, implicity in my comments on the flag...) -- but I think it's sad that we have college students raging about impeaching the president when the actual argument they're being used as pawns towards is about constitutional issues that they don't know about or understand.

Keep in mind some of my examples in the post you're replying to, though - are we worse off for the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves and that FDR was trying to figure out how to enter the war with Germany? The blanked idea that "THEY LIED!" means something is wrong is a terribly unrealistic, simplified way to look at things - it is very frequently absolutely necessary to distort the truth in order to pursue some other goal, and this is something we've tacitly acknowledged as part of the executive's job for as long as the country has been around.
Click to expand...


Well said, if you haven't already, you could certainly expand this post into an excellent college paper...
 
Maj.Striker said:
Well said, if you haven't already, you could certainly expand this post into an excellent college paper...
Click to expand...

That applies to almost everything LOAF says.

Cargoman said:
Very few things can cause a more heated and irrational debate than
showing the flag discourtisey .
Both sides of such a disscusion will be emotional , rarely rational .
It's a good way to get attention , and cause a lot a shouting and anger .
Click to expand...

Which all makes it a pretty awful internet discussion to start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top