Quote:

---

Legion gives tattered flags a proper disposal
By JOY LEIKER

MIDDLETOWN - {A} flag can only fly for so long, and last weekend Moore was part of a small crowd that gathered at the American Legion Post to retire hundreds of flags in a heap of flames including the three worn and ragged flags that had flown at his own home. Such ceremonies are common at American Legion posts around the country, and the veterans group even has a protocol for the event... Flags both big and small... were piled one-by-one on top of a metal, fire-safe base. Layers of flags were soaked in diesel fuel, ensuring a quick burn after the flame was lit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Can they find more ways to piss away money and time?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gtman8503:
Back to flag-burning now. I don't actually think that we need a Constitutional Amendment to deal with flag burning. Couldn't current hate-speech legislation could apply to this situation? As much as I hate hate-speech laws, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And, after all, it's illegal to say "I'm going to kill the President". To me, it's far more hateful and just as threatening to burn a flag. Presidents come and go...the values that America stands for, and the flag represents, will last for as long as there are people yearning to be free.

---

Quote:

---

I can't recall American flags being burned in the US recently.

---

Quote:

---

You see what you see. Absent an articulated intent, you are making an assumption based on little or no data. If I choose to burn a flag to demonstrate my disrespect for Tom Delay and his fundraising tactics, then what you are "hearing" is not originating in what I'm "saying".

---

Quote:

---

Unless you can categorically say that EVERYTHING in this country is perfect, (NO innocent people jailed ever, complete equity in taxation, never got a ticket when you weren't speeding) and will ALWAYS be so, perhaps we'd better keep our options open with regard to expressing our displeasure. You never know when we're going to need them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Who remembers the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa (in a dream) is going to marry the British guy? He turns up at their house and through a series of unfortunate events, they display a burning British flag, stamp on it then cover it with manure. As a Brit, I laughed myself stupid. However, under the new constitution, if they did the same exact joke but with the American flag, the network, the writers and the producers would probably be arrested.

Arrest without trial or procedure; flag burning laws; citizens told their property can be taken from them by corporations. What are you, about the 20th most free country in the world now?

---

Quote:

---

When you say, "you see what you see", you're absolutely correct. But I think you're forgetting that the same message applies to yourself. Regardless of the message you're intending to send, when you burn a flag, you're saying you want to destroy America. That's the way it's interpereted by millions of people in this country, including everyone who's campaigning for the Amendment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Hmm. That's a survey done by an American organisation which seems to view "free" as wherever America is currently standing. I wonder if they would have also have consider the America of "separate but equal" also "free".

This amendment is going into the Senate, not because of whether it is going to pass or not but because the Republicans can make the Democrats look bad for opposing it. Unfortunately, given the current hunger to win (and Pres in waiting Hilary's lack of 1st amendment concerns when it comes to, say, video games) it might pass regardless.

Where are all these militias that kept promising to attack to keep America free? What are they waiting for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gtman8503:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Hmm. That's a survey done by an American organisation which seems to view "free" as wherever America is currently standing. I wonder if they would have also have consider the America of "separate but equal" also "free".

This amendment is going into the Senate, not because of whether it is going to pass or not but because the Republicans can make the Democrats look bad for opposing it. Unfortunately, given the current hunger to win (and Pres in waiting Hilary's lack of 1st amendment concerns when it comes to, say, video games) it might pass regardless.

Where are all these militias that kept promising to attack to keep America free? What are they waiting for?

---

According to Freedomhouse.org:

"Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded over sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right.

"Over the years, Freedom House has been at the center of the struggle for freedom. It was an outspoken advocate of the Marshall Plan and NATO in the 1940s, of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of the Vietnam boat people in the 1970s, of Poland's Solidarity movement and the Filipino democratic opposition in the 1980s, and of the many democracies that have emerged around the world in the 1990s."

So, I'm assuming that, since it supported the civil rights movement, it would not have considered the "seperate but equal" America as free as the America of today. I can't find any old ratings of theirs however. If you can find some "freedom ratings" from some other nonpartisan organizations, be my guest. Give me a suvey by a British organization. The one I used just happened to be one of the first Google results I found.

As for militias "promising to attack to keep America free", I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Why not find a more productive way of venting your frustrations? You might end up convincing someone that you're right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Connorflynn:
be prepared to defend yourself. We can't be seen to say anything Pro-America without being fully prepared to be flamed.

---

Quote:

---

Context is irrelevent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You know, I didn't necessarily see this as a freedom of speech issue until I began reading the reasoning given by the supporters of the ammendment. They are very clear that what they want to squelch is the emotions and ideas expressed by burning the flag. They're not concerned, necessarily, with the repurcussions of that speech. They're not worried about the vandalism of it all or even that flag burners might incite violence. They are clearly focused on the offense of showing disrespect. Their attitude is succinctly summed up in the refrain -

"Sit down and shut up!"

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Woopee! So we're going to make the Flag the American version of the Quran, and get our panties all in a bunch if anyone burns it. WRONG!

I see the burning of the Flag as the highest symbol of our freedom. That our people have the right to destroy the very avatar of our country is an affirmation of our system of government. Taking this away is a BIG mistake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Just another cent or two's worth from my viewpoint.
perfessergee

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:


YES! For that matter, HELL YES! (and even AMEN!). Let me try and clarify it for those of you who have trouble reasoning: If you are not willing to defend (and I don't mean "tolerate" here folks, I mean stick your neck out and DEFEND, gorramit) the rights of those who want to say things that you absolutely despise, then you cannot logically or morally defend your own rights to speak up for what you believe. Anything less is sheer blind demagoguery, and is morally bankrupt and itself despicable. If you can't understand that defending the rights of others to speak doesn't mean that you agree with their viewpoint, then please go back to kindergarten and start to re-educate yourself about the ethics of the playground during recess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This sudden love for all things “freedom of speech” is nice and all, but in order for freedom of speech to be a real thing, it must exist independent of burning the flag. Please forgive my cynicism, but I remember using the same arguments many of you are now using to argue against hate-speech, speech-codes and to a certain degree hate-crimes during the Clinton Administration. If we should have the right to burn the flag, shouldn’t we also have the right to burn a cross?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yes.

But if burning a cross, or a flag, incites a riot the gets people killed, you've committed a crime. If it targets specific individuals or groups for persecution, it's wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
... Those who see this as a limitation of their freedom of speech? They weren't going to vote Republican anyway plus it gets to keep the Democrats painted as the party who are "anti-America".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
I don't know. How many Republicans here support the amendment/support the Republican party pushing the amendment?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
I don't agree with the principle of the amendment, it's just political theater, both sides do it, if not this subject then something else.
The democrats will use it to fire up their base proclaiming yet again that the republicans are evil incarnate, somehow making yet another Bushhitler comparison.
The republicans will use it to fire up their base portraying the dems as america hating commie bastards.
Unless I'm mistaken this is the fifth or sixth time this has been proposed and it eventually will be again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're right, of course. This kind of idiocy is why I can't understand why people support either of the major parties. Do you people just like getting conned?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're right, of course. This kind of idiocy is why I can't understand why people support either of the major parties. Do you people just like getting conned?

---

No one's being conned, the tactic, if not the issue has been around forever.

---