US House passes anti-flag desecration measure

[uflnuceng]

besides, I take comfort in knowing the folks who burn the flag have problems that go deeper.

Yeah... mental issues.

[Rob]

I personally can't see how it will change anything. I mean if you dont agree with something, it makes a lot more sense (to me anyways) to actually attempt to change it. But I guess there's those folks who do everything the can, like sodomy in Arkansas...

[Matt86es]

I concur with those who think the flag burning hippies should end up in jail. Lat time I checked we live in the best country in the world. With the best living conditions, the most opportunity. Why do you think we have an illegal immigrant problem? I dont see other countries sending American citizens back to the US all that often. The flag represents our country and all that it stands for. You dont like shut the fuck up and deal with it or get the hell out of here and move to Canada

Yes, but does it make sense to elevate a symbol of freedom to a place that actually infringes on the very freedoms that it is supposed to stand for?

[Rob]

does taxing the rich for being successful in an economy based on success make sense? Does screaming about Gitmo from one side of the mouth and 'supporting' our combat troops out of the other make sense?

Hell no, lots of shit our gov't does is screwy. This is one of them. Let me reiterate, this is a minor, trivial issue. There are much bigger, more important things to get upset about.

[AdironRider]

What "freedom" does this bill infringe? Its not free speech, cause the bill still allows you to say whatever the hell you want about the country. Frankly this bill does nothing to inhibit any freedom outlined in the constitution.

[Rob]

the proponents of flag burning (if you want to call them that) say that flag burning is a form of expression, therefore deserving of the same protections as religious, media, assembly, etc.

[Matt86es]

dave has it right. besides, I take comfort in knowing the folks who burn the flag have problems that go deeper. But its a free country, unless a developer wants your land....

True, I hope that someone makes a big deal about that last one. The fact that if someone wants to build a mall you have to hand over your land is ridiculous and 200 years ago a man would have died defending his land before letting the govt/big bizzness take it over.

[Rob]

3 years ago, Congressional Committees would already be in emergency session over it. Now? Man there is so much political turmoil (at a point where we dont need it...), I just don't know. If the Republicans, the waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles ass "majority" they are can't man up and get what they want with nominations or the enviro bill, I just dont know what can be done about this ruling.

See, in our system of checks and balances, SC Justice nominations are one of the checks on the SC's power, which is why filibustering judge nominations (nominations mind you, not appointments...) is so ridiculous. THe judges W. is putting forth are the kind that wouldnt make this ruling, which by the way undercuts some of Congress's power. If certain members of our Distinguished Congress would pull their heads out of their asses, they'd realize this and things may be different.

[E30godz]

does taxing the rich for being successful in an economy based on success make sense? Does screaming about Gitmo from one side of the mouth and 'supporting' our combat troops out of the other make sense?

Hell no, lots of shit our gov't does is screwy. This is one of them. Let me reiterate, this is a minor, trivial issue. There are much bigger, more important things to get upset about.

Peter, get over yourself.

Rob, I'm not saying their arnt, but give me some examples?

I feel that govermental control over this is huge infringment on freedom of speech.

[E30godz]

and a conversation with a female about:

crZy x miabia3: heyyy ian
RogueSoccer: whats up
crZy x miabia3: not much, tryin to pack as light as i can lol you
RogueSoccer: arguing with a couple poeple about the right to burn flags
RogueSoccer: nothing exciting
crZy x miabia3: right to burn flagS?? you think its right?
RogueSoccer: not RIGHT or WRONG
RogueSoccer: THE right
RogueSoccer: as in first amendment
RogueSoccer: freedom of speech
crZy x miabia3: ohhhhh
crZy x miabia3: ok i was gonna say
RogueSoccer: critical reading skills.
RogueSoccer: i dont particularlly think i would burn a flag right now
RogueSoccer: but
RogueSoccer: ill be damned if its illegal to
crZy x miabia3: i mean i wouldn't say it should be illegal to burn a flag and i guess its anyones personal choice since it can mean something different to everyone else, but i personally think burning a flag is disrespectable
crZy x miabia3: but thats just my personal opinion
RogueSoccer: if a time came where the government was corrupt and evil , i would burn a flag in protest
RogueSoccer: somethjing liek that
RogueSoccer: people burned flags in protest of vietnam and korea
crZy x miabia3: well thats understandable
crZy x miabia3: ya i kno that but i was just giving you my personal choice..some ppl can burn flag as freedom or like you said, protest but thats not how i see it. idk, i think burning nething is rude..like books or flags or you know, yankees hat burnt by boston red sox fans..you kno
crZy x miabia3: lol
RogueSoccer: burning flags and burning books are completly different
RogueSoccer: and comparing it to sports is kind of silly
RogueSoccer: haha
crZy x miabia3: ya, its different but to me its the same meaning. idk, thas just how i feel. i would never be able to burn a flag or books in terms of protest or freedom
crZy x miabia3: well i kno, but i had to put that out there lol
RogueSoccer: its the same meaning?
RogueSoccer: are you serious?
Roguesoccer: showing your dislike of a baseball team and protesting a corrupt government ARE really similar now that you mention it..



(sigh)

[Rob]

i described something more important in this very thread ian. flag burning is a right that only a tiny group of people actually care about. The rest of the folks in the debate are using it as symbolic of all free speech rights. Non-GovCo institutions having eminent domain, bankrupt social security, a war we may or may not win, and the new apologetic trend in society are far great concerns of mine.

[AdironRider]

Free speech has nothing to do with flag burning, in that you could just say what you felt rather than burn it. Arson is a pyros method of free speech, but noone fights for them in the house. I know its an extreme example, but where do we draw the line?

[Rob]

Fife, I tend to agree with you. However, since this country's foundation, its been the trend to err on the side of liberty, if you get my drift.

[Kristuphir]

Free speech has nothing to do with flag burning, in that you could just say what you felt rather than burn it. Arson is a pyros method of free speech, but noone fights for them in the house. I know its an extreme example, but where do we draw the line?

Arson hurts people, kills them, takes away their property. Flag burning just pisses them off. That's the line. Piss you off? Too fucking bad. Hurt you? That's another story...

And yeah, the ED case is way fucking scarier. And people already did make a big fuss about it - that's why it went to the Supreme Court. And then it got decided the way it did, and THAT will hurt people, piss them off, AND take away their property.

And by the way, it's probably shit like this that causes those people to burn flags, although I certainly think there are more intelligent, more useful, and less pointlessly incendiary, no pun intended, methods of protest...

[BS87]

Free speech has nothing to do with flag burning, in that you could just say what you felt rather than burn it. Arson is a pyros method of free speech, but noone fights for them in the house. I know its an extreme example, but where do we draw the line?

Worst example ever. That's like saying since i have the right to bare arms, i have the right to fire in random directions when i feel like it, to "express myself"