PeterDavid.net

You know, if I were a flag making company, I'd be all over an amendment like this. Setting aside the mockery it makes of the First Amendment, as well as the absolute impossibility of such an amendment ever being passed, it's a great opportunity for corporate growth. Say the Flag Amendment does pass (or even merely makes it up for a vote), I'd wager that you rae going to see a dramatic increase in flag burning. Hell, I might even pick up a couple at the dollar store just to get things going. Remind me to buy some stock in these flag companies.

I suppose I could have used the phrase 'flag manufacturer', but that would have just been too proper.

Those IDIOTS! They're telling the terrorists just how to hurt us the most. Apparantly, this whole time, the simple buring of a symbol would cause such great harm to the United States as a country, as a nation, that now our esteemed elected officials have finally decided to take action to protect us from the dreaded impact, cost, and senseless loss of cotton due to flag burning.

Only (gasp)..our laws only extend to our borders...what's to stop those that wish America harm from burning our flag? Dear God, this act is tantamount to Superman wearing a Tshirt saying "Got Kryptonite?"

With current voting records suggesting that the senate is only 2 votes short this time around, it looks like this madness is really going to happen. Which means we'll spend the next 7 years having to hear about campaigns, most likely paid for with tax $, stumping around the country in an effort to get the 38 state ratifications needed to make the amendment official.

Lets go back to the stars and stripes bikini topic I all for that...Could the bottom be a thong or a t-back thats real issue congress should debate (I go for thong).

Well they've got to do something, I mean they can't get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, they can't get the economy back up to full steam, they can't get the price of gas under control, they can't balance the budget, and they can't investigate all of the corruption in the Bush Administration but hey falg burning they can do.

Here's another interesting bit on Congressional tomfoolery brought to my attention by Steven Grant's Column.

"ITEM! Four more years? Forty? Last week, some of the most right wing representatives in the House introduced a bill. HJ Res 24, to repeal the 22nd Amendment that placed term limits on the office of the presidency. Seems like barely ten years ago term limits was the great cause célèbre of the Right, as they sought to drive entrenched liberals out of office and "level the playing field" by removing the necessity to run against incumbents. In fact, it was the Right who pushed through the 22nd Amendment in the first place, in fear that Franklin Roosevelt, the only man ever to win the presidency in four consecutive elections, would become in essence President For Life, a functional dictator of America. Apparently that's no longer a concern - then again, the same people so concerned over term limits in the '90s abruptly decided perhaps they weren't such a good idea after they got elected, so it's not like there's no precedent for it - and obviously the main intent behind the bill is a prolonged reign for the Hand Puppet, who would no doubt fly the "stay the course" flag for as long as the war on terrorism went on (decades, so we're were told), and the controversial computerized election machines being shoved into use in every possible venue could theoretically ensure re-election after re-election. A most cunning plan, as Baldrick would say. Of course, it's got a couple flaws. A Constitutional amendment isn't all that easy to pass - there's a long ratification process, which would probably see the Hand Puppet out of office before it would take effect - and with his popularity plunging that's hardly a given in the first place. I suspect a lot of Americans find some small comfort in the notion that they most they'll have to suffer from any president is eight years. On the other hand, if the amendment gets passed, it could also result in another Clinton presidency, and I don't mean Hillary. That'd be some sort of ironic justice, I suppose. The corollary amendment in the background is the one to allow naturalized citizens, rather than simply native-borns, to become president, which would open the door to a run by Herr Gropenator, but he's having his own P.R. problems these days."

of course, it's Steven Grant's Permanent Damage column at www.comicbookresources.com

This is another case of politicians trying to pick up points with overt patriotism instead of actually doing something good for this country. This amendment accomplishes nothing while at the same time making no sense. I remember being taught in boy scouts that the only honorable way to dispose of a flag was to burn it.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

I know some will consider this response to be in poor taste (althoug, I consider Rep. Cunningham's abuse of the tragic fate of those stranded on top of the WTC to be a terrible usurpation of the memory of those people)

but I'd imagine, if you could ask those folks what they'd want Congress to do, it'd be more along the lines of "get off your lazy ass and get me off this eff'n building..."

Or more seriously, rather than take some meaningless action that's going to tie up American tax dollars for years to come, DO something that makes actual American PEOPLE, not some FLAGS, safe.

It's wrong to set people on fire regardless of their sexual orientation.

I was against term limits the last time it was brought up. Term limits are set by the voters, ever four (or six) years. Why fire a guy who's doing a good job just because he's been at it for a while now?

Sometimes you've got to ride the current of the baser instincts in order to get some of the higher work done. Isn't this the logic Fantagraphics uses? Publish the Eros to make the money to fund the more meritorious (but lesser selling) titles?

Remind me to buy some stock in these flag companies.

The ones here in the US, or the ones abroad?

I remember several years ago a little controversy over how many of those small flags you see people waving on July 4th are actually made overseas. Not sure if it still happens. But I thought to myself...wouldn't it be patriotic to burn those flags?

Here's an article on US Flags manufactured overseas.

Truth be known, it really doesn't matter (and hey, in the interest of diversifying my portfolio, I should go for a little of both).

A lot of those flags are made here in New Jersey by the Annin Flag Company - 3 blocks from where I live in the "suburbs"...

Well, then, dammit Kathy, I'm going to burn me some flags. I will do my part to jump start the economy. Support America: Burn A Flag!

"Here's an article on US Flags manufactured overseas."

Bill Hicks had a great bit about this:

Anti-Flag Burner - "My daddy died in Korea for that flag."

Bill - "Wow, what a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea."

Seriously, though, as a kid who was teased a lot in school (you can tell), I happen to know that the best way to get someone to stop doing something that offends you isn't to make a giant stink and call Mommy or Daddy (or, in this case, Big Brother) to make them stop. It's to refuse to let it affect you. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a burnt flag will never hurt me. Unless it's a really big flag, and I'm rolled up in it. But you get my meaning.

I'm not at all surprised that people have a problem with someone burning the flag. I have a problem with people who treat popular culture as unimportant. But I don't lobby Congress to make a law forbidding people from bashing pop culture. I just say to myself, "S/he's wrong,"* and go about my day. At most, I might try to show the person my side of the issue in hopes that they'll develop a more rounded worldview. But I don't lose sleep if they don't. And I imagine they don't lose sleep if I don't come around to their way of thinking. At least, I hope they don't. Be a waste of good sleep, that.

*No, I don't get into these sorts of arguments with Hermats. All the Hermats I know are big pop culture fans. Especially when it comes to Muppets. Don't ask me why.

Great article, Mr. David. I agree with you on all points.

I am completely opposed to this amendment (though I'd rather they focus on this than the anti-gay marriage one).

On the other hand, flag burners piss me off. Not because they're desecrating the flag but because they're doing a piss-poor job of stating their mind and if anything are just blowing their arguments to hell. I'm perfectly fine with them being subject to the laws against open burning without a permit. If I can't burn leaves...

Interesting article about "The Blasphemy Of Flag Worship":

http://www.alternet.org/story/22268/

Also, I don't have the link right now, but one school has revised it's dress code policy that the U.S. flag is the only flag students can wear, regardless of their national origin.

Like we need a flag burning amendment*.

Almost no one is burning American flags on American soil (and there are laws for dealing with the illegal burning of anything on most public property anyhow.) It's so rare to even hear about it. But we get to watch this waste of time and money (we are paying their salaries and perks while they're in session) while so many things that are real problems that happen everyday get put on the back burner. Why? So that they can really do nothing but claim something wonderful was done. Somebody, anybody..... Please vote them out.

"We're the G.O.P. and we approve this waste of time, money and intelligence."

*Brought to you by the same Neanderthal morons that brought you "Freedom Fries."

Why don't they just make flame retardant flags?

Two thoughts:

* In Boy Scouts, we covered propercare and respect for the flag. Among those is "Don't let it touch the ground". And what were you supposed to do if it did touch the ground? BURN IT! (Hello?)

* Passing an amendment against burning (or otherwise "desecrating") the flag is the surest way to make me no longer respect the flag. I'll never again salute it -- might give it the finger, though -- and I'll turn my back any time the National Anthem is played. (Maybe I'll sing "To Anacreon in Heaven" instead.) Dictate that I not disrespect something and you'll see disrespect within the bounds of the rule like you can't imagine.

"And what were you supposed to do if it did touch the ground? BURN IT!"

That may well be what you were taught; many were. However, it is false, as you can see explained here: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/flagday/burnflag.asp

So, any idea what the actual punishment for "desecrating" the flag will be? A fine? Well, I suspect that there will be funds setup pretty quickly that will end up being used to pay those fines.

A Federal prison term? That'll be nice. Let's throw people who show their anger at the US government into jail because we don't like what they're saying. Real good - that's exactly the type of thing that we spout angry rhetoric at Third World dictators for.

Its totally pathetic that our Federal representatives are wasting time on this when we still have troops in Iraq that don't have body armor. WTF? I will agree, though, that this has to be getting pushed by flag manufacturers like there's no tomorrow - purely for the profit angle, if nothing else.

So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.

Shocking news.

Who could have predicted THAT?

So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.

Since you prefer to remain ignorant... as somebody else mentioned, when is the last time a news story was reported regarding a flag burning on US soil?

It's been awhile.

Having attending a flag burning "ceremony" (the proper disposal method and all that) as a child myself while in the Boy Scouts, it does tend to instill pride and patriotism in me.

And then jackasses in Congress have to go and blow that all away.

But then, I'm not going to blame the flag for the actions of the jackasses. I'd rather we burn the jackasses...

FINALLY! A definate answer. I've been asking around since 8th grade wether or not flag burning was legal, and never got a straight answer. Thanks. Anyway, reminds me of someone (I think it was George Carlin) talking about how much of a problem politicians using the flag as a shield was.

So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.

Proper way to dispose a flag, you know.

But I don't think you have enough respect for either the flag or the principles it symnbolizes to grasp that.

Oddly, while I'm fairly patriotic (and a Christian), my response to burning the flag is exactly the same as if I were to see someone burning a copy of the Bible -- I simply dismiss them out of hand.

I don't understand the big fuss about this at all. It's a symbol! Nothing more. Honestly, I say we should have a Constitutional amendment banning the courts and the congress from figuratively burning the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), instead. (See: McCain-Feingold, recent decisions mutilating the Commerce Clause to interfere with state laws, and every law ever passed that restricts gun ownership)

"So Peter David is in favor of flag burning"

What Peter actually said was: "I've always said that I wasn't a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it's such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action."

Funny, I don't see how saying "X isn't illegal, and shouldn't be" is the same thing as being in favor of it. I hate the stupid rudeness that abides in our culture, but I would never want the government to outlaw it. I'm not in favor of it, I just see that it's outside the government's job description.

I always loved the idea, "If we ever pass an amedment against flag burning, we need to include at least one loophole: It's always okay to burn a flag while a politician is wrapping themselves in it."

It's always occurred to me that, instead of making flag descration illegal, why doesn't Congress and the Senate try to make sure that they never do anything that would make anyone WANT to desecrate the flag?

It's a crazy idea, but it just might work.

"Funny, I don't see how saying 'X isn't illegal, and shouldn't be' is the same thing as being in favor of it."

Since Peter David himself is far too haughty to reply, let me explain it to YOU!

Saying one isn't "a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest" is disgraceful. If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be "I am not a fan of burning my house down"? Of course not. You'd be dead-set against it. So you see, "not being a fan" is simply a way of granting tacit approval.

And why do you suppose that Peter David gets so worked up about THIS subject? Because it feeds his world-view: Peter David knows all, and BUSH SUCKS.

If I wasn't policing this site, and making a mockery out of the BUSH SUCKS people, I have no doubt Peter David would have tied BUSH SUCKS into this thread.

After all, it's the only political thought he knows!

Classic. And funny.

"If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be "I am not a fan of burning my house down"?"

X-ray, X-ray, Xray,

you poor, deluded mouthpiece of the rabid right-wingers. We are NOT talking about the destruction of PERSONAL property. I agree that flag burning is stupid, much as Marilyn Manson is stupid: whatever real point there is to make is lost in the volitile imagery and offensive content. However, both Mr. Manson and flag-burners have the right to express themselves in what way seems fit to them, but only to the limits of my rights. If you burn a flag, that is your proprerty. I can smash MY lamp, I can't smash yours. You can't burn MY flag. Burning down my house is destroying what is MINE. Your rights end where mine begin: you have the right to happiness, but if that happiness involves killing others, you lose that right. (unless you are in the White House. Then it is ok. And I don't just mean Bush. I mean anyone in the White House who has killed someone. Like Aarron Burr. Or Jackson.) Thus, what Mr. David said was that he personally would not burn a flag, nor is he a big fan of it, but that he will not stop other people from doing it. This is no way different than saying "I don't like gangster rap, I won't listen to it, but I won't forbid everyone else from playing it." Once again, to condense it for your small, closed mind:
"I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it."
Rousseau

How about a bit more concern for the nation that flag represents. America is built, however imperfectly, on really wonderful ideals. The flag is just a symbol, yes, but so are the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence etc. Just what do we want that flag to represent- A beacon of peace and freedom to the whole world or.. A Fascist Theocracy that turns it's citizens against each other in order to further it's government's questionable agenda.
It's not the flag, it's the nation it stands for that we need to be worried about.

A random thought- How about a different sort of
Flag Burning Amendment? One that would REQUIRE
the public burning of the Confederate Battle Flag
( especially when used as a racist symbol) and for that matter, let's torch all those other banners like the various swastika flags that
white supremacist groups like to waive around.
Some flags need to be burned!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On an absoultely unrelated topic, Today I read
the Elizabeth Shelby story from Tales of The Captain's Table. Great story, PAD! Now we know how Soleta ended up where she did.

I still think it's sad that a certain unnamed someone has nothing better to do with his obviously excessive free time than to needlessly attack the people who post on this blog and who, to my knowledge, never did a thing to hurt him. (Come to think of it, I think I saw someone with the same alias and bad attitude over on a couple of other blogs. Could be my imagination...) You're not going to change any POVs with ill phrasing, lack of logic and tact (Just because you're not A, doesn't mean you're B), and ignorant attitude. You're a disgrace to your fellow Republicans, to say nothing of your fellow man.

Onward to the flag debate: I have to agree with PAD on this one. However distasteful I might find burning the U.S. flag or desecrating it in any number of ways (Is tearing it like Bronson Pinchot tore Kleenex in "The Langoliers" out of the question? Just kidding!), the fact is, making such activity illegal just smacks of overindulgence and an overinflated ego. That, and like it or don't, it's a violation of the right to free speech. (James, way to go with the Rousseau quote, that nails it right-on, more succinctly than anything else could.) It's that simple. And Kim? That idea about making ours a nation where nobody would want to desecrate the flag (and I don't mean out of fear!)...it could be catchy.

In other news: my buddy Ben just arrived home safely from Iraq after a second tour. Give 'im a hand, gang. He's a PAD fan from way back, and a great guy besides. (Remember, kids--you can support our soldiers without supporting the war.)

~G.

"you can support our soldiers without supporting the war."

In my mind that was one of the worst things about Vietnam. People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die. I could never be a soldier. I don't like regimentation, and to put it bluntly, I don't have the guts, but those guys (and gals!) who put on the line and in harms way every damn day...they deserve everything we can give 'em. It is a crying shame that people who risk their lives are often on food stamps, while the people who send 'em out get fat. Really sad...the groups that do the most: soldiers, teachers, writers, preachers, always make the least. So support a Vet. Go and find someone who fought, in this war, or in any war, shake their hand, and tell them the truth: they are heros one and all.

As we did with another unnameable jerk of the days of yore, I'll just reiterate PAD's suggestion: When you read X-Ray, hear the voice of Eric Cartman.

Screw you guy, I'm going home.

Forgive me if I'm remembering this wrong. But I seem to recall from Civics and from being a Girl Scout, that when a flag becomes frayed, soiled or touches the ground, we are supposed to dispose of it by burning it. So, what does this new amandment mean? When our flags get worn we're to toss them in the trash?

X-ray said
"If I wasn't policing this site, and making a mockery out of the BUSH SUCKS people, I have no doubt Peter David would have tied BUSH SUCKS into this thread. "

Thanks God he's there to keep you at bay PAD, otherwise who knows what you'd say on your own blog. Good thing x-ray is here to keep you away from that pesky 1st amendment. ;)

Jeff Coney

That may well be what you were taught; many were. However, it is false, as you can see explained here: ">http://www.snopes.com/holidays/flagday/burnflag.asp

Not really false, just slightly inaccurate.

"I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it." is has to be one of the most simplistic, ignorant notions that the anti-responsibility liberals like to cling to.

Not everything should be said just because it can be. There should be consequences for certain actions and statements.

X-Ray: Since Peter David himself is far too haughty to reply...
Luigi Novi: You have not established that he does not reply for this reason. It is likely that he does not reply because you post here simply to insult him and respond to him with Straw Man arguments. You have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to respond directly to counterarguments by others that refute your position, and a tendency to reply with vitriol and invective, rather than constructive argument. Even conservatives who have disagreed with Peter on many issues here know how to do so with civility, and do not find you to be a competent debater, or a civil visitor to this site. So why would he respond to you? It's obvious you're not interested in polite discussion.

X-Ray: Saying one isn't "a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest" is disgraceful. If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be "I am not a fan of burning my house down"? Of course not. You'd be dead-set against it. So you see, "not being a fan" is simply a way of granting tacit approval.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? Not being a fan of something means just that: That you do not condone, endorse, or favor it. But that's different from thinking that it should be legally banned. And what about the fact that burning a flag is the prescribed way of disposing of one that's no longer of good use, as it states in Paragraph K of Section 8 of Chapter 4 of Title 1 of the U.S. Code?

X-Ray: And why do you suppose that Peter David gets so worked up about THIS subject? Because it feeds his world-view: Peter David knows all, and BUSH SUCKS.
Luigi Novi: I don't see any evidence that he's more "worked up" about this topic any more than any other one that he comments on on his blog. He's been a strident advocate for as broad an interpretation of the First Ammendment as possible for as long as I can remember, LONG before George W. Bush ever became President, and is perfectly consistent with every other column or blog entry he's ever done in which he's come out against any form of censorship. Can you point to a column, blog entry or statement he's made that contradicts his position in this entry?

"Luigi Novi: You have not established that he does not reply for this reason. It is likely that he does not reply because you post here simply to insult him and respond to him with Straw Man arguments."

I don't reply to him because he posts nothing worth replying to. It's really not much more complicated than that. Honestly, Luigi, I haven't the slightest idea why you, or anyone, bothers. He's not interested in rational discourse and his posts bear no resemblance to reality. Not really seeing the point.

PAD

Lately, when I have been coming to this blog, I have heard a slight, whining sound. It only lasts for a moment, and there is no physical manifestation to go along with it, although it does sound like an infestation.

Sorta reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk and crew hear these noises and eventually find that the noises are just some people at a different vibratory level desperately in need of attention.

"Not everything should be said just because it can be. There should be consequences for certain actions and statements."

Actions yes. Statements no. (and the old one about fire in a crowded theater is true, but that is more of an action. A statement that causes an action should be viewed as an action.) I am reminded of an line from the movie 1776, when the Congress is voting on whether or not to debate the question of Independence, and Bartlett says "Well, in all my years, I never seen, heard nor smelt an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell, yes! I'm for debating anything!" Perhaps there are ideas that the world would be better off without. Nazis, the KKK, Racism....the world would be better off without them. So we get rid of them. Then, I decide I don't like (to use my earlier example) Marilyn Manson. So we arrest him. Then I decide I don't like Mr. David's ideas. So we arrest him. then I decide I don't like your ideas. Welcome to the Gulag my friend. No sane person denies that some ideas are evil, but if we must tolerate a little a little evil to get a lot of good, then I can deal with it. I am watching through The West Wing on DVD, and in the 3d season, there is an episode where Toby is going to credential a Russian reporter who is their version of the Nat'l Inquirer, and someone tells him this. and he says "And if the Nat'l Inquirer asked, we'd credential them. I have to make sure that they are printing whatever they want, because that is the only way I can be sure that the New York Times is printing whatever it wants." (I just sent the disk back to Netflix, so I am not sure if that is word for word, but it is close. I would fight as much for a skinheads right to SAY what he wants as I would for Mr. David's right to say what he wants. Now, I personally feel that we should take every opportunity to shut skinheads down. If they so much as spit on the sidewalk they should be arrested. but they can say what they want. And you can say what you want. Ain't it a great country? I can say Bush Sucks, or Bush Is God, and no one can stop me. Ken, if you are willing to risk any iota of your freedom, I refer you to two more quotes. The First is from Ben Franklin: "Those who would exchange liberty to gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." the second is from Kierkegaard: "How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."

"Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature....

...shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days

So, you can't draw a smiley face on the flag but you should be allowed to burn it?

If we're going to ban flag burning, might I suggest there also be a law that all US Flags be manufactured in the US? How about a law stating that if any good or service is manufactured or performed in the US, the Federal Government of the US can has to buy said service or good from a US company made in the US instead of having our military uniforms made overseas?

While I'm posting let me say this is the exact reason we don't have school funding here in Texas. The politicians are too busy sticking their noses into things they shouldn't (gay marriage/adoption, sexy cheerleading, etc...) to do the business of the people. I suggest we all call our congressmen (dial 1877-SOB-USOB and ask for them) and let them know we'd rather they worry about healthcare and education.

Col

This one baffles me. As much as I lean towards conservative (or the hip new phrase Neo-Con liberals are using) on some things Flag burning and Free speech should be left alone. Are we so thin skinned as Americans we can't take that kind of critisism? I think we're tougher than that. Every time I hear of one of these types of legislation I want them to go to Arlington cemetary dig up a WW2 soldier and spit in his face because that's what they are doing anyway. (jeeze, my rhetoric makes me almost sound like a liberal, oh sorry Progressive *snicker*)

Interesting to consider that so many of our political leaders from the top down are dismissive of world opinion, but scream bloody murder when a citizen of our own country expresses outrage (albeit in a very uncreative, largely ineffective and distracitng-to-their point manner) towards national policy.

Are we so thin skinned as Americans we can't take that kind of critisism?

Listen to talk radio recently, Eric!? You can't disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.

Den

"How about a law stating that if any good or service is manufactured or performed in the US, the Federal Government of the US can has to buy said service or good from a US company made in the US..."

That goes against the idea of capitalism. One of the basic principles on which America runs. It also just begs for impropriety. Please see the whole Boeing airtanker contract scandal. The US should award a $23.5 billion to Boeing after everything that has happened (http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/nm/arms_boeing_tanker_dc) because they are the only American company to bid? No. I don't think so.

Also, I've been coming to this site for awhile and have always enjoyed the (mostly) well-thought out arguments that fellow members make (even when I disagree with them.) But this thing with X-Ray really bugs me. Please stop belittling him/her for his/her opinions. He/She has just as much right to post her/his opinion that anyone else on this site does. If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her.

I'll have to noise this around some. I go to church with some of the Republican leadership and I'd love to hear some sort of intelligent justification for such an amendment (though I doubt any exists).

Burning a flag is immature and stupid, but I can't imagine legislating immaturity and stupidity...

The only justification for passing this amendment that I've seen discussed is that allowing the US flag to be burned somehow hurts the National Image. Which I take to mean that congress essentially feels that the American image worldwide is so fragile that the destruction of a symbol is enough to cause the nation real harm.

Or, put another way, congress is being led by a bunch of wussies. Hell, you can kill our people, and sure, we'll hurt, but our spirit will come backe even stronger. Burn our *symbols*? We should laugh at such a feeble, impotent attempt to strike at us. Has the republican party become so fearful of anything negative that they are now willing to further curtail the shrinking list of freedoms held by the people? I thought the GOP stood for smaller government and more power held by the citazenry. Just about everything we've seen over the past 5 years is a larger government, with fewer programs, but more centralized power, and the only group that is less restricted is the corporate citazen. Those of us that have the unfortunate circumstance of being actual people have had to watch our freedoms shrink.

People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die.

Well, I'd spit on Bush if I could, but I wouldn't get close enough (not being a registered Republican and all that).

And even if I did, I'd be arrested, I'm sure.

But that doesn't stop the NeoCons from thinking that Everybody Else (ie, non-NeoCons) is in fact spitting on the soldiers coming back from Iraq.

Well, I'd spit on Bush if I could, but I wouldn't get close enough (not being a registered Republican and all that).

[B}And even if I did, I'd be arrested, I'm sure.{/B]

Charged with assault, too, I bet.

People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die.

Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the reports of US soldiers being spat at upon returning from Vietnam may be more urban legend than fact.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276799/posts

Y'know, someone should get a million blogger march going down to DC, everyone go into Congress and in our best parental voices say "Don't you people have anything BETTER to do?"

You know, like making sure that everyone in America is taken care of. Health wise, protection wise, ideal wise. Hell, shelter wise would be a good place to start. Wanna judge a society? Look at how it treats the least members. The majority can live in comfort but if even one is left out, then the whole country is being supported on a house of cards being built with half a deck. Kinda like how most of the government is now.

Even though I am a Conservative Republican (albeit I lean towards Libertarian) I am oppoesed to this amendment, and will vote no if it ever come to my ballot box. Am I in favor of it being burned? No. But it is political speech, with is (IMO) the exact type speech that the 1st amendment was talking about.

On the other hand, dramatic acts of speech like this have almost always ben illegal anyway. (Boston Tea Party, most other acts of the Revolution). The fact they were illegal under the laws of the country at the time (Britain) didn't stop them from doing it.

"I am reminded of an line from the movie 1776, when the Congress is voting on whether or not to debate the question of Independence, and Bartlett says "Well, in all my years, I never seen, heard nor smelt an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell, yes! I'm for debating anything!""

Yeah, that is a great line. Point of information, though: It was Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island who said it. Remember? He was called for the first vote, and the hard-drinking Hopkins was nowhere to be found. When Hancock demands to know where he is...

MCNAIR: "Rhode Island is out visiting the necessary."
HANCOCK: "With what Rhode island's consumed, I can't say I'm surprised. We'll come back to him, Mr. Secetary."
THOMPSON: Rhode Island passes. (Annoyed look at the ensuing laughter).

Then later:

THOMPSON: Second call, Rhode Island!
HOPKINS: I'm coming, I'm coming! Ya think Congress would have its own privvy. So...where do we stand?
THOMPSON: Five for debate, five for postponement, one absent and one abstention.
HOPKINS: So it's up to me, izzit? Weelll, I'll tell ya: In all my years, I ain't never heard, seen or smelled an issue that was so dangerous, it couldn't be TALKED about. Hell yes, I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea.

The foregoing was typed without looking at a script. Can you tell I've been in WAY too many productions of that show?

PAD

"If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her."

That's pretty much my philosophy, and it's what I've encouraged others to do. I *did* answer his two most insistent and bleating questions. The answers were, naturally, distorted or lampooned or simply not understood, which I expected. Other than that, nothing else has been worth addressing.

PAD

With the current state of things, the scary part is that it's going to take a true leader to come out against this amendment and open some kind of intelligent debate that doesn't involve name-callilng or labels involving patriotism. Someone earlier said that there's no way this amendment will pass. However, if this makes it out of Congress, do we really have 13 individual states with strong enough leaders that can intelligently argue against this and keep it from getting ratified?

"I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it."

Out of a sense of literary correctness, I feel it is necessary for me to point out this was Voltaire, not Rousseau.

What this quote says, is that words shouldn't be banned because of disagreement. They can be restricted based on intent to cause a riot. They can be restricted based on libel or slander (depending upon whether its written or spoken). But not just because they aren't nice.

Because what you consider not nice, might not be what I consider not nice.

There are European countries that prohibit offensive speech. (And I believe Canada does too.) The US doesn't.

Apparently all 50 states have a resolution that prohibits flag desecrations. Some of these may have passed their respective houses several years ago, so the fight will be refought. But if it passes the Senate (and apparently people believe it will be extremely close this time), it will be ratified fairly quickly I fear.

But nothing really to worry about. All we will need to do is create US Flag Substitutes. Flags with 49 stars, or only 12 stripes. US Flags are defined in great detail in the US Legal Code. So, even if the flag you burn looks like a US Flag, if it isn't exactly right, you will still be able to burn it.

PAD:

Yeah, I wasn't referring to you when I said to stop belittling her/him. Sorry if you took offense. IMHO: I think you've been much more patient than I would be if he was talking smack to me. ;-)

>But nothing really to worry about. All we will need to do is create US Flag Substitutes. Flags with 49 stars, or only 12 stripes. US Flags are defined in great detail in the US Legal Code. So, even if the flag you burn looks like a US Flag, if it isn't exactly right, you will still be able to burn it.

Cool. Thanks for that, John!

Wait. I just thought of something....

If you burn a 49-starred (SP?) flag, how are you gonna prove that it was a 49-starred flag and not the American flag?

The term 'neo-conservative' was created to define those people who call themselves conservative, but completely eschew the traditional conservative policies such as small government, balanced budgets, complete and total separation of church and state, as well as a relatively isolationist foreign policy. You know, people like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and the like. Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, embrace a very aggressive foreign policy, very little concern with balanced budgets and have gone whole hog the other direction in terms of "small government".

Here is the Wikipedia page that may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

To pin the term 'neo-conservative' on the "liberals" is a complete and utter fallacy. This is a term that has been adopted by that movement on the political right and borne with pride by said movement, and used with disgust by those on the left ("liberal", of course, is used the same way). Who coined this term? Fuck if I know, and it really doesn't matter. It is a conservativism that completely turns the original philosophy on it's head, hence the prefix "neo" moving its base out of the realm of economy and politics, and into social areas. A similar example would be the term 'neo-liberalism'. This isn't what we leftists would consider anything close to liberalism. It's an economy-based political philosophy, not social.

"That's pretty much my philosophy, and it's what I've encouraged others to do. I *did* answer his two most insistent and bleating questions. The answers were, naturally, distorted or lampooned or simply not understood, which I expected. Other than that, nothing else has been worth addressing."

I don't know about anyone else, Peter, but sometimes, just sometimes, it's really fun to say "Bush Sucks."

Speaking of tax dollards (and dullards) at work, a couple of news articles today already:

Federal authorities raided a series of locations in San Francisco and arrested a couple from Sacramento over pot.

Supposedly this is a +2 year investigation, yet the whole operation seems to have stemmed as a direct result of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of big business (5-4 decision) - local govnerments can basically use eminent domain (5th Amendment) as they see fit, even for non-traditional city improvements such as the latest strip mall.

Just wondering how you feel about book burning?

BUSH SUCKS!

HEY! K-Nuck! I do feel better!!

I'd like to add my personal (NASCAR) favorite:
BUSCH (Both Kurt and Kyle) SUCKS!

Den said: "You can't disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail."

I'll readily admit that's true. Neal Boortz always has a few insane calls from conservatives every time his Libertarian views contradict what the Republicans are doing.

It's true on the other side of the spectrum as well, though. As much as I love talk radio (and I really, really do), it's not the best place to find reasoned discussion most of the time.

And PAD, in response to your not understanding why people respond to trolls, I'm compelled to believe that hope springs eternal. I KNOW you're right, that trolls aren't looking for a real discussion, but there's that part of me that always remembers that I could be wrong. (Incidentally, that's similar to my reason for opposing abortion. I'm 99.9% certain that there's no real individual human life there until at least six months into the pregnancy, but I COULD be wrong, and I prefer to err on the side of caution.)

"Yeah, I wasn't referring to you when I said to stop belittling her/him. Sorry if you took offense."

Offense? Good lord, no, and I certainly hope my post didn't come across that way. No, I was just agreeing with you. I was basically saying, "You're right, and that's what I've been doing and it's what I think others should do."

PAD

Just wondering how you feel about book burning?

To cause a stir...

The Nazis burned books, you know. ;)

Actually, I have seen a book (and more - cd, etcs) burning in person, at a Southern Baptist Church some friends of mine attended for awhile.

I think the theme of the night was to piss on the Eagles over "Hotel California" or something.

But, in general, I think the concept of book burning is a terrible one, whether it's a church, a group in power (like the Nazis), etc.

Like burning the flag, I don't feel that it really accomplishes anything. But, unlike burning a flag, I feel that burning books is akin to censorship - an attempt to get rid of something by destroying it, rather than let people think for themselves.

"Book Burning for Dummies"?... so crazy that it just might work.

"Just wondering how you feel about book burning?"

Depends who wrote it...

Seriously, I think book burning is a sickening pratice. There's few things that evoke Nazi Germany like the sight of that. I'm very much opposed to the concept because it sends a clear message: "We're afraid of ideas." How the hell can anyone be supportive of this country's foundations and fear IDEAS?

But would I seek to curtail someone's rights to burn books? Absolutely not.

Yes, I find the concept appalling. But protecting free speech cannot simply mean that you are in favor of protecting all manner of expression that you yourself approve of. If you don't fight to protect the free speech you disapprove of, then you're dead in the water.

PAD

I don't know of any other country that makes such a big deal about its flag. I think it must be something to do with that whole business of saluting the thing every day at school. It's so ritualistic it's turned the thing into a religious icon.

Could that be why certain americans are so evangelical about imposing their own brand of "freedom" on others?

Of course book burning is a whole other kettle of worms. Where flag burning is an entirely symbolic gesture, book burning is usually done to prevent others from reading the books, and so while it has a symbolic aspect, it is based on an entirely non-symbolic act.

"I don't know of any other country that makes such a big deal about its flag."

That's because most other nations aren't so insecure about their place in the world. Were we a nation that had a national self-esteem that was actually built around the tenets espoused by our Founding Fathers (you know, silly shit like freedom, liberty, representative democracy), as opposed to needing to have our national self-esteem reinforced by feeling like the toughest kid on the block, then the flag burning wouldn't be an issue. Those who are confident in America and the ideals that it stands for really don't give a damn. Those who are not, do give a damn. Generally speaking, those are also the same people who burn books and attempt to shit on equal rights for all, etc. It's a generalization, but a true one.

BB: I told you it feels good. The 'Bus(c)h Sucks' also works with beer, conveniently enough.

PAD wrote: "But protecting free speech cannot simply mean that you are in favor of protecting all manner of expression that you yourself approve of. If you don't fight to protect the free speech you disapprove of, then you're dead in the water."

Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray's right to write his opinion.

As much as I love talk radio (and I really, really do), it's not the best place to find reasoned discussion most of the time.

That must be why the neocons love it so.

You got to give Republicans credit though, as soon as one of their terms stops testing well, they change it around. Thus the "nuclear option" (coined by Trent Lott) became the "Constitutional option" and Bush's "privatization" plan became "personal accounts". Now we have myths floating around that "neocon" is a term liberals created to vilify conservatives who are also Jewish.

"Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray's right to write his opinion."

Sure, BB, but also please consider that this is (for all intents and purposes) a private forum. If Peter (or Glenn, whomever plays 'bad cop') wants to shut his troll ass down, he can.

Not to mention we still have the right to call him an idiot every time he says something idiotic.

"Sure, BB, but also please consider that this is (for all intents and purposes) a private forum. If Peter (or Glenn, whomever plays 'bad cop') wants to shut his troll ass down, he can."

And yet we haven't.

I don't think anyone disputes X-Ray's right to write his opinion. They dispute his right to write it HERE. It's a valid point. He doesn't have the right to write it here. He has the privilege of writing it here, via amenities extended to him that he has met with insults, slams and stupidities. He responds to courtesies with discourtesy and pats himself on the back for a job well done. It's sad and pathetic. But hey, it's America.

PAD

You know, Peter, I meant to make that clear. My bad.

I have to think on that whole right vs. privilege thingee. I can't wrap my head around it just yet.

Den wrote: "You got to give Republicans credit though, as soon as one of their terms stops testing well, they change it around."

Well, sure. If the Democrats were successfully attacking the _concepts_ instead of just trying as hard as they can to repeat (for example) "Privatization is bad", they'd have to rework the plan, but since they're NOT, why not just change the term you use to describe it? It's a cowardly way of handling things (the better option would be to actually reply just as often, "Why is it bad?"), but it's effective.

Perhaps the line is blurred for you because we encounter so many infringements on free speech on a daily basis. My favorite example would be "protest zones" that get set up outside of political conventions, political rallies, that sort of thing. To me, those are blatantly unconstitutional, but they occur all the time.

You are absolutely correct, Robin. The Democrats desperately need to start coming up with ideas of their own instead of reacting to the Republicans. I'm giving the GOP credit: They're really good at shining up a turd and telling people it's a candy bar.

If you burn a 49-starred (SP?) flag, how are you gonna prove that it was a 49-starred flag and not the American flag?

You don't. The prosecution (persuction if you prefer) has to prove you burnt the legal flag. Besides, you can always film yourself holding the near-flag (for lack of a better term) before burning it.

Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of big business (5-4 decision) - local govnerments can basically use eminent domain (5th Amendment) as they see fit, even for non-traditional city improvements such as the latest strip mall.

Gee, what a surprise
/scarcasm

Hey, people. Not to put too fine a point on it (say I'm the only bee in your bonnet.. whoops. I digress) but that includes X-Ray's right to write his opinion."

Yes, and we can likewise ignore him, as many of us are doing.

--------------

BTW, notice how many of the people saying we have to protect the flag are the same ones who dismiss Quran destrustion with 'it's just a book'. Well guess what, the flag is equally 'just some cloth'. Both items have worth to the people who follow/worship them, and both feel the same way about the treatment of their respective object.

I'm trying to remember who wrote it, but I once read a pretty good article about how once you start making a symbol more important than the ideals it's supposed to represent, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by the Denver Post
Flag is a Symbol, Remember?
by Reggie Rivers

The U.S. flag means a great deal to nearly all Americans. Military veterans have strong emotional ties to the flag as a symbol of their service; politicians believe that children will be better citizens if they pledge allegiance to the flag; most Americans would be outraged if a flag were desecrated in a public setting; and, after Sept. 11, the flag was a ubiquitous symbol of our national unity.

However, the flag is not without its problems. It seems that too many Americans have forgotten that the U.S. flag is merely a symbol of our ideals - it is not the actual embodiment of them.

Totalitarian leaders have been notorious for treating symbols as if they were real, arresting people who disrespected them. But in the United States, we enjoy broad political freedom partly because we separate symbolic activities from actual threats. If you want to cut out a picture of George W. Bush in The Denver Post and throw darts at it, the Secret Service will not arrest you.

However, in the case of the flag, the distinction between the symbol and reality is murky. Many people would rush forward and punch anyone who was harming a flag. Many Americans would react as if the flag were a small child that needed to be rescued, and that's not normal.

I believe many traditions are feeding our confusion about what the flag means and how much protection it needs.

This week, we observed Flag Day, June 14. It's a little odd to recognize a symbol in this way, but Flag Day by itself would be fairly benign. What's more troublesome is that we have a national anthem that is entirely about the flag; we pledge our allegiance to the flag itself; and the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment could turn symbolic acts into crimes.

Destroying your own flag would be like printing a big letter "S" and burning it. You wouldn't do harm to the alphabet by destroying this "S" nor would you harm any words that used the letter. You would do no harm to the English language, yet if you did the same thing with a flag, people would erupt in violence.

If a man in North Korea were arrested for stomping on a newspaper photo of Kim Jong Il, we would condemn his arrest as a form of political repression. However, if a man in Denver were arrested for stomping on a U.S. flag that he purchased at Wal-Mart, many of us would not recognize it as political repression. Many would say it's OK to arrest a man for harming a flag, because we've forgotten that the flag is a symbol.

The Christian Lord knew that humans were prone to this type of confusion, so his Second Commandment called for a moratorium on idol worship. We should heed this commandment.

Instead of amending our Constitution - as House Joint Resolution 10 and Senate Joint Resolution 12 seek to do - we should change our pledge. It should read: "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America ... ." That way, our kids will pledge their allegiance to our ideals, not a cloth symbol.

We should also change our national anthem. The song's first verse - the only one we normally sing - is entirely about the flag. If you look at the lyrics and replace references to the flag with descriptions of Britney Spears, it is instantly clear that the song is about an object, not ideals.

The American flag is a wonderful symbol, and it is important for us to maintain it in our society. However, it's clear that the flag has become more important than the ideals that it symbolizes, so in the name of democracy, we have to shift our focus. We can't allow our loyalty to the flag to trump our allegiance to the Constitution.

Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers writes Fridays on the Denver Post op-ed page.

Flag-burning should be legal. However, it's a stupid, moronic thing to do, and I have little respect for those that do it.

If someone is stupid enough to, say, burn a flag in front of a group of veterans and then gets their face smashed in by that same group, then I'd charge them with inciting to riot.

Yes, I know, he should be protected, but sometimes you just want to ask "How stupid can you get?"

If someone is stupid enough to, say, burn a flag in front of a group of veterans and then gets their face smashed in by that same group,

What a wonderful message. 'We went to war to fight for freedom & we'll beat up anyone who tries to exercise it'.

Anybody else notice that all the bad liberals in the world usually (and I STRESS usually) back their arguments up with reasons why their views can be valid and all the good conservatives usually (ditto) shout at the liberals and call them names a la the other reindeer in Rudolph? Biggest offender obnoxious-wise (no, not X-Ray) seems to be Sean Hannity. Something to think about.

"Please stop belittling him/her for his/her opinions. He/She has just as much right to post her/his opinion that anyone else on this site does. If you, as I do, disagree with or dislike much of what she/he posts, ignore it. To do otherwise just encourages him/her."

See, the thing that really irks me about X-ray, is not that he disagrees with me. I like debates, and I love people that disagree with me. My problem with him/her is twofold. First, he came on to a website where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged, and where dissenting opinions are welcomed. He then proceeded to trample all over that privilage by attacking our host personally. I have not always agreed with what Mr. David said, and if I feel like it, I will say so. And I will say so politely, and adressing the issue at hand. You would too, as would 99.9% of the people on here. X-ray, on the other hand, engages in personal slander, and is an embarrassment to the many fine, free thinking conservatives I know. Second, he refuses not only to accept any other opinion, but to accept their validity, and in some cases, their very existance. However, your point is excellent. Personal attacks on him/her only lower us to his/her level. We should, if we adress x-ray at all, obey the Golden Rule.

also, Mr. David and John, thank you for the corrections. And, asking as an actor, how long has it been since you were in 1776? because remembering it that well....that is something else. I can't remember any lines from the show I starred in this YEAR! So I'm impressed.

"Personal attacks on him/her only lower us to his/her level."

YES! That is my point exactly. Thanks you for pulling it out of my head. It was stuck.

My reaction to the notion of an act of Congress or, God forbid, a constitutional amendment against burning the flag has, for years, boiled down to this:

"Oh, yes, by all means, let's protect the flag by wiping our asses with the Constitution."

Crude, yes, and carrying some pretty unpleasant imagery, but I think it expresses the idea effectively.

Paul

So, when is Karl Rove going to be dragged over a fire pit for his comments toward Democrats, like Durbin has for his comments about Gitmo?

To quote Rove:
Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Offer therapy? Understanding?

I'd say that Bush understands bin Laden far more, since, you know, capturing bin Laden just isn't that important any more.

But, hey, atleast Rove admits that the Bush Administrations comments about diplomacy were laughable at best - Rove can easily be interpreted as saying that war was the only option.

You know, Sen. Patty Murray got dragged over the coals for saying, in essence, that the reason people like Osama bin Laden are popular with the masses and have the effect they do is that they understand the problems that these people are dealing with and make attempts to alleviate those problems. You know, silly stuff like education, food, shelter, healthcare, infrastructure. The US, on the other hand, tends to sort of half-assedly throw money at a problem and then assume it's taken care of.

Wes Clark made similar comments while running for president. He remarked that Saudi Arabia was the number one recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, and the reason for that was the incredible poverty and disparity of wealth. The vacuum will be filled, and it's being filled by people who are preaching hatred of America. Sure, we can try and bomb the shit out of these people, but wouldn't it make more sense to try and make them not hate us at the same time?

I'm sorry to say that, thanks to the pusilanimous nature of most of the Democrats in the past, the very same thing is happening here. The airwaves are filled with messages of hate and distrust as spread by people like Hannity, Limbaugh and anyone on Fox News (except for Wes Clark), and there is nothing else to combat those messages.

Listen to talk radio recently, Eric!? You can't disagree with the neocon (a term coined by republicans, not democrats) agenda in even the slightest bit without experiencing shrieking accusations about how you hate freedom and want America to fail.
C'mon, Air America is just as guilty of the name calling and demonizing. Yes, the same can be said of many on the right. Yippee!
Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win.

C'mon, Air America is just as guilty of the name calling and demonizing. Yes, the same can be said of many on the right. Yippee!

First, somebody would actually have to listen to Air America for that to matter.

Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win.

Ah yes, that horrible ACLU. It's really terrible for Christians, being a mere 83% of the US population, to express themselves. What with all the churches being torn down and the prayer groups being hauled off to gulags. I hope that one day, Christians will be able to put their religious icons in the public square every Christmas. Or, as Jon Stewart said last night, dare we dream that one day, we could have an openly Christian president? Or perhaps, 43? In succession.

Ah yes, that horrible ACLU.
Great, we agree, I knew you'd come around.
First, somebody would actually have to listen to Air America for that to matter.
Well, that and NPR.

I don't see how they could get a conviction for flag burning. If the burner did a good job, all the evidence would be destroyed. Unless someone was taking photos close enough that the stars and stripes could be counted, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a Maylasian or Liberian flag, or some 11-striped, 54-starred banner, which would have no legal protection. Hell, if this thing were to pass (which is unlikely, even if it makes it through the Senate), I'm going to print up a bunch of burn-safe pseudo-US flags.

Great, we agree, I knew you'd come around.

You what will convince me? If somebody actually does get arrested for being a Christian. And no, I don't mean a court ordering an end to mandatory school prayers. I mean something that actually prevents a Christian from practicing their faith on their own time, on their own property.

When it comes to the evidence issue, worry about the opposite - say someone burns an obviously fake or pseudo-flag all the way to ash, but a group of people, some with video cameras, witness it and then testify in court that absolutely, that out-of-focus, smokey image on the tv there is a real, honest-to-God American flag. There are rules in place already for evidence that is destroyed as part of the act in committing the crime. As for the folks talking about using fake or "close enough" flags, I'd ask those of you who've read the actual amendment as passed so far if it could be interpretted to mean that just making a flag that wasn't up to code would count as defacing it. Since we've already established that the group pushing this through is confusing a symbol for what it actually stands for, could they also attempt to lift it above parody somehow?

Did someone actually make the argument that the people who are behind the Desecration Amendment are insecure about their country?

Utterly silly.

They see America as the best and brightest place on the planet. They think it is self-evident and deserving respect(I tend to agree). They believe those who are ungrateful, disrespectful, cynical, and blind to the wonders of our country should be snapped awake and told to look around.

They just chose a really poor way to do that. Poor, silly, ineffective, expensive and sad... really, really sad...

The burden of proof in the US is on the prosecution to prove a crime has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the flag burner provides a receipt proving they purchased a US Flag Substitute, I don't care how many witnesses there were. The Defense Attorney will just produce a Flag Substitue and a Real Flag and ask the witnesses under penalty of perjury if they can say with certainty it was a Real Flag.

If you still have any doubts about whether closing Guantanamo is the right thing to do, Jimmy Carter recently cleared that up by demanding that it be closed. With any luck, he'll try to effect another one of those daring "rescue" attempts. Here's a foolproof method for keeping America safe: Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible. (Instead of Guantanamo, how about we close down the Carter Center?)

Sen. Dick Durbin says it is reminiscent of the "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others." (He then offered the typical Democrat "if/then" non-apology: i.e., "if my remarks offended anyone," based on the rather remote possibility any sentient, English-speaking adult who didn't hate America could have heard them and not been offended.)

Amnesty International calls Guantanamo a "gulag." Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning "as a human being." And Sen. Patrick Leahy calls it "an international embarrassment," as opposed to himself, a "national embarrassment."

On the bright side, at least liberals have finally found a group of people in Cuba whom they think deserve to be rescued.

In the interests of helping my country, I have devised a compact set of torture guidelines for Guantanamo.

It's not torture if:

— The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;

— Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;

— You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;

— Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;

— It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;

— It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.

It turns out that the most unpleasant aspect of life at Guantanamo for the detainees came with the move out of the temporary "Camp X-Ray." Apparently, wanton homosexual sex among the inmates is more difficult in their newer, more commodious quarters. (Suspiciously, detainees retailing outlandish tales of abuse to the ACLU often include the claim that they were subjected to prolonged rectal exams.) Plus, I hear the views of the Caribbean aren't quite as good from their new suites.

Even the tales of "torture" being pawned off by the detainees on credulous American journalists are pretty lame.

The Washington Post reported that a detainee at Guantanamo says he was "threatened with sexual abuse." (Bonus "Not Torture" rule: If it is similar to the way interns were treated in the Clinton White House.)

"Sign or you will be tortured!"

"What's the torture?"

"We will merely threaten you with horrible things!"

"That's it?"

"Shut up and do as we say, or we'll issue empty, laughable threats guaranteed to amuse you. This is your last warning."

One detainee in Afghanistan told a hyperventilating reporter for Salon that he was forced to stand with his arms in the air for "hours." Doctor, I still have nightmares about the time I was forced to stand with my arms up in the air ...

Others claimed they were forced into uncomfortable, unnatural positions, sort of like the Democrats' position on abortion. Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!

According to Time magazine, this is how the "gulag of our time" treats the inmates: "The best-behaved detainees are held in Camp 4, a medium-security, communal-living environment with as many as 10 beds in a room; prisoners can play soccer or volleyball outside up to nine hours a day, eat meals together and read Agatha Christie mysteries in Arabic."

So they're not exactly raping the detainees with dogs at Guantanamo. (I still think the gift shop T-shirts that say "My dad went to Guantanamo and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" goes too far.)

The only question is: Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? If someone was constantly telling vicious lies about you, would you believe they supported and loved you?

"I love John Doe, and that's why I accuse him of committing serial rape and mass murder. Oh, he doesn't do that? Yes, but how dare you say I don't love John Doe!"

And now back to our regular programming on Air America ...

bbayliss - thanks for presenting that good Op-Ed piece by Reggie Rivers. Rivers makes several good points (and not just because, for the record, I'm a huge Denver Broncos fan ;) ). Why do we "pledge allegience to the FLAG?" The wording would be better as "to the Constitution" or "to the ideals" (while leaving the flag there if you want something to physically salute).

For the record, I agree with PAD's original posting (and most of those who have replied). The expression of hate for our country which burning the flag represents may be disturbing, or repugnant (or any of a dozen other possible reactions); but the right to express one's thoughts, in a way which does not harm others or infringe upon their rights, is one of the most important of human rights, and American ideals (as I more or less wrote the last time a censorship topic was raised on the blog).

Right on! Let's all burn the flag to show our patriotism! And then let's all piss on Christ to prove we are religious! Excellent logic!

Gary: your friend would deserve a hand even if wasn't a PAD fan..or if he was *shudder* a Byrne fan:-)

Glenn: Could you please just ban this X-ray clown?
I get that you and Peter are against the idea, but really...it's one thing to be for people to express their opinions...it's another to not do anything when someone walks in to your house and pisses on your couch.

Michael Norton: Texas Politicians are too busy sticking their noses in sexy cheerleaders? Is there a bar you go to do that?

(Yes, I know the actual case...saw the Daily Show report on it)

Robnn: "I can't imagine legislating immaturity and stupidity..."

My G-d....I think you've just stated the key to saving the future!

Knuckles,
"Setting aside the mockery it makes of the First Amendment"

Unlike, say, "Hate speech" laws and McCain-Feingold, which puts restrictions on POLITICAL SPEECH, whic is, you know, the main reason the First Amendment is in place. Not to defend a crucifix being dipped in urine but to question and interact with the our government and air our political views. Why the hell aren't all the First Amendment Absolutists here as upset about that?

"as well as the absolute impossibility of such an amendment being passed"

It is far from absolutely impossible. Hell, an asteroid crashing and ending all life on earth is within the realm of possibility. Cut down on the hyperbole.

"I'd wager that you are going to see a dramatic increase in flag burning"

Possible, but I sure hope not.

"Hell, I might even pick up a couple at the dollar store myself just to get things going."

Now you're sounding like an asshole. If you didn't have cause to do it before, why be a punk and do it just "to show them" and upset a lot of people for no reason in the process?

Bobb,
"Those IDIOTS!"

What a profound statement.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy says he cannot condone allegations of near-drowning "as a human being."

Hey... as most of you might suspect, I'm as left-winged and liberal as they come, but I don't think Teddy should be the poster-boy for "near drowning."

Just my opinion.

I wonder - will the people who support this amendment also call for Bush's arrest the next time he desacrates the flag?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/walker66/bushsignsflag.gif

Michael Pullman,
"I happen to know that the best way to get someone to stop doing something that offends you isn't to make a giant stink and call Mommy and Daddy"

I agree. Unfortunately, many liberals don't. As evidenced by increased so-called "hates speech legislation", a work environment in some instances that is so acute to "offending" women that saying "Good morning, good looking" can get you called into the office and that many workplaces ban even a photo of a wife/girlfriend pictured in a bikini because it "creates a hostile work environment".
So, this has been going on for some time now and is hardly one-sided.

Jerry,
"Brought to you by the same Neanderthal morons that brought you Freedom Fries".

Oh goodness. Someone who doesn't agree with conservatives is portraying them as knuckle-dragging cretins.
Yawn.
Is the whole Freedom Fries thing a bit silly? Perhaps. But many people were upset with France and still are. I am one of them. This is how they are voicing their displeasure. Because, as liberals know, symbolism is everything.

" let's all piss on Christ to prove we are religious"

You pray at the device of his execution, don't you?

"Is the whole Freedom Fries thing a bit silly? Perhaps. But many people were upset with France and still are. I am one of them."

Yes, and renaming something that has nothing to do with the country is a good way to show that.

And G-d forbid a soveriegn nation not agree with the US.

or by your logic...you coninue to use Saudi Oil..so you're happy with them flying planes into our buildings?

You now what? Conservatives, using their usual logic and arguments or even Bush logic, should be all for flag burning. Just think.....

1) How many times have we been told by conservatives that we should be able to do whatever we want to do with our own property and the government should just back off? Pick just about any topic and you can find conservatives using that line against any law or regulation that they don't like. Well, if it's my lighter, my yard and my flag then I should be able to exercise my desire to do what I want with them. That's conservative logic. It's not harming anyone else, it's not burning someone else's property and it costs no one else a thing. Government should back off and butt out.

2) It's good for the economy. Some far left-wing wackadoo wants to burn the flag to tick off a few conservatives. He does and they do. Well, what can he do with the flag now? It's gone. He has to GO OUT AND BUY A NEW ONE. He may even think that getting a bigger flag will get a better (in his eyes) response out of the conservatives. Result? He buys a bigger, more expensive flag the next time. He steps up from the $3.00 dime store flag to the $20.00 Wal-Mart flag. The rest of the wackadoo tribe see the foam and the hair pulling from their favorite agitation targets (while ignoring the indifference to their actions from everybody smart enough to see them as the mostly tiny minded twits that they are) and do the same. Result? More flags sold and burnt. Result? More agitation and more sales to create more agitation. Result? More money pumped into the economy, more corporate revenues, more taxes collected and more prosperity and financial security for all Americans. Why, damn it, it might even be your patriotic duty to go burn flags!

Now go out there, help out our economy and burn one for the Gipper!

Jerome,

About Freedom Fries:

"Oh goodness. Someone who doesn't agree with conservatives is portraying them as knuckle-dragging cretins.
Yawn."

Don't care if you don't like the French. Spend all the time you want posting signs in your yard and screaming from the highest hilltop about what dweebs you feel the French to be. You wanna stop buying French products and try to get others to do likewise? Fine by me.

What I think is stupid is that the guys up on The Hill are wasting time and money to do things like that when their job is to tend to the real problems of state. And they did it when there were men on the ground overseas getting shot at and more then a few domestic issues boiling over back here in the states. Gee, it was just so great of them then and now to devote time to such grave issues as french fries and a non-existent epidemic of flag burning when there are really so few real issues or problems to deal with in the foreign and domestic issues department. Don't you think?

Jerome: First and foremost, I AM an asshole. My wife keeps telling me so. Secondly, you misunderstand McCain/Feingold (which I disagree with, by the way). It doesn't put a limit on political speech, it puts a limit on how quasi-political speech is funded.

Jerome: Now, I'd post more, but I've got a few flags to burn, and some beers to drink while I do it. And fuck everyone who doesn't like what I do. Seriously. I won't be burning flags while I'm out, but I will be drinking beers. Me, I don't think flag burning is an effective way to get your point across, but then again, I don't live in Jordan.

Jerry: Can I be the knuckle dragging cretin? Because Jerome is just a dip. Cretin is SO much cooler.

Knuckles,

Not for this argument, no. You've not, as far as I know, stooped so low as to be an idiot in an elected manner. If you wish to be known as a knuckle dragging cretin at some later date then feel free to ask. I'm sure we can work something out.

"or by your logic...you coninue to use Saudi Oil..so you're happy with them flying planes into our buildings?"

What? They didn't fly planes into our buildings. They are suspected of harboring the people who did it however. You wanna gewt pissed at the Saudis? Get pissed at their crimes against humanity, which are legion. They have things like the religious police. And i don't get this "Ann Coulter" thing. Is that one of her columns, or someone calling themselves her, or (Please God, no) the Beast herself. Anyway, however it goes down, lets face it. She makes X-ray look middle of the road. I mean, I subjected myself to her last book. After five pages, I was literally standing up and ranting: to thin air, to my poor parents, to whoever was passing on the street. Let us not forget that this....this HARPY called JOSEPH MCCARTHY (AKA America's answer to Laventry Beria) an "American Hero."

You wanna gewt pissed at the Saudis? Get pissed at their crimes against humanity, which are legion

But they're our allies, part of the "Dictators 4 Life" crowd that Bush has surrounded himself with.

We can't possibly do the responsible thing and take the Saudi's to issue over their human rights violations!

Consarn it, Jerry, what's a guy to do? I try to be an ass, no knuckle-dragging cretin. I try to talk shit about assheads who think the First Amendment is nothing more than pillowtalk amongst neocons, no knuckle-dragging cretin. Hell, I'm this close to saying Howard Dean was my man in the '04 Primary just so I can stir shit up amongst these yahoos so I can achieve knuckle-dragging cretin status (for the record, I was PCO for my precinct, and a fervent Wes Clark supporter).

Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the reports of US soldiers being spat at upon returning from Vietnam may be more urban legend than fact.

The posting in the FreeRepublic site would seem to disagree with it being a myth. I know some Vietnam Vets who are now so far to the left that they thought Kerry was WAY too conservative and THEY remember being cursed and spat upon. After seeing how some ROTC people were treated on campus in the 1980s I can only imagine what it must have been like in the 1960s. The arguments used to discredit the vets who report this--like the idea that no hippy would dare do such a thing to a soldier for fear of getting beaten up--are pathetic. I knew a gay gentleman who was about 6'5" who told me he once got the crap beaten out of him by a bunch of drunk homophobes. Why doubt him? Drunks, gangs and drunken gangs don't have much to fear, however mighty the target.

On the flag burning amandment, it's interesting how many major conservatives are aginst it. Adler calls it "an abomination", Lopez brings up a National Review editorial that castigates politicians who go for frivilous amandments such as this one, Ponnuru leans against it...I guess there must be a lot of folks who want this thing but I'm certainly not one of them.

I did once see a protestor soak a flag in gasoline and light it up--he almost caught his stupid self on fire as well, which would have given everyone in the crowd something to cheer.

I've seen arguments both for and against the spitting stories, so as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether they actually happened (kind of like the way our idiot-in-chief believes the jury is still out on evolution, global warming, gravity, etc).

As for the amendment, this is all just pandering. Probably 99% of all American flag burnings occur outside the US, making the amendment meaningless to them. It's not surprising that many people confuse the symbol with the ideals it represents, because, as I said people, show any signs of doubt about the neocon agenda, you'll be fending off hysterical accusations about how you hate America, freedom, apple pie, mom, etc.

Bottom Line: An ammendment against flag burning is unconstitutional and will never happen.

Republican politicians know that by merely mentioning it, all sorts of people will get riled up. The pro's will be loud and obnoxious while ignoring the con's quieter, probably more dignified, decents. The pros will then rush to the poles and vote for those wonderful politicians who are saving our great nation from all those godless hippy liberals.

Excuse me while I go get a towel to mop up all this dripping sarcasm.

"The pros will then rush to the poles and vote for those wonderful politicians who are saving our great nation from all those godless hippy liberals."

One of the many great things about democracy, is that there tends to be a very loud minority. They get everybody all riled up about something, and then, when push comes to vote, they find that a quiet majority wins. That is what happens all the time. Should we speak out against it? Of course. Should we start worrying about making fake flags to burn? No. It has never passed, and it will never pass, because most people, liberal AND conservative, realize that it is a bad thing. People are smart, they realize what is going on. America is not a desperate nation, like Germany in the '20's. it is not a repressed nation, like Russia in the 1910's. We are a happy nation. Sure we have issues. Who doesn't? We, however, have the means to deal with our issues in a civilized manner. If this amendment did pass, I would be the first to burn a fake, or a real one (what the hell, jail was good enough for Thearou, and MLK, it's good enough for me.) Have some faith in the free will and good sense of the American public.

Bottom Line: An ammendment against flag burning is unconstitutional and will never happen.

Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional.

That's what makes the possibility that it may pass so dangerous.

They get everybody all riled up about something, and then, when push comes to vote, they find that a quiet majority wins.

I wouldn't call Republicans in this last election a "quiet majority".

I remember reading a story of an American POW in Vietnam who said his captors showed him a photograph of a man protesting the war by burning an American flag. The Vietnamese officer said, "See, people in your country protest your cause. This proves you are wrong." He replied, "No. That proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us."

Those in favor of a flag amendment just do not understand that the flag stands for liberty - not fear of liberty.

"Uh actually, once an amendment has been ratified, it is by its very definition constitutional."

Uh actually, it is a matter of freedom of speech. Burning a flag, not just for fun, is protected under this. The people pushing this are just trying to get attention. And you can tell it's working just by the number of posts here. It's the same thing they do with abortion. When the political right need attention they bring up some issue that will never pass but is something they know will stir up the loud christian groups. The loud minority can influence a lot of people, distract from other more important/pressing issues, and gum up the media.

The contortions of misapplied and twisted logic you people go through to try and make flag burning into wonderful, patriotic thing are sickening.

Admit it!

The REAL reason you want to preserve legal flag burning is that you hate America.

Flags? We don' need no steenkin' flags!!! Except, maybe, for this guy:

"When the Germans occupied Athens in WWII, the Evzone who guarded the Greek flag which flew from the Acropolis, was ordered by the Nazis to remove it. He calmly took it down, wrapped himself in it and jumped to his death."

http://www.athensguide.com/athacrop.html

So what?

Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for X-Ray:

If it's not OK to burn the flag, is it still OK to burn books or CDs or records? How's about Bibles? Just curious...

On a previous thought way back near the start of this thread: There was a big commotion up here in Canada when it was found out that the Canadian flag pins and small flags being passed out by the ruling Liberal majority in the Commons were actually made in China. When push came to shove it was pointed out that the government SAVED a ton of money by having them made there instead of domestically or in the US. Now that's irony for you.

As to investing in overseas flag companies: Not really necessary, because with the current and increasing spate of Chinese companies offering to buy US and Canadian companies with all the money WE have given THEM (ie our OWN money returned to haunt us!), it's just a matter of time until the largest Chinese maker of flags and regalia buys the largest North American maker anyway. The irony here of course is that not only are we being eaten up by our own dollars, but it's being done by a communist regime. Now that oughta get a few Republicans up in arms!

Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for X-Ray: "If it's not OK to burn the flag, is it still OK to burn books or CDs or records? How's about Bibles? Just curious..."
--------

Thank you for proceeding your question with a declaration of your sincere hatred for me!

Answer: If you own the object, you can burn it if you want to.

However, burning a flag or Bible as a public display of protest is sickening to the many people who treasure these things above all else. But because liberals hate the flag and the Bible, they strain mightily to find ways to support ANYTHING that denigrates them.

Hope this answers your question, and again, I thank you for your hatred.

Now that oughta get a few Republicans up in arms!

It won't.

One of the few things I hated about Clinton's years in office was that he gave China Favored Nation Status as a trade partner. Yeah, the ball started rolling before Clinton, but he pushed them into a better position into which they could start pushing *us* around.

It opened up the door to alot of the crap we're dealing with now, and going to have to deal with down the road.

And no, I'm not sure the Republicans care. Or the Democrats.

Big business and the Republicans go hand in hand, but companies like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are falling over themselves to help the Chinese with censorship on the internet.

It's appalling.

I've been more-or-less following this whole X-Ray thing since the last controversy involving him, and I'm hoping after I make these four comments (some which may have been brought up previously) I'll leave the whole thing alone:

1. What happened to the shroud? Didn't we get it back from Dee?

2. X-Ray is simply trying to attract attention to himself, and it's quite possible - regardless whether or not he is informed of whatever subject he addresses/responds to - he adds his input for that reason. This is merely his latest attempt. Readers should simply refer to comment #1.

3. I would, however, consider the verb "policing". Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, and I certainly don't want to impose on PAD, but I wouldn't like it if my life were subjected to such a thing, and he should be chided for making such a claim. Yeah, this guy (X-Ray) is under the illusion he's some kind of self-appointed overseer of the world, but this could definitely reach a limit to one's tolerance.

4. Go out and see the world, X-Ray. There's plenty in life to enjoy, so relax. Life's too short to spend "policing" everyone. You give us the image of one huddled at a computer every waking moment of one's life. Or perhaps you give us that image to attract more attention to you.

That's it on this subject for me, unless someone has an intelligent point worth responding to.

"Much as I hate to acknowledge this guy, I have a question for...."

Y'know what, Joe? I hate smoking rooms in hotels. So I make sure never to stay in one. Why bother asking a question that, like a smoking room, is going to leave a stench?

"I would, however, consider the verb "policing". Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, and I certainly don't want to impose on PAD, but I wouldn't like it if my life were subjected to such a thing, and he should be chided for making such a claim."

My life is subjected to no such thing, Peter. Just because the Village Idiot says he's doing something doesn't make it so. In fact, if he says something that's pretty much a guarantee that it's NOT so. You ARE taking him too seriously. I responded ages ago to the only two things he's said worth responding to, and he's said nothing meaningful since. "Policing?" Please. A chicken can claim it's an eagle, but in the end it's just a dumb cluck going off half-cocked.

PAD

I like spike. You like spike. Everybody likes spike for president.

I'm still counting. The haughty Peter David just responded to me for the 13th time after declaring he was "donne" with me.

He can't help himself.

He likes to call me names!

But nothing Peter David says can damage or defame me, because no one takes what he says about anything seriously.

I'm against the flag burning amendment. It's a feel good excuse for people to parade around saying how patriotic they are. And, just as display of the flag is speech, in that it makes a statement about one's belief in one's country, so is it speech when someone burns the flag. Now, when I see people in foreign countries burn the US flag, I get really steamed, but it still is speech. Speech, in the US, is protected by the Constitution, and very few exceptions to protected speech should be made.

**Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win.**

Well, there's a bit of silliness. The ACLU has not stopped private citizens from saying God, except as part of government-led exercises. In fact, the ACLU has been a notable force for protecting the rights of Christians to spread the word and worship. If you get your information with the ACLU from folks who want religion to the a government service, you may have missed where the ACLU defends a church from the government: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142
You may have missed where they protected the right of Christian students to include biblical material in their yearbook quotes: http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159
And the folks who try to demonize the ACLU in the midst of ranting about students who were suspended for handing out candy canes with religious messages on them probably don't want you to know the truth: that the ACLU, far from wanting to see the students suspended, actually worked for their defense.
They've defended evangelists' rights to work on the sidewalks of The Strip in Las Vegas, fought zoning laws that stood in the way of new Christian churches, stood up for students handing out religious literature at school, and protected the right of a Christian church to run their ads on the Boston subways.

If you want to support religious freedom, then you should be supporting the ACLU.

"Let's just compomise, if the ACLU will allow Christians to say God in public, then Repuplicans can let the flag burn, see it's a win, win."

HUH?!?! It is the ACLU who PROTECTS your right to say God in public, and that has nothing to do with the actual issue. The point is, is that a an amendment prohibiting Flag-burning would be a blatent overthrow of the First amendment. (In my mind, the greatest one, maybe we should recite THAT in school instead of the Pledge.) Is the flag an important symbol? Yes. There was a story in here about a Greek guy who wrapped himself in his flag, and threw himself to his death when the Nazis took over. I think the point that should have been made there was that the flag was used as a symbol. He wasn't dying for the FLAG he was dying for the NATION it represented. It was a convenient symbol. If he had burned his flag in protest, it would be a different use of a symbol. Only a symbol. I have heard, in the great wide world, people defending this by saying things like "Oh, (insert favorite Founding Father here) wouldn't want people to burn flags, it isn't what the first amendment was for." To which I cite the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions. See, what happend, is that they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which basically gave the government the power to arrest anyone they felt was speaking against the Government. (sound familiar, gang?) Anyway, Jefferson and Madison got together and wrote the Resolutions, which said that the State could nullify any law of the Federal governments. My point is that most of the founding fathers were very Pro-free speech, up to and including direct defience of the government they had created. The whole story is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

"It is the ACLU who PROTECTS your right to say God in public."
----------------

Hogwash!

Obviously, you know nothing about the ACLU.

They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it.

X-Ray: "They are devoted to secularizing our country, and there are countless examples to prove it."

Good heavens, how ghastly.