PDA

View Full Version : Angry Veterain Speaks out



Kalanth
10-04-2007, 11:36 AM
At a Vet I agree completly with this mans actions, and believe the only ones who should be charged are the ones that were flying the flag illegally in the first place.

http://infowars.net/articles/october2007/031007Flag.htm

Borrigain
10-04-2007, 12:06 PM
As another Army vet, I completely agree with his actions and your sentiments as well Kal.

This is the kind of nonsense that pushes me farther from supporting any type of reform, and closer to "you want to be Mexico, then GO TO Mexico".

Disgusted,
Borr.

P.S. And if the store owner presses charges, I would make sure to bug the DA until he pukes about pressing charges on the store owner.

Impaqt
10-04-2007, 12:18 PM
From the story, they store owner was never given the opertunity to correct the infraction. I certainly agree that another flag should never be flown above ours, but I cannot condone how the illegal activity was corected.

Being a vet does not give you the right to be a vigilante... no matter what the crime being committed.

Correcting an illegal act with another illegal act goes against the Constitution.

A Soldier should follow the proper channels.

Now... If there Was an attempt to legally rectify the situation that wasnt reported.. I certainly support his decision. ANd I would expect that he would face the consequences.

Mad_Bombardier
10-04-2007, 12:20 PM
From the story, they store owner was never given the opertunity to correct the infraction. I certainly agree that another flag should never be flown above ours, but I cannot condone how the illegal activity was corected.

Being a vet does not give you the right to be a vigilante... no matter what the crime being committed.

Correcting an illegal act with another illegal act goes against the Constitution.

A Soldier should follow the proper channels.

Now... If there Was an attempt to legally rectify the situation that wasnt reported.. I certainly support his decision. And I would expect that he would face the consequences.Wonderfully level-headed and insightful, Impaqt. :)

Cupcake
10-04-2007, 12:24 PM
Wonderfully level-headed and insightful, Impaqt. :)

I agree since we dont have all the information.

Kalanth
10-04-2007, 12:29 PM
If you take a second listen to the first half you will note that the store had been reported for the flag. I don't know if it was to authorities (or if the authorities would even care), but I do know it was reported.

You are right, proper channels and all, but on the flip side some things would never change without the examples of the extreme (Civil Rights movement for example).

Strakeln
10-04-2007, 12:37 PM
I can't believe we still have laws like this. Fortunately, our police force is often reluctant to enforce ridiculous, outdated, or otherwise foolish laws/policies (sodomy being one the the better examples).

I see this law as a severe violation of the freedom of speech. Legislated patriotism is anything but patriotic.

I mean no disrespect to the veterans and active members of the military, I simply believe that this old fool is going against one of the biggest things our servicemen and women have fought and died for.

Edit: it took me a while to figure it out, but waaay down this page Prinstoni says that I insult the OP in this post. I think he's referring to the "old fool" part... for clarity's sake, I am referring to the guy who took the flag down in the link, not the OP. Sorry for any confusion.

Prinstoni
10-04-2007, 12:41 PM
There were alternative means by which to deal with this, and I think this vet opened a can of worms. The media was already there and would have brought attention to this. The situation would have been remidied in a couple of days. This happened in Fl, not too long ago.

I would have at least first told the owner it was against the law and he needed to take down that mexican flag. Of course that probably wouldn't have meant anything because the store owner probably doesn't speak English.

However, I am disgusted at the fact that a foreigner would go on US soil and place a foreign flag above it. If they punish the vet they need to also punish the store owner (petty theft vs felony by the way).

Prinstoni
10-04-2007, 12:45 PM
I can't believe we still have laws like this. Fortunately, our police force is often reluctant to enforce ridiculous, outdated, or otherwise foolish laws/policies (sodomy being on the the better examples).

I see this law as a severe violation of the freedom of speech. Legislated patriotism is anything but patriotic.

I mean no disrespect to the veterans and active members of the military, I simply believe that this old fool is going against one of the biggest things our servicemen and women have fought and died for.

This is the problem with USA, uneducated, unpatriotic, people have no love for this country. I bet you will be voting for another 8 years of the Clinton administration, so we can go bomb more Catholic countries.

Tous
10-04-2007, 03:58 PM
The American flag should be venerated above all others in the united states. That flag is the symbol of our rights and a memorial to all that have given their life, limb and years of thier life to defend those rights.

A ten minute warning would have been sufficiant time for him to correct hie error. Any longer and I would have done the same.

Strakeln
10-04-2007, 04:16 PM
This is the problem with USA, uneducated, unpatriotic, people have no love for this country. I bet you will be voting for another 8 years of the Clinton administration, so we can go bomb more Catholic countries.Care to compare degrees? I'm a far cry from uneducated, and an even further cry from unpatriotic.

Past experience has shown that those who resort to attacks instead of discussion have nothing to back up their opinions. Thanks for keeping that trend alive, bud. Now go back into whatever hole you crawled out of. When you have something valid to contribute to the discussion, perhaps someone will be willing to listen to you. Of course, if you still reek of troll, I doubt anyone will.


The American flag should be venerated above all others in the united states.Agreed.


That flag is the symbol of our rights and a memorial to all that have given their life, limb and years of thier life to defend those rights.The flag is the symbol, the actions of the shop owner are the actual exercise of the very rights you speak of. Which is more important - that which symbolizes the rights, or the rights themselves? I argue the latter.

mocat
10-04-2007, 04:21 PM
Wow.

DDO and politics clearly do not mix.

But.... I'll wade in anyways. :rolleyes: :D

This man was clearly outraged by an outrageous situation.
Completely understandable.
That however does not make it right to condone illegal actions.

I think both parties should be charged for crimes committed, and then the charges should be stayed.

That way, everyone learns a lesson, and no one is permanently affected.

While this situation was regretable from both parties, no one was harmed, no property lost (I know the flag was taken, but you know what I mean), and hopefully everyone will learn something.

You know, as a foreigner, you could tell me it's none of my business, but I would like to say that despite all of it's warts, the US is looked at by many around the world as one of the last bastions of true freedom and a pillar of reason, rights, due process, and justice.

Let the light of the US shine on this situation. Don't let over-reaction and the lynch mob mentality cloud the 'fair treatment and due process for all' reputation that so many of you have fought and died for.

Just the opinion of someone who's on the outside looking in.

I'm not looking for a fight, just the opportunity to express my thoughts.

Thank you.

Darkwolf
10-04-2007, 04:41 PM
I can't believe we still have laws like this. Fortunately, our police force is often reluctant to enforce ridiculous, outdated, or otherwise foolish laws/policies (sodomy being one the the better examples).

I see this law as a severe violation of the freedom of speech. Legislated patriotism is anything but patriotic.

I mean no disrespect to the veterans and active members of the military, I simply believe that this old fool is going against one of the biggest things our servicemen and women have fought and died for.

Flag protocols are nearly universally observed. A nations flag is always flown at the highest elevation within it's own country. When flown at the same height as others the nations flag is always to it's own right. (Your far left as you stand looking from the primary view point.)

'Freedom of speech' does NOT mean freedom to break federal laws. No, this Vet probably did not handle the situation correctly, but at best he committed a minor theft, perhaps vandalism. Meh.


Mocat pretty much nailed it. I thinkI can agree with everything he said.

Strakeln
10-04-2007, 04:41 PM
DDO and politics clearly do not mix.Politics have a tendancy to not mix well with anything. :o


Let the light of the US shine on this situation. Don't let over-reaction and the lynch mob mentality cloud the 'fair treatment and due process for all' reputation that so many of you have fought and died for.You know, I actually kind of hope that the police do decide to charge the shop owner, and I hope the owner is a full US citizen. Why? Because I'm fairly certain it would result in this law being tossed out or declared unconstitutional, just like a lot of other laws that are past their (figurative) expiration date.

Fortunately for us, the founding fathers put the final vote of the law into the hands of the people (juror nullification). So lawmakers can pass whatever laws they want, but without the support of the people, enforcing those laws will be difficult if not impossible. Nowadays, we see a process similar to juror nullification being exercised in advance of any charges... I call it "officer nullification". For a multitude of reasons - from personal beliefs to probability of conviction - police officers will pre-emptively nullify a law by refusing to arrest and charge people under it. There are countless examples of this - ever been pulled over, but then driven away without a ticket?

Strakeln
10-04-2007, 04:53 PM
Flag protocols are nearly universally observed. A nations flag is always flown at the highest elevation within it's own country. When flown at the same height as others the nations flag is always to it's own right. (Your far left as you stand looking from the primary view point.)

'Freedom of speech' does NOT mean freedom to break federal laws. No, this Vet probably did not handle the situation correctly, but at best he committed a minor theft, perhaps vandalism. Meh.Note I'm not saying flag protocols themselves are wrong, but I am saying that laws to enforce them are.

You are correct that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to break the law. Unfortunately, the only way to challenge said laws is to break them and be charged under them. As such, I would argue that it is the responsibility of each patriotic citizen to break laws that should not exist. I don't necessarily recommend doing so, however... especially since it's pretty difficult to determine with absolute certianity which laws should not exist.

Someone above mentioned that this is a felony... I find that hard to believe, but let's say that it is. Consider the punishment and lifelong restricted rights that we tag onto convicted felons: can't vote, can't own firearms, can't get meaningful employment, so on and so forth. Without even considering the "normal" (jailtime/probation) punishment, does anyone really think that the punishment fits the crime?

Let me suggest a more appropriate way for this to be handled: first, there should not be laws that force patriotism and stifle dissent. Instead, when someone (purposely) hangs another flag above the U.S. flag, the customers offended by such action should boycott the store. People from out of the area should write the owner some letters explaining to him why they feel it is important for him to display the flag in the defined manner.

Tous
10-04-2007, 07:30 PM
The flag is the symbol, the actions of the shop owner are the actual exercise of the very rights you speak of. Which is more important - that which symbolizes the rights, or the rights themselves? I argue the latter.

You have a valid point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere which it is. Both men stepped over the line of the rule of written laws.
Considering the state of our nation, I choose patriotism and side with the veteran.:)

Alavatar
10-04-2007, 07:41 PM
You know, I actually kind of hope that the police do decide to charge the shop owner, and I hope the owner is a full US citizen. Why? Because I'm fairly certain it would result in this law being tossed out or declared unconstitutional, just like a lot of other laws that are past their (figurative) expiration date.



I am far from what someone might term "patriotic", but I do believe that a country's flag should be above all other flags in the country in which it represents.

Think about it this way: If there was no law prohibiting having a foreign flag flown above the US flag what would happen? The person is not breaking any laws by flying the foreign flag higher then the US flag, but I guarantee that there would be a rabid mob of patriots that would enforce their concept of justice in lieu of the police force.

By having a law that prohibits flying a foreign flag above the US flag we can instead ask the law enforcement to take care of the situation. This results in less vandalism, less violence, and less chaos/anarchy. Granted, there will still be some anomolies and inconsistancies (this is a perfect example) but for the most part this law helps maintain order.

I would much rather see a policeman take down the flag then see a couple people take it into their own hands. Remember, there are many patriotic people in the US and a large quantity of veterens that prefer action to process. By not having a city, state, or federal mandate these patriots might be more prone to take matters into their own hands which could grow into much bigger problems.

What is worse? Having a 'stupid' law? Or having citizens take 'justice' into their own hands?

Litz
10-04-2007, 07:52 PM
In many parts of the world such an action by the flag raisers would be answered by death. Thes offenders rely on our sense of humanity and good will to get away with stuff as a joke.. I'm a veteran too, but I don't think I have to be to realize and feel that the flag needed to go and the people who put it up educated what was wrong, just incase they are idiots..

Kalanth
10-04-2007, 08:16 PM
Someone above mentioned that this is a felony... I find that hard to believe, but let's say that it is. Consider the punishment and lifelong restricted rights that we tag onto convicted felons: can't vote, can't own firearms, can't get meaningful employment, so on and so forth. Without even considering the "normal" (jailtime/probation) punishment, does anyone really think that the punishment fits the crime?

Yes, this is a federal law and would be a felony if violated.

Here are your protocals for display of a flag, per Order Code RL30243 The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions:
(Last updated July 5th, 2007)

§ 7. Position and Manner of Display.

The flag, when carried in a procession with another flag or flags, should be either on the marching right; that is, the flag’s own right, or, if there is a line of other flags, in front of the center of that line.

(a) The flag should not be displayed on a float in a parade except from a staff, or as provided in subsection (i) of this section.

(b) The flag should not be draped over the hood, top, sides, or back of a vehicle or of a railroad train or a boat. When the flag is displayed on a motorcar, the staff should be fixed firmly to the chassis or clamped to the right fender.

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to or in place of the flag of the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.

(d) The flag of the United States of America, when it is displayed with another flag against a wall from crossed staffs, should be on the right, the flag’s own right, and its staff should be in front of the staff of the other flag.

(e) The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of States or localities or
pennants of societies are grouped and displayed from staffs.

(f) When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the CRS-5 United States should be hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the United States flag’s right.

(g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from
separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal
size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.

(h) When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting
horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building,
the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union first, from the building.

(i) When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag’s own right, that is, to the observer’s left. When displayed in a window, the flag should be displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street.

(j) When the flag is displayed over the middle of the street, it should be suspended vertically with the union to the north in an east and west street or to the east in a north and south street.

(k) When used on a speaker’s platform, the flag, if displayed flat, should be
displayed above and behind the speaker. When displayed from a staff in a
church or public auditorium, the flag of the United States of America should
hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman’s or speaker’s right as he faces the audience. Any other flag so displayed should be placed on the left of the clergyman or speaker or to the right of the audience.

(l) The flag should form a distinctive feature of the ceremony of unveiling a statute or monument, but it should never be used as the covering for the statute or monument.

(m) The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. On Memorial Day, the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon only, then raised to the top of the staff. By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a state, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any state, territory, or possession of the United States or the death of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, territory, or possession of the United States, CRS-6 the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff, and the same authority is provided to the Mayor of the District of Columbia with respect to present or former officials of the District of Columbia and members of the Armed Forces from the District of Columbia. When the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, or the Mayor of the District of Columbia, issues a proclamation under the preceding sentence that the National flag be flown at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession or in the District of Columbia because of the death of a member of the Armed Forces, the National flag flown at any Federal installation or facility in the area covered by that proclamation shall be flown at half-staff consistent with that proclamation. The flag shall be flown at half-staff thirty days from the death of the President or a former President; ten days from the day of death of the Vice-President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice-President, or the Governor of a state, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress. The flag shall be flown at half-staff on Peace Officers Memorial Day, unless that day is also Armed Forces Day. As used in this subsection —

(1) The term “half-staff” means the position of the flag when it is one-half the distance between the top and bottom of the staff;

(2) the term “executive or military department” means any agency listed under Sections 101 and 102 of Title 5, United States
Code; and

(3) the term “Member of Congress” means a Senator, a Representative, a Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

(n) When the flag is used to cover a casket, it should be so placed that the union is at the head and over the left shoulder. The flag should not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground.

(o) When the flag is suspended across a corridor or lobby in a building with only one main entrance, it should be suspended vertically with the union of the flag to the observer’s left upon entering. If the building has more than one main entrance, the flag should be suspended vertically near the center of the corridor or lobby with the union to the north, when entrances are to the east and west or to the east when entrances are to the north and south. If there are entrances in more than two directions, the union should be to the east.

Falco_Easts
10-04-2007, 08:46 PM
While not an American myself I can understand the Vets actions and have similar feelings about the Aussie flag.
There is no excuse for disrespecting the flag of your country. While the shopowners actions might have been out of ignorance rather then actual lack of respect hopefully he has learned a lesson.
To those that talk about enforced patriotism, that law is more an enforcement of anti-patriosm. No one is forcing you to fly the flag. They are just saying if you do, it must be held in respect.

Strakeln
10-04-2007, 11:25 PM
I am far from what someone might term "patriotic", but I do believe that a country's flag should be above all other flags in the country in which it represents.

Think about it this way: If there was no law prohibiting having a foreign flag flown above the US flag what would happen? The person is not breaking any laws by flying the foreign flag higher then the US flag, but I guarantee that there would be a rabid mob of patriots that would enforce their concept of justice in lieu of the police force.

By having a law that prohibits flying a foreign flag above the US flag we can instead ask the law enforcement to take care of the situation. This results in less vandalism, less violence, and less chaos/anarchy. Granted, there will still be some anomolies and inconsistancies (this is a perfect example) but for the most part this law helps maintain order.

I would much rather see a policeman take down the flag then see a couple people take it into their own hands. Remember, there are many patriotic people in the US and a large quantity of veterens that prefer action to process. By not having a city, state, or federal mandate these patriots might be more prone to take matters into their own hands which could grow into much bigger problems.

What is worse? Having a 'stupid' law? Or having citizens take 'justice' into their own hands?This thread is getting pretty interesting!

I understand your point, Alavatar, and I think it makes sense. What you're saying is that for the greater good (less violence ala mob justice), we should put up with a 'stupid' law. Fair enough.

Is the threat of illegal behavior reason enough to restrict the rights of others? In many cases, the answer is a resounding "YES"... just stop by your local airport for a two-hour demonstration. But there has always been one exception, and that applies to the freedom of (responsible) expression. By saying "responsible", I'm leaving wiggle room for the old "yelling fire in a theater" example - an umbrella that our discussion does not fall under (imo).

Why must the freedom of expression be exempt from this restriction? Because that is a very slippery slope. One exception leads to another, which leads to another, so on and so forth.

The threat of illegal retaliation is not sufficient reason to justify a restriction on an individual's freedom of expression. For example, use of the 'N' word can result in all of the things you mention (mob justice). While it certainly demonstrates the user's considerable lack of class (among other things), should we outlaw use of the word?

Looking at it from the other direction, apply that argument to another case involving civil liberties: desegregation. The people of Little Rock, Arkansas had a problem with racially integrated schools. Not only were the people ready to unleash mob justice, they had the backing of the governor, who sent in the national guard to help with the beatdown. Instead of sending in the 101st to straighten things out, should we have let (state) government-supported segregation stand? (Note: I'm not trying to compare the enormity of desegregation to the flag discussion, I'm just taking the argument to the other extreme).

One final point: did having the law against other flags being placed higher than the US flag prevent mob justice in this case? Sure, the guy didn't get the tar beaten out of him, but he did have an illegal act or two (vandalism, theft) committed against him. So if a law restricting one's freedom of expression doesn't stop the very thing you say it is in place to prevent, should the law continue to exist?

Strakeln
10-04-2007, 11:29 PM
Yes, this is a federal law and would be a felony if violated. <snipped quoted text>I love internet quoting wars! Try this one on for size, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony)

The term felony is used in common law systems for very serious crimes, whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. This distinction is principally used in criminal law in the United States legal system, where the federal government generally considers a crime punishable by more than five days up to a year in prison to be a misdemeanor, while considering crimes punishable by greater than a year in prison to be felonies; crimes of five days or less in prison, or no prison at all, are considered infractions


In the United States, a felony is intended to be the higher category of criminal offenses, as distinct from a misdemeanor, which is intended to be the less serious category of offenses (although some states have done away with the felony/misdemeanor classification; for example, New Jersey designates offenses as first degree through fourth degree. A third degree offense is punishable by six months to eighteen months in jail. Some states also subdivide felonies into "classes", such as Class A through Class J or Class 1 through Class 7 felonies)


What is a felony and who commits one?

Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, some instances of drug possession (dependent on the jurisdiction, often possession over a certain weight, based on the type of drug, is held to indicate intent to sell or distribute), embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, possession of a pocket-knife on school property[1], rape, kidnapping, cannabis cultivation and fraud. A third offense for driving under the influence is also a felony in most states.

Your turn! :)

Edit - found a couple more that verfiy my doubt: http://ezinearticles.com/?Laws-Regarding-American-Flags&id=405898:

Any violation of the flag by way of printing, painting or placement would be deemed guilty and will be punished with a fine, not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both.

From what I can tell, the penalties for defamation/mutilation/improper display of the flag are determined by the state. However, any time severe penalties have been imposed, the Supreme Court strikes them down. Of note, all of those "severe penalties" were at or below the classification of misdemeanor - not one dared step into felony territory. More information can be found at http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html:

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

Alavatar
10-05-2007, 12:06 AM
This thread is getting pretty interesting!

I understand your point, Alavatar, and I think it makes sense. What you're saying is that for the greater good (less violence ala mob justice), we should put up with a 'stupid' law. Fair enough.

Is the threat of illegal behavior reason enough to restrict the rights of others? In many cases, the answer is a resounding "YES"... just stop by your local airport for a two-hour demonstration. But there has always been one exception, and that applies to the freedom of (responsible) expression. By saying "responsible", I'm leaving wiggle room for the old "yelling fire in a theater" example - an umbrella that our discussion does not fall under (imo).

Why must the freedom of expression be exempt from this restriction? Because that is a very slippery slope. One exception leads to another, which leads to another, so on and so forth.

The threat of illegal retaliation is not sufficient reason to justify a restriction on an individual's freedom of expression. For example, use of the 'N' word can result in all of the things you mention (mob justice). While it certainly demonstrates the user's considerable lack of class (among other things), should we outlaw use of the word?

Looking at it from the other direction, apply that argument to another case involving civil liberties: desegregation. The people of Little Rock, Arkansas had a problem with racially integrated schools. Not only were the people ready to unleash mob justice, they had the backing of the governor, who sent in the national guard to help with the beatdown. Instead of sending in the 101st to straighten things out, should we have let (state) government-supported segregation stand? (Note: I'm not trying to compare the enormity of desegregation to the flag discussion, I'm just taking the argument to the other extreme).

One final point: did having the law against other flags being placed higher than the US flag prevent mob justice in this case? Sure, the guy didn't get the tar beaten out of him, but he did have an illegal act or two (vandalism, theft) committed against him. So if a law restricting one's freedom of expression doesn't stop the very thing you say it is in place to prevent, should the law continue to exist?

Interesting indeed.

The freedom of (responsible) expression has been limited in the US for many years. Just look at public television, radio shows, video games, and more; all of which have to undergo either some sort of censorship or a rating system. While a lot of the censoring is governed primarily by private parties there are situations that are censored and monitored by the government, such as school (and lets not get back into the debate about teacher salaries again :)). There are limitations to what can be expressed and some of these limitations are necessary (including flying a foreign country flag above a native country flag).

You bring up a good point concerning the threat of violent reactions to saying the N-word. However, this is where it gets tricky. Has any single word ever been made illegal? No. The medium in which the words are used, the action associated with the speech, can be made illegal, but words themselves have never been illegal. Only actions have been outlawed.

When you were in school were you punished for saying means to someone? Or were you punished for hitting someone for saying mean things to you? (at least for me at my schools it was the latter) It's practically the same thing, except we are all a little older and a little more mature (and a little more conniving).

Also, there are indeed bad laws and inappropriate government action. Your example of Little Rock shows that well. I think you are trying to connect this to the action of the veteran that took down the flag? I'm not really sure where you were going with that example/point. Well, I don't agree with what the veteran did anyway. I think it would have been better for him to follow the proper process, which was to talk to the store owner, then appropriate law enforcement if the owner did not comply.

As to your final point: To question the existance of a law because it has been broken a few times or did not provide the desired result a few times would be to question all laws since they have all been broken to a degree. A few people here and there decided to take it into their own hands, but how many were disuaded from even performing the actual because of a threat of legal action?

Bah. It's late, I'm sick, I'm going to bed.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 12:20 AM
To those that talk about enforced patriotism, that law is more an enforcement of anti-patriosm. No one is forcing you to fly the flag. They are just saying if you do, it must be held in respect.That's a very reasonable point, and one with lots of precedent. After all, no one is forcing you to go out into the public, they just say that if you do, you must wear clothes!

But on the other hand, no one is forcing you (us, someone, whoever) to speak... would that make legislation banning disrespectful speech okay? (Note: there is a world of difference between libel and disrespectful speech). I know I'm acting like a Turbine Dev and applying blanket immunities here, but I think my point is clear: the line has to be drawn somewhere between wearing clothes and the freedom to speak in a disrespectful manner. I argue that it should fall a bit to the other side of hanging the mexican flag higher than the US flag.

So many people to respond to! Although I can't say I didn't know my position would be an unpopular one. Please don't mistake my opinion that freedom of expression trumps national flag hanging directions for the belief that doing what this shopowner did was a respectful, reasonable, or smart thing. If anything, the guy is clearly either ignorant (of our flag laws, which we were taught in grade school), foolish (not exactly a way to draw more business), or just plain stupid (for not thinking of the whuppin he might catch)... possibly all three. Regardless, I don't think there should be a law against it.

The thing is, lawmakers can legislate anything. In theory, they could outlaw anything... they could make it illegal to be under the age of 30, effective tomorrow. It is left up to everyone else - the Supreme Court, the executive branch, the judges, the DAs, the police, and in the end, the people - to determine the validity of whatever those silly congress-people come up with next. Fortunately (imo), many of these checks and balances have agreed with what I feel: the Supreme Court refuses to uphold anything more than a slap on the wrist for violations. The police are reluctant to do anything about a person hanging a flag at the improper height. And nobody is getting beat up or killed... so aside from the occasional flag theft and one of a thousand lingering relics of the law remains on the books, all is well.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 01:10 AM
Interesting indeed.Sorry, it's late so I gotta break up your post... lest I delve into another far-reaching point like Little Rock... :p


The freedom of (responsible) expression has been limited in the US for many years. Just look at public television, radio shows, video games, and more; all of which have to undergo either some sort of censorship or a rating system. While a lot of the censoring is governed primarily by private parties there are situations that are censored and monitored by the government, such as school (and lets not get back into the debate about teacher salaries again :)). There are limitations to what can be expressed and some of these limitations are necessary (including flying a foreign country flag above a native country flag).Ah-ha! That's where I remembered you from! The teacher salary forum hijack bonanza of '07! :D So Ziggy should be showing up soon, right?

Public television is similar to the point made by Falco: no one is forcing you to broadcast your TV show, so it had better be appropriate. I, of course, will compare it to wearing clothes outside. The problem with this one is that you have the ultimate trump card on the side of your argument: "It's for the kids!". Since public television is broadcast free of charge, and public television is part of our national security (hangover from the cold war), the government views televisions as essential - in a sense, non-voluntary. So for those channels drifting into our homes whether we like it or not, they had better be appropriate. Same goes for public radio. And public schools. I'm seeing a pattern here, and it involves the word "public".

Everything else, from cable TV to satellite radio to truly private education (home school may be the only one of these left), the responsible exercise of speech wins out.

I do agree that some of the restrictions you mention are necessary, but I fail to see how flying a foreign country flag above a native country flag qualifies as such. What makes it necessary? It certainly isn't to designate location. (Yes, I know it honors those who have suffered and/or died for my right to argue this until the wee hours of the night, but that is not the "necessary" thing to do... it is the right thing to do).



You bring up a good point concerning the threat of violent reactions to saying the N-word. However, this is where it gets tricky. Has any single word ever been made illegal? No. The medium in which the words are used, the action associated with the speech, can be made illegal, but words themselves have never been illegal. Only actions have been outlawed.Agreed, that was more of a way to present the argument in another light - by taking the stance too far.


When you were in school were you punished for saying means to someone? Or were you punished for hitting someone for saying mean things to you? (at least for me at my schools it was the latter) It's practically the same thing, except we are all a little older and a little more mature (and a little more conniving).It's not the same thing. Children are not full-fledged citizens and as such are not entitled to the full rights and privledges of citizenship. As a tradeoff, they're also not subject to the full responsibility of citizenship. Also, school, while compulsory, is handled in the "if you want to be here, you must behave as we tell you" (Falco's argument). So yeah, you could get into trouble for saying something mean, or hitting someone, but what was the ultimate punishment? Expulsion.


Also, there are indeed bad laws and inappropriate government action. Your example of Little Rock shows that well. I think you are trying to connect this to the action of the veteran that took down the flag? I'm not really sure where you were going with that example/point. Well, I don't agree with what the veteran did anyway. I think it would have been better for him to follow the proper process, which was to talk to the store owner, then appropriate law enforcement if the owner did not comply.Nah, there's no way even I could connect those two events. I was taking your "avoiding mob justice justifies unjust laws" (holy JUST, Batman!) argument to the extreme. Here was mob justice with official backing, but the government did not give in to the pressure put upon it by those attempting "mob justice". By the same token, just because the guy hanging the flag incorrectly is putting himself at high risk of being on the receiving end of a mob beatdown, that doesn't mean we should make it illegal for him to do so.


As to your final point: To question the existance of a law because it has been broken a few times or did not provide the desired result a few times would be to question all laws since they have all been broken to a degree. A few people here and there decided to take it into their own hands, but how many were disuaded from even performing the actual because of a threat of legal action?You are correct, although some clarification is needed: we're talking about laws that are "malum prohibitum", or "wrong because it is illegal" (ex: speeding). We are not talking about laws that are "malum in se", or "wrong in itself" (ex: murder). I certainly DO think that we should question all laws that fall into the former category... even if they have never been broken. In fact, this exactly what the higher courts do all day - question the validity of laws. And laws continually - frequently - change, at times in leaps and bounds. One contemporary example of this is same-sex marriage. Anyone want to bet that same-sex marriage will be illegal in 20 years? 10 years? I wouldn't!


Bah. It's late, I'm sick, I'm going to bed.Sorry to hear that, don't sneeze on the computer. I don't want to get sick too!

Kalanth
10-05-2007, 07:45 AM
I love internet quoting wars! Try this one on for size, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony)

Your turn! :)

Edit - found a couple more that verfiy my doubt: http://ezinearticles.com/?Laws-Regarding-American-Flags&id=405898:

From what I can tell, the penalties for defamation/mutilation/improper display of the flag are determined by the state. However, any time severe penalties have been imposed, the Supreme Court strikes them down. Of note, all of those "severe penalties" were at or below the classification of misdemeanor - not one dared step into felony territory. More information can be found at http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html:

I wasn't looking for the penalty, just the definition. In that, I would also not use a source that has been proven to be inacurate in the past and is not considered a reputable source (Wikipedia). The document I quoted was the legal booklet that is approved by Congress each year to ensure the proper care and display of the flag. I am sure in there are the penalties as well, but I only searched out that which I felt was relavent.

On a side note, I am assuming that people believe that all federal penalties are lengthy stays in jail with harsh penalties monetarily and to your rights as a citizen. Federal courts have the same ability to pass judgments under suspension and issue the punishment of Parol for those crimes as well. I doubt the Bar Owner will see anything more than a fine and maybe placed under parol for the action, and that is the extreme in my opinion. They wont strip his right to vote or anything, and no need to waist the space in jail on a man who flew a flag improperly.

Prinstoni
10-05-2007, 09:01 AM
Care to compare degrees? I'm a far cry from uneducated, and an even further cry from unpatriotic.

Past experience has shown that those who resort to attacks instead of discussion have nothing to back up their opinions. Thanks for keeping that trend alive, bud. Now go back into whatever hole you crawled out of. When you have something valid to contribute to the discussion, perhaps someone will be willing to listen to you. Of course, if you still reek of troll, I doubt anyone will.

Agreed.

The flag is the symbol, the actions of the shop owner are the actual exercise of the very rights you speak of. Which is more important - that which symbolizes the rights, or the rights themselves? I argue the latter.

Sure, but honestly I don't like weighing in...
AA Communications Richland Community College
AS Biology Richland Community College
BA Political science pre-law Southern Illinois University
BS Animal Science Southern Illinois University
MS/MBA Agribusiness Economics Southern Illinois University

I find your post amusing since your first post was an attack against the US laws (which are shared by most nations in the world), opinions of the OP, and the vet who took actions into his own hands.

I had already contributed prior to your original attack to the OP. But I will restate it. No one has a right to degrade the very nature of a symbol of a nation. Otherwise, it would be legal to burn the US flag in public.

This shop keeper’s action was not a symbol of speech. It is a symbol of disrespect, although I agree with many posts that it was probably an action of ignorance. That said, what the vet did was also wrong, and there were alternative means by which to alleviate the problem.

Arlith
10-05-2007, 09:33 AM
Correcting an illegal act with another illegal act goes against the Constitution.

Umm, hello?? That's how we GOT the Constitution!

CoolHand_Luke
10-05-2007, 09:40 AM
USC Title 18 Chapter 33 §176. Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

Impaqt
10-05-2007, 09:40 AM
Umm, hello?? That's how we GOT the Constitution!

Please explain furthur.... Are you claiming the constitution endorses vigilanteism?

Mad_Bombardier
10-05-2007, 09:41 AM
Umm, hello?? That's how we GOT the Constitution!Yeah, but we won. So, we made a proviso in the Constitution that we're allowed to revolt against "corrupt" governments. History is written by the victors!

CoolHand_Luke
10-05-2007, 09:45 AM
Please explain furthur.... Are you claiming the constitution endorses vigilanteism?


Constitution not so much, but the Declaration of Independence

Impaqt
10-05-2007, 10:04 AM
Constitution not so much, but the Declaration of Independence



OK, Now this is gettin silly.....

First, The Declaration of Independance is NOT legislature or Law.

Second the constitution trumps it.

Checking out of this thread now.

Litz
10-05-2007, 10:10 AM
I bet if you asked the guy taking the flags down, if he was willing to go to jail for breaking the law by doing what he did, and if he had any regrets he would do it over again. I'd sit beside him in the cell if I seen the same thing going on. That is ofcourse if the shop owner refused to take it down.

Arlith
10-05-2007, 10:17 AM
Please explain furthur.... Are you claiming the constitution endorses vigilanteism?

Sigh, where did you read that in my post? I said that we were able to create the Constitution, and this coutnry, by correcting an illegal act with an illegal act.


Yeah, but we won. So, we made a proviso in the Constitution that we're allowed to revolt against "corrupt" governments. History is written by the victors!

That idea was set in writing eleven years earlier in the Declaration of Independance. We were not the victors then. Though I do agree, the fact that we won helped a great deal.

CoolHand_Luke
10-05-2007, 10:18 AM
Please explain furthur.... Are you claiming the constitution endorses vigilanteism?


Declaration of Independence can be seen as endorsing it... I agree it's not law, policy or code, but when I quote it....

..."That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."....

And....

.."it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"...

Does endores vigilanteism in a sense. I do also want to throw in there that there is alot of conditions if you will that they, the Founding Fathers" point out that should lead on to this type of action.

I don't condone it. Just saying it's there, and quotable.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 10:27 AM
Sure, but honestly I don't like weighing in...
AA Communications Richland Community College
AS Biology Richland Community College
BA Political science pre-law Southern Illinois University
BS Animal Science Southern Illinois University
MS/MBA Agribusiness Economics Southern Illinois University

I find your post amusing since your first post was an attack against the US laws (which are shared by most nations in the world), opinions of the OP, and the vet who took actions into his own hands.

I had already contributed prior to your original attack to the OP. But I will restate it. No one has a right to degrade the very nature of a symbol of a nation. Otherwise, it would be legal to burn the US flag in public.

This shop keeper’s action was not a symbol of speech. It is a symbol of disrespect, although I agree with many posts that it was probably an action of ignorance. That said, what the vet did was also wrong, and there were alternative means by which to alleviate the problem.Heh. I really didn't want to compare degrees, the idea was to point out that you have absolutely no idea whether I am educated or not. But since we're tooting horns...

BS Mathematics & Comp Sci, SUNY Brockport
ME Systems Engineering, Cornell

You might be able to hold an argument that I'm stupid, but I'm far from uneducated.

I'm glad you find my post amusing. Note, however, that what you are qualifying as an "attack" in my post (quite a stretch, BTW) is within forum guidelines. Your post (the one I was responding to) is arguably not so, because it was personal. It's one thing to "attack" the person's argument, it's another thing entirely to go after the person themselves. See the difference?

I think a lot of people are missing my overall point here: Free speech is all fine and dandy until it disagrees with what you think... only at that point can you really test your understanding of the concept. There's a saying that has been (possibly incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say... But I will defend to the death your right to say it." Until one can truly appreciate and support such a statement, he/she cannot enjoy a full understanding of the concept.

I would argue that there are very few things more American than civil disobedience to protest the trampling of civil liberties.

One final point regarding your post: You say that "Otherwise, it would be legal to burn the US flag in public." As I posted in other entries, the mere existence of a law does not determine whether the law is right, moral, or even constitutional. It is not until that law is challenged that these things begin to get sorted out. There are some laws that almost all of us can agree upon, those that are wrong simply because they are - murder, rape, etc. The rest are only wrong because someone thought they should be, and made a law against them. I just saw a great example on the History Channel last night... back in the pre-WWI days, it was illegal for women to use contraception. Fortunately, one person realized that this was a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, and performed countless hours of civil disobedience to educate the public on the topic of contraception, and to provide methods.

Yeah, contraception was illegal. It doesn't mean it was wrong. See how this applies to our discussion?

Beergut
10-05-2007, 10:36 AM
I would have taken it down too.

Only difference - I would have used a Great Axe to do so.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 10:43 AM
I wasn't looking for the penalty, just the definition. In that, I would also not use a source that has been proven to be inacurate in the past and is not considered a reputable source (Wikipedia).I don't know where you're going with this. You are trying to tell me that the shopowner's offense is a felony because it's a federal law. Then you quote some text showing me that it is federal law. Yes, I agree, it is federal law. But it isn't a felony! "Federal Law" does not equate to "felony".

Don't like Wikipedia? Try dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/felony) then:


1. an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year.

There is your definition, dude. I think you're missing the key point here: the penalty, not the crime, is what determines the class of the infraction. If there is a minimal penalty (<5 days in jail, fines), then it is a violation. If there is a moderate penalty (up to one year in jail), then it is a misdemeanor. If there is a serious penalty (>1 year in jail), then it is a felony. That is the definition.


On a side note, I am assuming that people believe that all federal penalties are lengthy stays in jail with harsh penalties monetarily and to your rights as a citizen.Just because you assume that people believe something, that doesn't make it true.


Federal courts have the same ability to pass judgments under suspension and issue the punishment of Parol for those crimes as well. I doubt the Bar Owner will see anything more than a fine and maybe placed under parol for the action, and that is the extreme in my opinion. They wont strip his right to vote or anything, and no need to waist the space in jail on a man who flew a flag improperly.I'm trying to be polite here, but you're really, really, really misinformed. If you are convicted of a felony, you will be stripped of your rights to vote/bear arms, and your right to privacy will be significantly reduced. That is how it works. If a person is charged with a felony, and it is later reduced to a misdemeanor, then yes, they will not suffer those consequences.

But it doesn't even matter... you're trying to assert that this crime is a felony, the only thing you've been able to show was that the law is Federal (and you are correct there, although no one disputed that at any point in this thread). I have shown multiple times that your understanding of the term "felony" is completely incorrect.

Kalanth
10-05-2007, 11:16 AM
But it doesn't even matter... you're trying to assert that this crime is a felony, the only thing you've been able to show was that the law is Federal (and you are correct there, although no one disputed that at any point in this thread). I have shown multiple times that your understanding of the term "felony" is completely incorrect.

You really showed one time, because I have only posted 4 times prior, once by starting, once by stating that the authorities had been notified, once by quoting the federal mandate that regulates the flag, and once by stating that Wikipedia is not a reputable source and adding my opinion that the shop owner would be hit with a lesser charge. I will admit that I did overlook the punishment portion of the definition, and that was my personal error.

The portion of stripping of basic rights in the United States is addressed here, in referring to the * Legal Lexicon's Lyceum * I find this:

(I know nothing about their reputation as a quality source, but it was in reference to Legal Dictionaries, so I will use this disclaimer regarding the information):

FELON - One convicted and sentenced for a felony.

A felon is infamous and (usually) cannot vote, fill an office, or become a witness in any case, unless pardoned, except in cases of absolute necessity for his own preservation and defense; as for example, an affidavit in relation to the irregularity of a judgment in a cause in which he is a party.

FELONY - One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor; an offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year. 18 U.S.C.

An offence which occasions a total forfeiture of. either lands or goods or both, at common law, to which capital or other punishment may be super-added, according to the degree of guilt.

(2) Obs. Any of several crimes in early English law that were punishable by forfeiture of land or goods and by possible loss of life or a bodily part. A breach of homage, a violation of the contract between lord and vassal, a violation of feudal customs. The legitimate breaches of the contract included: failure to protect the vassal; refusal of justice by denial of access to the LORD's court; dishonorable conduct towards the vassal.
--b--

The definitions indicate just as I said. It is not always a part of the punishment, just most likely and it can be reversed by affidavit among other things as mentioned above.


I'm trying to be polite here, but you're really, really, really misinformed...

I am sorry for my ignorance. I am not a lawyer, I am not a paralegal. The only laws I truly know are the "Rules of the Road" in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Delaware. But really, much like having to tell someone the joke was funny usually means it was not funny, saying that you are trying to be nice is the first step to being rude. A reasonable explanation to provide me with the correct information to strengthen your argument and continue a civil conversation is much more appreciated than to simply call me out as an ignorant fool (yes, that is personal interpretation). And yes, I made an assumption about peoples view on the punishments related to Federal law, but that was based on comments that I have heard in relation to this and to the other big Federal issue of late, Michael Vick.

I don't mind a good conversation where I am wrong, but I don't appreciate being made to look small for being misinformed. I am learning a good amount in this thread from people that are clearly more educated than I.

Nevthial
10-05-2007, 11:22 AM
The Reno police department has told krnv that Brossert will face charges for theft if the store owner files a police report of what happened.

Wanna bet no charges are filed? The store owner still has to live there....

Prinstoni
10-05-2007, 11:35 AM
One final point regarding your post: You say that "Otherwise, it would be legal to burn the US flag in public." As I posted in other entries, the mere existence of a law does not determine whether the law is right, moral, or even constitutional. It is not until that law is challenged that these things begin to get sorted out. There are some laws that almost all of us can agree upon, those that are wrong simply because they are - murder, rape, etc. The rest are only wrong because someone thought they should be, and made a law against them.

Absolutely. I agree. A law must be challanged before it can be determined if it is truely a law (this stems form British court law).

However, burning of the US flag in public was challenged as freedom of speech and found to be illegal. As I am certain that hanging a foreign flag above the US flag would be also.

Even if it were not a law it is respect, and in no way does disrespecting an entire nation and culture constitute as freedom of speech.

Again I think the the shop owner was just too stupid to know what kind of political statement he was making.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 11:36 AM
I am sorry for my ignorance. I am not a lawyer, I am not a paralegal. The only laws I truly know are the "Rules of the Road" in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Delaware. But really, much like having to tell someone the joke was funny usually means it was not funny, saying that you are trying to be nice is the first step to being rude. A reasonable explanation to provide me with the correct information to strengthen your argument and continue a civil conversation is much more appreciated than to simply call me out as an ignorant fool (yes, that is personal interpretation). And yes, I made an assumption about peoples view on the punishments related to Federal law, but that was based on comments that I have heard in relation to this and to the other big Federal issue of late, Michael Vick.

I don't mind a good conversation where I am wrong, but I don't appreciate being made to look small for being misinformed. I am learning a good amount in this thread from people that are clearly more educated than I.My apologies, I did not intend to "call you out as an ignorant fool", although I can see why you feel that way. I felt that I had adequately and politely corrected you on the topic of what constitutes a felony, and at the time felt that you were just being obstinate. Again, my apologies... sometimes my direct nature comes across as downright nasty in the realm of teh intarwebs. I do not consider you ignorant, nor have I at any point... simply misinformed, as we all are from time to time.

Regarding this:
A felon is infamous and (usually) cannot vote, fill an office, or become a witness in any case, unless pardoned, except in cases of absolute necessity for his own preservation and defense; as for example, an affidavit in relation to the irregularity of a judgment in a cause in which he is a party.What is being said there is that the additional punishments associated with being a felon (can't vote, bear arms, fill an office, or bear witness in a court of law... btw I didn't know about those last two) can be bypassed in very specific circumstances:

1) Self preservation/defense - it has long been held that this is a right than can never be bypassed. We all have a right to defend ourselves from attack, at least in the very basic sense of the term (physical attacks).
2) Pardon - if a convict is pardoned, the idea is that whatever they did never happened in the eyes of the law. Pardoning someone is something like the legal system's version of annulment :p
3) Testifying on one's own behalf - felons may bear witness in cases brought against them.

So far as I can tell, the additional penalties of being a felon cannot be reversed, but there are a few specific exceptions... as there must be in any law. I suppose it would be a reasonable argument that a pardon reverses the additional felony penalties, but I'd say that pardons reverse the conviction, not the punishment.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 11:46 AM
However, burning of the US flag in public was challenged as freedom of speech and found to be illegal. As I am certain that hanging a foreign flag above the US flag would be also. Incorrect. Burning the flag in the United States is protected speech. Here's a link from Kalanth's favorite website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States. Twice it has gone before the Supreme Court, both times it was upheld as protected speech. Last year, there was an attempt to make a constitutional ammendment to ban flag desecration, it never made it to the states for voting.


Even if it were not a law it is respect, and in no way does disrespecting an entire nation and culture constitute as freedom of speech.Disrespectful speech and actions are most certainly covered under the freedom of expression. As I mentioned above, the real test of your belief in the freedom of speech comes when you are faced with something you flat out cannot agree with (religious discussions are a good example) and possibly consider highly offensive.


Again I think the the shop owner was just too stupid to know what kind of political statement he was making.Agreed, I suspect the owner was a naturalized citizen who was not aware of how we are expected to display the flag.

Prinstoni
10-05-2007, 11:50 AM
I don't know where you're going with this. You are trying to tell me that the shopowner's offense is a felony because it's a federal law. Then you quote some text showing me that it is federal law. Yes, I agree, it is federal law. But it isn't a felony! "Federal Law" does not equate to "felony".


Well this is likely a stretch, but I could see a hard core conservative prosecutor going for a felony charge with this.

If the shop owner were a US citizen (probably not), even better a naturalized citizen who swore an oath to protect and honor the USA, he could be tried for treason which is no doubt a felony charge.

If a prosecuter were looking to make office in a patriotic conservative fashion, it would make for good publicity.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 11:58 AM
Found something interesting while reading more on this. It appears that the only reason the flag code has been allowed to stand as a law is because the flag code does not include a penalty for a failure to comply. Every time it was introduced with punitive enforcement, it has been knocked down. But since there is no punishment associated with the law, no one can claim that their freedom of speech has been trampled upon, so the law cannot be brought before the Supreme Court.

I have to say, I am pretty surprised at the number of people who feel that this should be an exemption to the freedom of expression (or think that it actually is). In my opinion, the most important non-natural right we have is the right to freedom of expression ("natural" rights are things like the right to self preservation/defense). Without "absolute" freedom of (responsible) expression, our country as we know it would cease to exist in a matter of a few decades. Take away our rights to express our opinions and thoughts, and you will quickly see all other rights fall over like dominos.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 12:04 PM
Well this is likely a stretch, but I could see a hard core conservative prosecutor going for a felony charge with this.

If the shop owner were a US citizen (probably not), even better a naturalized citizen who swore an oath to protect and honor the USA, he could be tried for treason which is no doubt a felony charge.

If a prosecuter were looking to make office in a patriotic conservative fashion, it would make for good publicity.You are right, that's quite a stretch. If a prosecutor attempted to apply treason charges (punishable by DEATH!!!!) to such a crime, it is likely that prosecutor would find himself in the same position as Mike Nifong - the prosecutor from the Duke rape case - disbarred and a criminal.

Of course, that prosecutor would have to first get the charges passed through a grand jury. He'd either have to be a REALLY good lawyer, or have picked a REALLY stupid jury, to convince them that someone should face the death penalty because their flag was hung incorrectly.

But I see your point... a person can conceivably be charged with anything. In a similar sense, getting nailed for speeding could conceivably result in attempted murder charges. Both are unlikely to the point of near impossibility.

Prinstoni
10-05-2007, 12:06 PM
Incorrect. Burning the flag in the United States is protected speech. Here's a link from Kalanth's favorite website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States. Twice it has gone before the Supreme Court, both times it was upheld as protected speech. Last year, there was an attempt to make a constitutional ammendment to ban flag desecration, it never made it to the states for voting.

Disrespectful speech and actions are most certainly covered under the freedom of expression. As I mentioned above, the real test of your belief in the freedom of speech comes when you are faced with something you flat out cannot agree with (religious discussions are a good example) and possibly consider highly offensive.

Agreed, I suspect the owner was a naturalized citizen who was not aware of how we are expected to display the flag.

If burning a flag in public is legal, I retract my statement.

Although similar, this is a different issue anyway, and I doubt that the Supreme court would allow for a change in law that would put the US flag below a foreign flag on public display within its own borders.

It is not a statement it is a degrading to an entire nation and culture who is already being invaded by illegals.

If mexico wants a war with United States of America they need to fight it, not invade slowly and try to change our political system that created the entire reason why they would want to come here in the first place.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 12:40 PM
Although similar, this is a different issue anyway, and I doubt that the Supreme court would allow for a change in law that would put the US flag below a foreign flag on public display within its own borders.I suspect the reason for this is that lawmakers (trying to look "patriotic" to the public) continually resubmitted the flag code until the Supreme Court no longer had the jurisdiction to review the law (due to the lack of punitive enforcement, discussed a couple posts up). So I'd have to say that you are correct, but for what I consider to be the wrong reasons. I suspect that if this were brought up to the Supreme Court, they would retain the same stance they have historically shown, and unwaveringly fall upon the side of protected speech. However, we're now taking the argument into the land of hypothetical situations - we will probably never see the flag code brought up to the Supreme Court again, since no one will be able to claim their constitutional rights were violated as a result of the flag code (again, because no one will enforce it).

Circles, big big circles :D

As goofy as our legal system is, I am repeatedly shocked at how well it actually works. Sure, it has tons of faults, but given enough time (decades/centuries), our legal system truly does a good job of separating the just from the unjust.


It is not a statement it is a degrading to an entire nation and culture who is already being invaded by illegals.It is both: it is a degrading statement. It is also one that people have fought and died for so that we have the right to make it. I am eternally thankful for the immense sacrifice made by countless others on my behalf, and hope that whereever they are, they know that I am bound and determined to honor them by doing my best to ensure that the rights they fought so hard for are not taken away with the slash of a pen. I will never take my rights for granted, and I will fight tooth and nail - to the death, if necessary - to preserve this gift that has been handed to us by our ancestors.

I'll leave the "illegals" argument for another thread ;)

Arlith
10-05-2007, 12:44 PM
I find it funny that everyone is quick to accept that the person flying the flags was "ignorant" or "too stupid" to know what he was doing.

If he is a naturalized citizen you can bet he was much more versed in our laws than most other citizens. I know several people who have gone through this process and it is not easy. It was embarrassing to have someone ask me questions they are required to know the answers to for citizenship, and I did not know them myself. I learned a lot from that. I personally believe that also is another indication of the sad state of our public education system, but that's another rant.

Consider the following -- Is flying another country's flag over ours still a "freedom of speech" issue if the store owner profits by his actions? A case could be made that he flew the flags in such fashion to attract the business of certain individuals. Could this act move from freedom of speech to marketing gimmik? If so, what could be the legal ramifications?

Beergut
10-05-2007, 01:30 PM
Blah Blah Blah Litigious...Blah, Blah, Blah semantics.

Bottom line - if this guys knew what he was doing was wrong he's a s***bag for doing it.

If he didn't know it was wrong, he's an idiot for doing it.

Either way, we would all be better off with less s***bags and idiots in this country.

Take the Great Axe to him.

Alavatar
10-05-2007, 03:33 PM
<snip>



I would continue arguing, but I don't like politics, am not really patriotic, and my argument was more of a speculation then anything else thus rendering it relatively weak.

That, and I'm sick. Thinking hurts right now.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 03:54 PM
I find it funny that everyone is quick to accept that the person flying the flags was "ignorant" or "too stupid" to know what he was doing.

If he is a naturalized citizen you can bet he was much more versed in our laws than most other citizens. I know several people who have gone through this process and it is not easy. It was embarrassing to have someone ask me questions they are required to know the answers to for citizenship, and I did not know them myself. I learned a lot from that. I personally believe that also is another indication of the sad state of our public education system, but that's another rant.

Consider the following -- Is flying another country's flag over ours still a "freedom of speech" issue if the store owner profits by his actions? A case could be made that he flew the flags in such fashion to attract the business of certain individuals. Could this act move from freedom of speech to marketing gimmik? If so, what could be the legal ramifications?Interesting point. I am aware of what naturalized citizens are required to know in order to become a citizen, I know it is no small amount of information. I had considered this when suggesting that the guy might have been unaware of what he was doing, and I think it is still fair to say that that is a possibility. There are a million reasons he may have not known about how to properly display the US flag - perhaps he didn't understand what the instructor was saying that day.... perhaps he was absent that day... perhaps he wasn't paying attention that day... perhaps the instructor skipped over that topic... so it's tough to say whether or not the guy was fully aware of what he was doing.

I think all of us can agree that he was either being disrespectful or ignorant, but not both.

Regarding the legal ramifications of the shopowner's intent behind the incident (making a statement or a marketing gimmik?), I'd have to say that there is no "moving from freedom of speech to marketing gimmik"... marketing gimmiks are simply another way to exercise the freedom of expression. I am not 100% certain of this, but I believe that the only restrictions on the freedom of expression (that have received support from the court) are as follows:

1) Irresponsible or criminally negligent speech (yelling "FIRE" in a theater when there is no fire)
2) Slander or libel... BARELY. This isn't England, if you wanna charge someone with libel, you had better have a REALLY strong case, and be able to prove with absolute certianity that what the person said about you is absolutely 100% false.
3) Obscenity... very difficult to define - so difficult that the best legal description we have is something along the lines of "I'll know it when I see it" (I think it was SC Justice John Paul Stevens that said that). There is no national definition, the federal government dodged that bullet and left it for the state and local governments to deal with.
4) When minors are involved... swearing excessively and repeatedly in front of a minor could result in legal consequences.

Really, #'s 2-4 are quite shaky, and rarely will you ever see them brought up. When they are, they rarely go anywhere. And when they do go somewhere, they have almost always ended up falling flat on their face. So #1 is the only reliable restriction on the freedom of expression, I think.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 04:15 PM
I would continue arguing, but I don't like politics, am not really patriotic, and my argument was more of a speculation then anything else thus rendering it relatively weak.

That, and I'm sick. Thinking hurts right now.Booo! :(

Since you're sick, I'll step in for ya:

Using your beloved Wikipedia for sources, take a look at this quote, Strakeln (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Restrictions_on_free_speech:

The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action".So your stance that the risk of illegal retaliatory-type behavior is not sufficient to restrict or limit free speech is notably flawed, as demonstrated by the SCOTUS decision the quote references.

Ah, but look closer at the case. The Supreme Court actually overturned Brandenburg's conviction, but left us with a definition of another condition under which the freedom of expression may be stifled. However, this definition is subject to misinterpretation: the "imminent lawless action" SCOTUS refers to is along the lines of "let's go overthrow the government" or "let's go beat up all the <African Americans, homosexuals, Irish, whatever group the bigots are after>". In other words, the decision involves speech/expression which is specifically, directly intended to cause "imminent lawless action" - not speech/expression that may be subject to retaliatory behavior.

There ya go, bud... didn't want ya to feel left out :D :D

Get better, there's a new raid to blow up!

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 04:35 PM
Either way, we would all be better off with less s***bags and idiots in this country.

Take the Great Axe to him.Mmmmhmmm... unfortunately, s***bag-hood and idiocy are somewhat difficult to definitively show. One person's s***bag is another person's hero. Oh, and that whole "all people are created equal" thing. It's an easy concept to swallow until you realize it says that these s***bags and idiots are included in the "all people" part. But ya gotta take the good with the bad, lest we lose that keystone our society is based upon.

I always get a bit concerned about those who suggest we take the axe to the "lesser" folk. There have been a lot of people who had this opinion throughout the course of human history... let's see... Pol Pot, Hitler are classic examples. More modern examples include Hussein and Milošević. Not saying that you are a new-age version of these - indeed, I assume you were speaking with a bit of humor (Great Axes are not exactly common wepons of the modern age, I know you were not seriously suggesting the slaughter of s***bags and idiots). Just keep in mind that "Final Solutions" start with a minor amount of bigotry.

Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it! :p

Hafeal
10-05-2007, 04:46 PM
You have a valid point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere which it is. Both men stepped over the line of the rule of written laws.
Considering the state of our nation, I choose patriotism and side with the veteran.:)

To me, patriotism is the ability to tolerate hateful speech and the political speech of others with whom you disagree. That is the mark of a true American.


Otherwise, it would be legal to burn the US flag in public.

If you burn the flag as a political protest or expression, it is protected speech. If you burn the flag becuase you needed to start a fire, not so much.

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 04:49 PM
To me, patriotism is the ability to tolerate hateful speech and the political speech of others with whom you disagree. That is the mark of a true American.QFT.

Whew, I was getting lonely in here.

Hafeal
10-05-2007, 04:52 PM
I think a lot of people are missing my overall point here: Free speech is all fine and dandy until it disagrees with what you think... only at that point can you really test your understanding of the concept. There's a saying that has been (possibly incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say... But I will defend to the death your right to say it." Until one can truly appreciate and support such a statement, he/she cannot enjoy a full understanding of the concept.


Very well put, I completely agree.

And by the way, the quote you reference was not Voltaire but a comment made in epitaph to Voltaire with regard to his Essay on Tolerance (:http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8103)

And Tolerance is a subject that is always in need of a refreshing. ;)

Hafeal
10-05-2007, 04:56 PM
Whew, I was getting lonely in here.

I was out of my office yesterday and missed this thread until it was revived late this afternoon. Good stuff.

The inner workings of democracy and what it really means to be a free country are worthy of discusssion at all time and in all places. :)

Strakeln
10-05-2007, 06:32 PM
And by the way, the quote you reference was not Voltaire but a comment made in epitaph to Voltaire with regard to his Essay on Tolerance (:http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8103)I knew I remembered there being something about it not actually coming from Voltaire! Poor guy probably wishes he had said it, I consider it to be quite enlightened.

Anywho, welcome to the thread. It's pretty comfy, I've been here all day :p

Yvonne_Blacksword
10-05-2007, 06:55 PM
As an active duty...and if I was evil...I would have re hung the flags in the proper order then handed out pamphlets on the proper display of the national ensign...

or I would have boycotted his store and gotten some of my larger, stupid Mil friends to hang out there a lot and talk about what a discrace it was....

Or maybe gotten legal permission to protest...?

lol.

The guy who hung the flag said he was doing it to show solidarity...
1.) he was an american citizen...not one from mexico, so he should have hung his country's flag properly...
2.) he wanted trouble, if he didn't, he would have hung neither flag and remained neutral...
3.) hope he took in the flag at night...(before it was stolen)...or else he would have been doubley disrespecting the flag, as it is wrong to fly the ensign at night unless it is properly lighted...

...
and burning the flag is legal, ask the boyscouts.
if you have a dirty or damaged flag and wish to dispose of it turn it in to the boyscouts and they will burn it...giving it a proper, decent burial.
throwing it in the trash is wrong.
so is letting it touch the ground.
they should be burned.

not waved around on a pole soaked with flamable liquids...but properly retired and burned with the respect you would give anything that you loved, that had died, and now were cremating.

:)
http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/455.html (http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/455.html)

Prinstoni
10-09-2007, 08:39 AM
Mmmmhmmm... unfortunately, s***bag-hood and idiocy are somewhat difficult to definitively show. One person's s***bag is another person's hero. Oh, and that whole "all people are created equal" thing. It's an easy concept to swallow until you realize it says that these s***bags and idiots are included in the "all people" part. But ya gotta take the good with the bad, lest we lose that keystone our society is based upon.

I always get a bit concerned about those who suggest we take the axe to the "lesser" folk. There have been a lot of people who had this opinion throughout the course of human history... let's see... Pol Pot, Hitler are classic examples. More modern examples include Hussein and Milošević. Not saying that you are a new-age version of these - indeed, I assume you were speaking with a bit of humor (Great Axes are not exactly common wepons of the modern age, I know you were not seriously suggesting the slaughter of s***bags and idiots). Just keep in mind that "Final Solutions" start with a minor amount of bigotry.

Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it! :p

You are too much of an idealist man. Although I support the idea that all people should be treated equally, that is not true. People are not equal and never will be equal.

Additionally, our laws were set up so that all Americans were treated equally. Screw everyone else, they hate us anyway! I say we kill em all and let God sort em' out. :)

Where did I put my anti-illegal burst heavy repeating crossbow of greater mexican bane?

Strakeln
10-09-2007, 09:07 AM
You are too much of an idealist man. Although I support the idea that all people should be treated equally, that is not true. People are not equal and never will be equal.

Additionally, our laws were set up so that all Americans were treated equally. Screw everyone else, they hate us anyway! I say we kill em all and let God sort em' out. :)

Where did I put my anti-illegal burst heavy repeating crossbow of greater mexican bane?What you are saying is more or less true. I consider it to be one of the single greatest faults of our forefathers... despite their truly awe-inspiring foresight and recognition of "natural" rights, their view of who should be able to lay claim to these rights was a departure from the rest of their genius.

They were more or less saying that all "white, American, male, landowning men" are equal (should be treated equally). Over the years, we've realized the following:
1) Whites aren't the only ones who should expect such rights
2) Males aren't the only ones who should expect such rights
3) Land-owners aren't the only ones who should expect such rights.

It seems to follow that one of these days we will get around to recognizing that Americans are not the only ones who should expect such rights.

However, we are often slow to see the obvious.

Prinstoni
10-09-2007, 12:51 PM
What you are saying is more or less true. I consider it to be one of the single greatest faults of our forefathers... despite their truly awe-inspiring foresight and recognition of "natural" rights, their view of who should be able to lay claim to these rights was a departure from the rest of their genius.

They were more or less saying that all "white, American, male, landowning men" are equal (should be treated equally). Over the years, we've realized the following:
1) Whites aren't the only ones who should expect such rights
2) Males aren't the only ones who should expect such rights
3) Land-owners aren't the only ones who should expect such rights.

It seems to follow that one of these days we will get around to recognizing that Americans are not the only ones who should expect such rights.

However, we are often slow to see the obvious.

You forgot womens right...

Also, I am not saying that non-US-americans do not have the same inate rights as US americans, but I am saying they do not have those rights when they illegally come to our country.

If they want those rights they need to...
1) come here legally
2) stay here legally
3) change their own government to give them the rights

It is high time USA come home and care about USA. We need to stop worrying about foreigners on foreign soil and worry about them in our own back yards.

Strakeln
10-09-2007, 02:27 PM
You forgot womens right...Doh! Good thing the wife doesn't read these forums... :D


Also, I am not saying that non-US-americans do not have the same inate rights as US americans, but I am saying they do not have those rights when they illegally come to our country.I was talking more about non-US-citizens in general, not really illegal aliens. It stands to reason that all people, not just US citizens, have inherent rights (some might say "divine" rights). Our government does not believe so.


It is high time USA come home and care about USA. We need to stop worrying about foreigners on foreign soil and worry about them in our own back yards.That's another can of worms, one that I won't pretend to know the answer to. Isolationism didn't work, being heavily involved in the world stage doesn't appear to work too well either.

Alavatar
10-09-2007, 06:11 PM
That's another can of worms, one that I won't pretend to know the answer to. Isolationism didn't work, being heavily involved in the world stage doesn't appear to work too well either.

Sounds like nearly every facet of life that contains some sort of politics along with a mass of people.

You're damned if you do it one way, and you're damned if you do it the other way. To make one group happy inevitably another group will be made unhappy.

Borrigain
10-09-2007, 06:15 PM
Sounds like nearly every facet of life that contains some sort of politics along with a mass of people.

You're damned if you do it one way, and you're damned if you do it the other way. To make one group happy inevitably another group will be made unhappy.

Ok, now I'm confused. Are we talking about RL politics or DDO forums? :confused:

:D

Borr.

Xalted_Vol
10-09-2007, 06:24 PM
The flag is ugly anyway. The flag represents slavery preemptive war and every thing wrong with this world. Flags should be abolished just like this republic we should live in a true democracy not a stupid republic.

Kronik
10-09-2007, 06:59 PM
Not sure why everyone is filled with so much hate.

It is sad to see people, Vets or Civilians, comment with such hateful comments.


That being said, I do not agree with the flag being hung, but I also do not agree with people going onto
someone's property and destroying it. This is AMERICA where freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed to all. I also do not agree with braking the law. It is illegal to destroy or remove property that is
not yours or on your property. Now as patriotic as it may be, being a veteran of this fine country does not give you
the right to break the laws. That is my 2 cent.

My hats off to all law abiding Veterans and servicemen who give their lives for the good of us all !!!!

Prinstoni
10-10-2007, 10:12 AM
The flag is ugly anyway. The flag represents slavery preemptive war and every thing wrong with this world. Flags should be abolished just like this republic we should live in a true democracy not a stupid republic.

The Greeks tried Democracy. That didn't work. The Romans built a republic and that lasted for 1,000 years (some would say the true Republic only lasted 200 before corrupt politics took over and the anarchy set in). So that didn't work either, but it was the best model of government from our past.

The US tried to instill both parts of staturory (republic/empire/dictatorship)and English court (common) law (democracy/empire/dictatorship). Additionally, the US constitution set statutory rights to be interpreted by the court and all decisions made final (until challanged again) (democracy) with a huge checks and balance system that would slow down change. Change in conservative terms (as were the founders of this nation) was bad and should be taken slowly.

Socratis defined democracy as mob rule or rule of the masses. Either system has its downfalls, but I am a believer that educated and intellegent people should rule (republic) not the mob.

However, we do not have that in USA. What we now have is a Corporate Republic ran by lobbyists and corporations.

USA is ran by the highest bidder. Lobbyists and votes are all that matter anymore. Even foreign countries (Turkey for example) pay Lobbyists to work in DC.

This is a major flaw with the political system, but it is still a better system than almost every other nation in the world (however, I cannot think of a close competator).

When you have a better idea why don't you enlighten us with your great knowledge instead of bashing the system that some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known invented.

Hafeal
10-10-2007, 10:29 AM
The Greeks tried Democracy. That didn't work.


While I can agreement with some of your other sentiments, I would not agree with the statement above. All civilations end, regardless of the form of government. Some due to war, some due to complency, corruption or natural disaster.

Also, define "Success". The Greek thoughts on democratic government and society have dominated and/or influenced societies throughout much of the world, from ancient times through the present day. That certainly could be defined as "success."

Prinstoni
10-10-2007, 12:53 PM
While I can agreement with some of your other sentiments, I would not agree with the statement above. All civilations end, regardless of the form of government. Some due to war, some due to complency, corruption or natural disaster.

Also, define "Success". The Greek thoughts on democratic government and society have dominated and/or influenced societies throughout much of the world, from ancient times through the present day. That certainly could be defined as "success."

No doubt the Ancient Greeks have influenced most democratic governments, but no one would argue against that. My point was that the most powerful, longest lasting, innovative government of all times was the Roman Empire (and yes it was a republic although based off of Greek Democracy).

I guess we will have to see what USA looks like in 800 years. It will be difficult to tell since none of us will be around to see it.

ZarakNur
10-10-2007, 12:57 PM
/snip

I guess we will have to see what USA looks like in 800 years. It will be difficult to tell since none of us will be around to see it.

What do you mean?

I for one plan on sticking around!:D

Kronik
10-10-2007, 01:15 PM
However, we do not have that in USA. What we now have is a Corporate Republic ran by lobbyists and corporations.

USA is ran by the highest bidder. Lobbyists and votes are all that matter anymore. Even foreign countries (Turkey for example) pay Lobbyists to work in DC.

This is a major flaw with the political system, but it is still a better system than almost every other nation in the world (however, I cannot think of a close competator).

When you have a better idea why don't you enlighten us with your great knowledge instead of bashing the system that some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known invented.

Right on. I've been telling people this for years. I think you are wrong on one point though; it is not a flaw. I believe that this was the intent of our forefathers (Free Mason Society) in so instilling a New World Order. Most of the leaders of this country are now not even American citizens but rather very wealthy people from all around the world. These people have and will continue to run most of the world as this Corporate Republic is spreading very quickly as of late. At this point I have realized it is much to late to try and convince anyone of this, so I will go back to my daily grind and menial life of addiction to video games and legal mind altering substances.

Hafeal
10-10-2007, 06:07 PM
I guess we will have to see what USA looks like in 800 years. It will be difficult to tell since none of us will be around to see it.

Hey, I have this deal for a book on creating liches ... ya, know, for the right price ...:D

Tous
10-11-2007, 08:59 AM
However, we do not have that in USA. What we now have is a Corporate Republic ran by lobbyists and corporations.

USA is ran by the highest bidder. Lobbyists and votes are all that matter anymore. Even foreign countries (Turkey for example) pay Lobbyists to work in DC.

This is a major flaw with the political system, but it is still a better system than almost every other nation in the world (however, I cannot think of a close competator).

When you have a better idea why don't you enlighten us with your great knowledge instead of bashing the system that some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known invented.

Well said.
For those that wish to see a change in the system, I suggest showing your support to the fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer).
This would in a nutshell, disolve the IRS, get your whole paycheck, end corporate lobbying, implement a national retail sales tax, bring factories back from overseas, and receive a prebate check once a month covering the basic necessities.


The flag is ugly anyway. The flag represents slavery preemptive war and every thing wrong with this world. Flags should be abolished just like this republic we should live in a true democracy not a stupid republic.

A flag is the first thing that gives a nation its gobal identification. Saying that flags should be abolished because of past national transgressions is just plain silly.
So if you see our flag only for our faults, or precevied faults, and that you blame ALL problems in this world because of the USA, well... that just plain silly as well.:rolleyes:

Litz
10-11-2007, 09:13 AM
BTW Everyone who posted in this thread saying they sided with the flag remover gets a free American flag (made in China) its available at Walmart.

:cool:

Prinstoni
10-11-2007, 09:43 AM
BTW Everyone who posted in this thread saying they sided with the flag remover gets a free American flag (made in China) its available at Walmart.

:cool:

LOL... DUDE...LOL

Prinstoni
10-11-2007, 09:46 AM
Well said.
For those that wish to see a change in the system, I suggest showing your support to the fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer).
This would in a nutshell, disolve the IRS, get your whole paycheck, end corporate lobbying, implement a national retail sales tax, bring factories back from overseas, and receive a prebate check once a month covering the basic necessities.


A flag is the first thing that gives a nation its gobal identification. Saying that flags should be abolished because of past national transgressions is just plain silly.
So if you see our flag only for our faults, or precevied faults, and that you blame ALL problems in this world because of the USA, well... that just plain silly as well.:rolleyes:

YES! Please vote for fair tax! Give us our paychecks, so we can pay bills and debts first, buy stuff second, pay taxes third!

It should have never been pay taxes first, bills and debts second, buy stuff third.

I pray to the almighty dollar to avenge this injustice. :0

Strakeln
10-11-2007, 09:47 AM
BTW Everyone who posted in this thread saying they sided with the flag remover gets a free American flag (made in China) its available at Walmart.

:cool:Do the rest of us get free Mexican flags? :p

Prinstoni
10-11-2007, 09:57 AM
Do the rest of us get free Mexican flags? :p

Yeah they are also available at your local walmart (made in China). :D