Not even the schools?
13-year old not allowed to fly American flag at school.
- Thread starter Tiberius Jim
- Start date
Not even the schools?
Good man.
(shakes head) Now THAT is disgraceful. Surely they didn't get away with that?
More power to you all, sir!
I imagine there were a few suspensions and maybe even expulsions. But for practical purposes you can't really punish a mob.
Thanks for the encouragement btw, I was a little worried some people might not understand the sentiment.
Well now that seems extreme.
^Desperate times call for extreme measures.
It's not desperate times. Taking down a flag is not exactly a sign of the end of times.
There have been many flag burnings. During the Vietnam War it was common for protesters to burn the flag to symbolize the abandonment of American principles. Of course, people do it out of hatred, too, but free speech applies to everyone.
Wow. It's hard to decide which is creepier. Maybe the part where people break out the guns.
The First Amendment certainly does apply to children, because if it didn't there's a lot of other amendments that could be argued don't apply to them. The Amendments apply to everyone. And the government cannot cause you for "forfeit" your rights. Such and idea is an affront to the foundation and principles of this country about the whole thing where the government works for us.
No, it bores me.I'm just expressing my opinion. Call it impassioned confirmation.
It does not...bother you, does it?
What bothers me, on the other hand, is your assumption that since I found your comment unoriginal and nothing more than the regurgitated collection of talking points and vacuous slogans, I am somehow intent on taking away your right to express your opinion. Now, you can play all you want with ellipses, smiles and italics, but that's what you are (not particularly subtly) implying here. This idea, that disagreement is a threat to your freedom, and all those who disagree are a danger to your way of life, lies at the core of the culture of fear that is running amok in your country.
Civil war practising. Wow.
Rush and his friends live in constant, abject fear, driven to a religious, jingoistic frenzy but his namesake and other spokespersons, terrorized that "they" (whatever they are: Mexicans, Communists, Gays, whatever) will come to take away their freedoms, their money, their flag, their guns. It's always the end of times for them.
How many is "many"? I mean, the Vietnam War ended 35 years ago. How often does this happen today? Is it really a problem that rises to the level of needing a Constitutional Amendment? It seems more like an emotional/wedge kind of issue. A hot-button to get people fired up.
Exhibit A.
Oh, look, it's the other side of the coin. How're you doing?
I know the US flag means so much to me I'd be happy to bludgeon people for being disrespectful toward it.
Nah, I was just being snarky and sarcastic since the treatment of the American Flag borders on fanatical religious fervour from some quarters.
I am comforted that there are biker gangs and other centers of power, would it really be better to have nothing happen and a more controlling state in evidence? I am happy to see trouble lurks not far away from the illusion of state control that the government would have us all accept its will and be in deference to.
No, it bores me.I'm just expressing my opinion. Call it impassioned confirmation.
It does not...bother you, does it?
What bothers me, on the other hand, is your assumption that since I found your comment unoriginal and nothing more than the regurgitated collection of talking points and vacuous slogans, I am somehow intent on taking away your right to express your opinion. Now, you can play all you want with ellipses, smiles and italics, but that's what you are (not particularly subtly) implying here.
It should be obvious, sir, that I have implied nothing of the kind. This is a straw man in the lowest sense of the word.
Again, that is a straw man argument, sir. As I have made painfully clear, a case can be made for being allowed to burn the flag.
As I have also made clear, it is therefore hypocritical to punish a kid for proudly displaying the flag.
Kindly refrain from accusing me of what those on your side are guilty of. Such Al-Franken accusations, while not a "danger to my way of life", nonetheless spits in the face of public discourse.
Nor did I say that it was.
The fact that it is you, and not I, who engages in such ad hominem rhetoric on a regular basis proves that it is not I who is engaging in religious, jingoistic frenzy. Personal attacks is, to be frank, a sure sign of desperation.
Actually, quite a few posters have said that nationalism is wrong. It is also quite wrong when those of opposing opinion keep saying "there must be more to it than reported" for the ban to occur.
I am proud to know you. Many of my fellow veterans have fought and died for the flag: the SYMBOL of our nation and its freedoms.
No, in fact they aren't the same people. They're different schools with different students run by different administrators who banned the flag for different (albeit silly in both cases) reasons. And the people expressing an opinion here and elsewhere over both cases have no power to allow or forbid either example.
I'm pretty sure most people here have said they are "perfectly fine" (fine in the sense of thinking both are legal under the First Amendment) with both burning the flag and flying it on a bike. You recognize that not personally liking it when someone burns a flag and being willing to defend their right to do so are not mutually exclusive traits, right? Likewise, those people who don't personally like flying the flag and feel it's too nationalistic (I disagree) also understand that it's allowed under the First Amendment too. Your problem is in conflating unrelated arguments.
You have to look at it from their perspective. A lot of them come from countries where in their not too distant past excessive patriotism and nationalism combined with fear, resentment, and other issues led to some pretty horrible crimes being committed. Our country is not immune to the same issues, but we're fortunate that it has not been taken to quite the same extent. But we should always be aware of those problems and mindful of history so as not to make the same mistakes. The Americans who oppose overt patriotic displays are probably thinking about those kinds of issues as well. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make their perspective wrong, just different.
But none of that really has anything to do with the kid flying a flag from his bike. The school cited "safety concerns" for asking him to stop flying the flag, but didn't go into any details. The kid himself and his parents didn't mention any kind of problems from other kids harassing him, so I think it's just a silly overreaction. But so is thinking this is some kind of major national issue that is indicative of a movement to trample on American's right to display their patriotism.
It's not "made up" in the sense of saying that flag burning doesn't exist. No one is arguing that. Where the dispute lies is in thinking that a few people occasionally burning the flag represents some kind of challenge to American democracy or threat to patriotism that needs to be blown out of proportion in the press and legislated out of existence.
Things like the Flag Protection Act are anti-patriotic and in opposition to the principles this country was founded on while hiding behind a mask of patriotism. Saying "I love America so much that I'm going to trample on individual freedom of expression by banning flag burning" is not loving your country, it's saying that the people and principles of your country are too weak to withstand even the most basic protests against it.
Like I said, the school cited "safety concerns." Maybe they thought the kid might get beat up by other students who didn't like him flying the flag. I don't know without more details behind their actions. But since the kid and his parents didn't mention any kind of bullying going on over this, I think that the school probably just overreacted, as schools frequently do in fear of harm coming to the children or potential lawsuits. Just take a look at blanket zero tolerance policies, which have nothing to do with patriotism. There's no evidence of any movement to suppress patriotism or be overly PC here (which is another exaggerated issue), just over-protective school officials from what I can see.
More power to you all, sir!
So you're fine with threats of or actual violence by vigilantes against minors that could potentially result in death or serious brain trauma over a case of vandalism? Because it's the flag any unreasonable measures in its defense are justified? That's the only unpatriotic idea and serious problem in this thread.
1. The timing is irrelevant to it being hypocritical. He frequently ranted about personal responsibility, abhorrent behavior, ridding ourselves of addicts by sending them overseas, convicting and punishing people on drugs, and how too many whites are getting away with drug crimes. Yet, when the chance for him to take personal responsibility for his "abhorrent" drug crimes committed as a white man he took a deal to get out of admitting his guilt and suffering the legal consequences. He paid his way out of his problem as a rich white man. Do you think a poor black man would get the same treatment in that situation? Nor did he leave the country in disgrace as he suggests other drug addicts should do or should be forced to do.
2. Trying to create a significant distinction between legal drugs acquired illegally and illegal drugs is arbitrary at best. Oxycontin is more addictive and dangerous than a lot of illegal drugs, which is precisely why it's so carefully regulated. Yes, the doctors should absolutely be punished for their own crimes. But if Rush actually believed in personal responsibility and serving the time for his crimes, why did he weasel his way out of it?
3. So, he understands the plight of drug addicts, but is still just as uncompromising about the arbitrary legal distinction he's rationalized in his head, which presumably means he still thinks addicts deserve harsh prison sentences which often do nothing to help and can even exacerbate their addiction instead of receiving treatment? So, he didn't really learn or apply a thing about others, did he? He got off easy as a rich white man, and didn't really have to think about the conditions that give rise to illegal drug use in the inner city (for one example), conditions that would only get worse if many of his ideas for running the country came to fruition.
I don't really want to have a long argument about Rush Limbough, because he's not worth the time and it's off-topic. So I'll let you respond if you want and leave it at that. But the notification over a minor offhand comment about Limbough that was simply expressing an opinion supported by facts was one of the most ridiculous notifications I've seen in my time as a mod, and we've gotten some really dumb ones. We're not here to protect public figures who are not members of this board from mild insults, factual or not. We might as well shut down all discussion on the board if that was the case. If a poster constantly makes false comments about someone or something in order to deliberately push people's buttons then that could constitute trolling, but that takes a long time, numerous offenses, and is hard to prove, which contrary to what some might think is usually a good thing.
ETA:
Yet you ignore the meaning of that symbol when you disagree with it. That symbol also represents the right to destroy it to express a grievance. Vandalizing someone else's American flag is a crime obviously, but then vigilantism, assault and battery (especially against minors), and brandishing a weapon as a threat are all more serious crimes then that which they're trying to prevent out of a false sense of patriotism.
Being a veteran then that means you took the Uniformed Services Oath of Office:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I'm pretty sure there's a couple of parts in the Constitution about freedom of speech and due process, is there not? Freedom of speech doesn't protect vandalism of other's property obviously, but you seem to be opposed to the legality of flag burning in general given the pride you've taken in someone willing to bludgeon teenagers over it.
Veterans died to protect the right to burn the flag too. You can't just protect the speech you agree with.
I know, long post so no one is going to read it because they don't really go for that sort of thing here. It's better than posting four or five separate posts in a row, though.
Last edited:
Really? You didn't? Then how should we interpret this exchange:
As I said, you can play as much as you want with ellipses and smilies, but it doesn't change the meaning of your words. I know you consider yourself some kind of master of debate because in 9th grade you learned how to ask rhetorical questions and put the emphasis on every other word, but it is a poor substitute for actual arguments.Rush Limborg said:I'm just expressing my opinion. Call it impassioned confirmation.iguana_tonante said:
It does not...bother you, does it?
And I said it before and I'll say it again: don't call me "sir". I'm not your father and I'm not an officer. If you are going to hide behind a façade of false "politeness" to pretend you are above actual debate, at least use the correct title and call me Doctor. But I'd rather have a conversation between adults instead of playing with words. Not that I have much faith in that happening.
I don't even know who "Al-Franken" is (I guess some kind of 12th-century Moorish historical figure, by the spelling you used), and I have no idea what is "my side" you are referring to.
What? You just did it.Nor did I say that it was.
Oh wait, you are gonna tell that you said "desperate times" instead of "end of times". Sure, keep playing with words instead of addressing the actual meaning.
It's true, in fact I despair for you. Also, since I'm definitively not jingoistic and even more definitively not religious, I think you should learn the meaning of words before using them.
I find it funny that a fan of Rush Limbaugh is saying that using personal attacks is "low."
Last edited:
Yeah, really. Then again, Rush Limbaugh is a raging hypocrite himself, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that his admirers would follow his example.
Then they fought and died for the wrong thing. Fighting for symbols is, frankly, stupid. Fighting for actual freedoms isn't.
And, to be perfectly honest, supporting a bunch of kids who want to thump a bunch of other folks for expressing the First spits all over what the First actually represents.
Similar threads
