13-year old not allowed to fly American flag at school.
- Thread starter Tiberius Jim
- Start date
Hamilton was the dominant element of Washington's administration, and he essentially wanted a carbon copy of Britain. And despite the efforts of Jefferson and his faction thats the direction we took.
But thats neither here nor there. My argument against publicly burning the flag is safety. There's no question that you have the right to do it, but if you do: you are scum.
Here and there. If you mean this genre of topic, I generally don't discuss politics. People on all sides of the political spectrum tend to shun me. Thats what happens when you're a pro-Palestinian pro-American social conservative and economic liberal. And a bunch of other things. It confuses people and makes them unsure of their own stances.
The 'aggressive nature' you're mentioning isn't about flag burning. Earlier I shared a contingency plan developed years ago by myself and friends to defend the flag from being ripped down by an angry mob.
If someone was burning a flag I'd walk over and ask him to stop. If he said 'no' I'd ask him why he's doing it. When he mentions disagreeing about policy I'll tell him that the message his action actually sends isn't what he thinks it does. If he won't be convinced I'll leave him in disgust.
Are you implying that telling someone exactly what they're doing is aggressive?
Go out on your street and light something on fire. Wave it around and yell. You will undoubtedly be stopped by law enforcement. You simply can't burn things on the street.
Consequences are natural limits. You can't say 'I'm going to kill the president' and not suffer consequences.
Nazis in Skokie. Just because you literally can do it doesn't mean you should. I've never disputed that people have a right to do it. But we also have proper conduct in public places. People have a responsibility to behave themselves even though it isn't a matter of law.
If it wasn't protected speech in the first place then you never had a legal right to do it.
I said that American citizens killing American soldiers for the enemy is treason. You decided to be an apologist.
Not really. It sounds like you tried to say that when the local government approves it, it isn't okay. Which makes no sense.
Show a picture of some guy burning an American flag and ask the public what message he's sending.
A. I hate America
B. I think our policy on environmental protection is in need of some overhaul, write to your congressman please.
C. I disagree with a specific policy of the government and would like your support to lobby them for change.
Their answer will be A.
Literally perhaps. But common sense and proper conduct dictate the actions I would take in public.
When you use it as a justification for military action against America then you're turning it into politics.
I'm not even going to start on that. The last thing we need is another political tangent.
Thank God for that!
Except that doesn't send the message 'we disagree with these policies' it sends the message 'we hate the United States of America.'
Please, please, please tell me you weren't attending the Rally to Restore Sanity?
Technically the Confederate Flag is domestic. But you do understand that we were at war? Our soldiers were being killed, and they were waving the enemy flag in our streets. Would you be equally nonchalant if 1944 saw the swastika being waved in our capitol while the stars and stripes are burned and stepped on?
For the love of God. Walk out the damn door and find a Vietnam vet. Ask him what happened when his flight landed in San Francisco and he walked out in his uniform.
Read a book, read memoirs, watch a documentary. Just get out from under the rock of historical ignorance.
Honest criticism is brought moderately in rational discussion where the issues are being discussed directly. Insanity is where extremes, vitriol, and lunatic behavior dominate. If you want to talk about global warming, then carry a sign that says something about global warming. If you want the war to end, hold a sign that says 'end the war.' The only message you send by burning our country's flag is that you have nothing but contempt for our flag.
Yes, I did. You didn't find anything objectionable about killing American soldiers, you approved of drugs, you approve of disrespect to the flag, you disapprove of common sense as a guideline for public conduct, and you seemed to give tacit approval to Mexican army incursions.
While my summary might have been facetious, it was a condensed commentary on what you said.
Yep, you darn godless liberals! jk, I hate the right as much as the left. Everyone sucks equally in my eyes. XD
EDIT
Mea culpa. I can see that. It happens when I feel grossly outnumbered. It is pretty damn hard to keep up with all of you.
Last edited:
Uh, not even close. Hamilton wanted a President elected for life, for starters. Once that's been instituted, then I'll agree that we're following Hamilton on free speech issues. The area Hamilton was most influential was in interpretation of the commerce clause. He won, Jefferson lost, and we got a national bank.
That has nothing to do with James Madison and his proposal for the bill of rights that was voted on by the first congress (which Hamilton was not a part of either, he was in Washington's cabinet). If we followed Britain for free speech issues, we could get in trouble for saying negative things about the government even if they were true (see the Peter Zenger trial). You really need to do your homework better on this issue.
So your proposal is to ban all public burnings. If I could ensure the burning was done in an area that could handle the fire with no safety concerns (say a public fire pit) would that change your mind?
Then you just failed to understand any of it.
I did no such thing. I only stated that it wasn't terrorism nor was it illegal to do on the battelfield.
I approve of people's right to do to themselves what they want to do and believe that the war on drugs actually makes the drug problem worse not better.
I feel free speech is more important than your worship of a piece of cloth.
In your opinion.
Not at all. I just don't piss my pants over it.
A wildly inaccurate one.
Last edited:
I meant in general. You'll notice we were highly anti-French for quite a while. I never said we actually were a carbon copy. But we did wind up with a strong central government and weak states.
If you thought I meant it directly in a free speech genre, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.
And yes, if you could guarantee it would only be done in a safe and fixed location then I could accept it.
Au contraire. If I did misunderstand what you said it would likely be a gap between what you meant and what you said, followed by a gap between what your text said and how I connected that with the context.
Actually it is when the enemies are not clearly marked and uniformed combatants.
But I'll be content if you acknowledge that American citizens fighting for the enemy are committing treason.
You seem to think burning things is proper public conduct. Have I gotten the wrong impression?
You don't find the idea that our country is being invaded by another nation's military at all troubling?
I don't know about that. You confirmed a lot of these statements just now.
But every response you made about my post clearly showed no understanding of even the most basic concepts.
So the French resistance to Nazi occupation was illegal in your opinion? It is not only the right of a people to resist occupation it is their duty.
They are but flag burning isn't fighting for the enemy.
It depebds on what they are burning and why.
When our nation is actually invaded by another nation, I'll worry then.
Only if you are delusional.
Well, it is the subject of this thread, so you can see that's why I assumed you were talking about that.
OK, so you don't actually have a problem with people being legally allowed to burn American flags?
And I feel exactly the same way about you. Its clear there's a disconnect in here somewhere.
Its not a matter of opinion. It was illegal. Thats a matter of law. Was it moral? Yes. But the two don't always coincide.
Then we're in agreement.
I don't see how its ever appropriate conduct.
Foreign soldiers knowingly crossing into our country without our permission is technically an invasion.
You responded to each point in a manner where you lined up with each approximate point.
Yeah, I can see why. I just have a bad problem with discussing things generally when tangents come up.
You are well-informed on US history BTW.
Yes and no. I do have a problem with it, but I accept it as an inevitable fact of life. So if it must be done, it should be done in a controlled and limited manner.
Thanks, I was a history major. It's nice to know my degree is worth something 
There are time place and manner restrictions, and it's easier when you don't discriminate based on viewpoint. In that sense, you can limit flag burning to areas where it's not going to cause a significant risk of fire spreading. In my opinion, it's better to let the speech happen and then hold the protester accountable for the property damage, but I realize that's no comfort to whoever lost their house, so this is a compromise. I think if you're in a wide street and the flag isn't overly large, that would pass a fire safety requirement, though.
After that, just follow the philosophy of Voltaire. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Or, in this case, I may not agree with how you say it, but I'll defend your right to say it. In the end, we're better off tolerating people like this and rolling our eyes than banning them from doing this.
There are time place and manner restrictions, and it's easier when you don't discriminate based on viewpoint. In that sense, you can limit flag burning to areas where it's not going to cause a significant risk of fire spreading. In my opinion, it's better to let the speech happen and then hold the protester accountable for the property damage, but I realize that's no comfort to whoever lost their house, so this is a compromise. I think if you're in a wide street and the flag isn't overly large, that would pass a fire safety requirement, though.
After that, just follow the philosophy of Voltaire. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Or, in this case, I may not agree with how you say it, but I'll defend your right to say it. In the end, we're better off tolerating people like this and rolling our eyes than banning them from doing this.
Thanks, I was a history major. It's nice to know my degree is worth something
There are time place and manner restrictions, and it's easier when you don't discriminate based on viewpoint. In that sense, you can limit flag burning to areas where it's not going to cause a significant risk of fire spreading. In my opinion, it's better to let the speech happen and then hold the protester accountable for the property damage, but I realize that's no comfort to whoever lost their house, so this is a compromise. I think if you're in a wide street and the flag isn't overly large, that would pass a fire safety requirement, though.
After that, just follow the philosophy of Voltaire. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Or, in this case, I may not agree with how you say it, but I'll defend your right to say it. In the end, we're better off tolerating people like this and rolling our eyes than banning them from doing this.
I'm taking a year off from college, but I'm a history guy. Modern history is my favorite.
I do believe that we need some restrictions. For example, i think there should be an extra permit you need to request to conduct a burning.
I tend to oppose strategic "banning" as a form of control in any setting.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
So when I buy/own a flag it's public property?
This Thread is so nostalgic. I feel like it's 1971 and I'm talking to my Uncle Joe.
To be fair, that wasn't the argument. The argument is setting fire to things in public places creates a safety risk towards public property
You know--that's actually a sensible position. So I'm not sure why I find it so amusing. But I do.
No. But you can't set things on fire willy-nilly in public property.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Fair enough.
But it's great to live in a country that grants you the freedom to even destroy that which symbolizes or is associated with that freedom, right?
Perhaps. But I don't see how anyone who could do such a thing could feel that way.
I'm a Guardian personality, so its really hard for me sit idly by while such things go on.
Similar threads
