Say Anything Blog

I find the burning of the American flag to be repugnant. I love this country, and seeing our number one symbol desecrated in such a way is infuriating. That being said, one of the reasons why I love this country is the freedom of speech allowed in the 1st amendment. Free speech includes symbolic speech, and burning the flag falls under that… This amendment is a waste of our time and tax dollars.

A great big fat BINGO!  This pandering at its worst.

Regards…

Well last week we were subject to pandering on both sides of the aisle about how the Senate could be working on more important matters than current amendments coming up for cloture.  Well if this is the sort of thing that passes as important to these poor excuses for leaders, than is there anything of merit these saps can accomplish?

This attempt at faux patriotism is the biggest waste of time and energy and is an insult (let alone violation) of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

J.R.: It’s all a distraction.  The President’s approval is low, and so is the approval of Republicans, Democrats and Congress in general.  So issues like flag burning come up to get us all fired up and patriotic and distract us from all the money Congress is spending, etc.

It’s total baloney.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

By the way, J.R., I listened to some of your Friday radio show this morning.  Pretty good stuff.  I’ll be listening to more this week, I hope.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

A better amendment would be to stated that the following act should be defacto denounciation of citizenship - the burning of an official flag(s) of the US, shields, the declaration of indep, and the constition.  Such action should be effect immediately, and say person lost all right and protect of the constitution.

And NO I don’t support the Flag Burning Ban.  I do believed that anyone that willfully burn an American Flag as a polical act should be hang.

Clarification: Burned copys of the US Constitution and Decl of Ind. in a polical act in front of witnesses.

How about burning a US Flag is the same as starting a fight.

I was once on the fence on this one.  Then I read of an instance where an “art” display consisted of a flag in a toilet. 

A person at the art display (a vet or active duty as it turns out) took the flag out of the toilet and folded it in the triangle configuration.

The person respective of the flag was charged with defacing the art exhibit.  Now why is it free speech to dishonor the flag, but not to respect the flag?

That instance took me off the fence.

Furthermore the free speech arguement doesn’t really work as the amendment is so specific.  You can’t claim that it’s going to expand into other areas of free speech.

By the way, Kent Conrad (comrade) and Byron Dorgan (do-wrong) both voted in favor of flag desecration every time they could.

The Whistler,

Your art example, while disgusting, falls under the protection of the First Amendment.  It’s unfortunate but true, and the vets recourse would have been to either protest the event, or walk out.  There isn’t any right not to be offended.  Something those who are infatuated with politcal correctness should be made aware.

And Rob,

I do believe you have me confused with someone else.  I’m just a conservative engineer living in Indiana.  I have no radio show.

The person respective of the flag was charged with defacing the art exhibit. Now why is it free speech to dishonor the flag, but not to respect the flag?

I don’t know how to break this to you, but the person charged with defacing the exhibit did deface it.  What part of it-wasn’t-his-flag-to-do-with-as-he-pleased don’t you understand?

I spent 20+ years in the military protecting the rights of idiots to do things like burn the flag.

Regards…

falls under the protection of the First Amendment.

Didn’t used to.  At one time the Supreme Court said that it wasn’t constitutional free speech.  Then they said it was. 

Apparently it changed somehow, overnight I guess.

If the Supreme Court can change the Constitution at a whim, I think it’s ok for us to pass a narrowly worded amendment returning it to where it was.

As I said the amendment is so narrowly worded that it won’t deprive anyone of any discourse. 

Besides free speech is free SPEECH.  Burning a flag seems to be NOT SPEECH.

Why is it that the “artists” free speech of putting a flag in a toilet was free speech, but the person respecting the flag couldn’t express their respect for the flag?

I’m with The Whistler. I think we should use coercion to force people to act for the Common Good as determined by majority will. It’s worked sooooooo swimmingly well in the past.

I am still fighting the good fight, doc.

Dave: Yes, coercing people to follow what the minority wants is so much better!  You know, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” and all that.

Why is it that the “artists” free speech of putting a flag in a toilet was free speech, but the person respecting the flag couldn’t express their respect for the flag?

Come on Whistler, I’ve read a lot of your posts on this blog and I know you can see the error in your logic.  Load the Mule gives the reasoning above, it wasn’t his flag to respect, plain and simple.  Now if the person had taken his own flag and folded it in a triangle and displayed it next ot the other, than that would be a different story. 

You don’t have to like everyone’s version of free speech, but you damn sure better respect it.

Yeah.  What J.R. said.

Regards…

JR:

Come on Whistler, I’ve read a lot of your posts on this blog and I know you can see the error in your logic.

Hm… have you seen his comments on immigration?

JUST JOKING!

Come on Whistler, I’ve read a lot of your posts on this blog and I know you can see the error in your logic. Load the Mule gives the reasoning above,

Actually LTM’s comment came while I was writing my post immediately after that.  I can see the distinction UNDER the current Supreme Court fiat that the “artist” bought the flag and it was his property to do with it as he pleased.  You’re right that this is the law, now, didn’t used to be until the Supreme Court changed the Constitution.

And I on the other hand was offended that under current law, it was illegal in that case to respect the flag.  That’s why we need to amend the Constitution back to where it was before the Supreme Court changed it.

Some of you folks think that this is pandering.  Well how about this case where Rob’s Senator, Kent Conrad instituted his thought crime of flag desecration.

Prohibit intentionally destroying or damaging the U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce violence.

So flag burning’s ok until we get into your mind and find out your motivation.

Carrick:

have you seen his comments on immigration?

Thanks for the plug, but it has been posts and comments.  Try to get it right.

What does Kent Conrad have to do with the issue at hand?  Who here said that flag burning is okay until we get inside your head?  I certainly didn’t.

It’s free speech, regardless of your motivation.  Subject to the same broad limitations as the rest of free speech.  What it is not subject to is your personal dislike of the act.

Regards…

You’re right that this is the law, now, didn’t used to be until the Supreme Court changed the Constitution.

TW, could you point me to any credible links (i.e. not just google) about this?  I have never heard it brought up in any other discussions about flag-burning, and I’m curious about it.

And I on the other hand was offended that under current law, it was illegal in that case to respect the flag.

I think the example you cite would be against the law no matter what the Supreme Court had to say about flag burning.  You can’t just grab someone else’s property because you don’t like what they’re doing to it. 

This proposed amendment is as stupid as campaign finance reform.  There are plenty of laws already on the books that are written to outlaw inciting people to violence and etc.  There is no reason, other than pandering, to pass this Amendment.

What does Kent Conrad have to do with the issue at hand?

The topic is the flag burning amendment and I suppose pandering on the issue.  Kent Conrad proposed that as a bill to replace the flag burning amendment.  I thought this expanded on the political pandering part of the arguement.

Who here said that flag burning is okay until we get inside your head?

Kent Conrad did.

“It’s free speech”

Now it isn’t exactly “speech” is it?

Furtheremore it wasn’t “free speach” until 1989.  What happened there?  Did the constitution change.

On the other hand I feel we should follow the rules to amend the Constitution.  The proposed amendment is narrow in scope so it will not lead to any kind of slippery slope.

I’m anti-flag burning.  My opinion is that if you burn the flag, you are burning what it stands for; including your free speech rights.

(Hell, people throw a fit if you are accused of pissing on a Koran.  But it’s okay to burn an American Flag?)

A person doesn’t have the right to speak threats against another person’s life… Should we allow them to do just that because they have freedom of speech?  Don’t burn the US Flag.  If you want to burn your nations flag, move to North Korea.

You can’t just grab someone else’s property because you don’t like what they’re doing to it.

The guy folded the flag and placed in on the same dias the display formally had it on.  He didn’t take the flag.

If I pick your coat off of the floor and hang it up have I broken a law.  (admittedly somewhat of a weak arguement.  However coats and flags are different.)

TW, could you point me to any credible links

Here’s one link.  I recall the actual discussion at the time, so although the link has an agenda it matches my memory.

If I pick your coat off of the floor and hang it up have I broken a law.

True, but if I pick up someone’s coat and it has a Dixie Flag patch on it, I just can’t rip it off and place it next to the jacket. 

Don’t treat the flag like some religious symbol, it’s not.  The flag is just some different color fabrics sewn together in a rectangle shape.  What it symbolizes is the important thing, and that symbolism is different to each and every person.  I have 3 flags in my house, all properly folded, I wouldn’t dream of desecrating any of them.  But that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

Whister,

From your link, I realize it’s one sided, but this has to be the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard:

Opponents of the measure claim flag burning should be protected as an exercise of free speech. To these individuals, I would ask: Is defacing a government building speech? No, it is considered a criminal act of vandalism.

Come on, that is just ridiculous.  You don’t own Government buildings.  We can buy a flag at a drugstore!  It’s like Congress wants to make all flags protected Government property!

Give it up, J.R.  You can’t argue with logic like that.

Regards…

This amendment, and several others wouldn’t be necessary except for the liberal judges that have been placed on our courts.  This problem is being addressed.  In the meantime, it may be necessary for a correction and a small rebuff to our judiciary who thought they trumped everything.  Yes, a Constitutional Amendment trumps a Supreme Court Opinion or decision. 
Now, as far as this particular flag respect or at least not disrespect goes:  This is not free speech per say.  I person who dislikes or even despises the USA can:  Write letters to the editor, blog, speak in a public park, run for office, advertise, but not burn anything without a permit, especially the American Flag.  Heck, you can’t even burn a cigarette in some California municipalities now.  You certainly can’t burn a flag or a newspaper in a movie theater, so therefore, some restraints are already placed on burning items.  Replies?

Heck, you can’t even burn a cigarette in some California municipalities now.

Truth!
Well said, Chief.

Chief,

I agree and stated above that there are already laws on the books that can handle the sort of behavior one usually sees when someone is burning a flag.  There is no need to specifically try and amend our Constitution to basically attempt to make a symbol untouchable.  Prosecute them for disturbing the peace, mayhem, or whatever other existing law there is.

Chief RZ,

Agreed.  But reasonable restraint is not what Whistler (or this proposed Amendment) advocates.

To say this is not free speech per se is akin to saying contributing to a political candidate is not free speech per se.

The point is:  America wasn’t founded so we could all become better.  America was founded so we could all become whatever we damn well please.  (Within reasonable limits, of course.)

Regards…

when can we pass the “Burn the Bloggers” amendment?

It’s not that I don’t see the other side’s points here.  I think reasonable people (as are the folks in this discussion) can disagree on this one point.

LTM: Actually, America was founded so we could be free of the restraints of monarchial govt.  You confuse freedom with license.  It’s that bothersome responsibility thing.

America wasn’t founded so we could all become better. America was founded so we could all become whatever we damn well please.

America was founded in 1989 when the Supreme Court decided (5-4) in Texas vs. Johnson that we could finally, thank Golly, burn flags.

What were we doing for the previous 213 years?

Two easy solution to the flag burning problem:

Make it illegal to make a flag from anything other than tobacco.
Or

Make it perfectly legal to burn a flag with a permit and make the permits public, complete with, name, address and phone number of the permit holder published in the local newspaper. Anyone caught burning the flag without a permit gets life without parole at hard labor.

Actually, America was founded so we could be free of the restraints of monarchial govt. You confuse freedom with license. It’s that bothersome responsibility thing.

Don’t condescend to me, my friend.  The founders intentionally limited the role of government to only those things that states/individuals could not efficiently do themselves.  The whole purpose was to ensure the least infringement possible on individual rights.  Hence, the primary reason for the Bill of Rights.

I understand all about responsibility.  And the casual limitation of any basic right doesn’t fit the definition.

Regards…

It seems to me that there are two issues here . . .

#1 - Freedom of expression.  I don’t burn the flag of America . . . or any other country for that matter, but I served honorably to defend the constitution so that citizens could have that right if they so pleased, so long as that right doesn’t infringe on anyone’s else’s rights or freedoms.  It’s a sign of the Strength of this nation that it can withstand disagreements, even intense disagreements, without removing freedoms granted in the bill of rights.  It’s not a sign of strength that the majority rewrites the constitution to prohibit the expression in any nonviolent form from the minority.  Look closely at the nations of the world that punish people for burning the national flag . . . then look at the nations that don’t punish people for that act.  Which group of nations is that in which you’d like to belong?

#2 Property Rights.  Why do you want to bring the government in to dictate further what I, or any citizen, is allowed to do with my own property?

LTM: It’s a common misperception, I find.  In actuality, a citizen-based govt increases the amount of responsibility of the average citizen for his or her actions.  In a monarchial society, the citizen has only limited range of action, and thus limited responbility.  No condescension intended.

It’s not a sign of strength that the majority rewrites the constitution to prohibit the expression in any nonviolent form from the minority.

It’s also not a sign of strength that five justices can find something hidden in the Constitution for 213 years.  Meanwhile 4 justices couldn’t find that same thing. 

It seems to me that a sign of strength that the people can rebuke the 5 justices that rewrote the constitution in 1989.

Why do you want to bring the government in to dictate further what I, or any citizen, is allowed to do with my own property?

The amendment is so narrowly written that any slippery slope (free expression, property rights) arguements won’t work.

LTM: Maybe I misunderstood your statement:

“America was founded so we could all become whatever we damn well please. (Within reasonable limits, of course.)”

Well, you did say “become”, not “do”, which would clearly be mistaking license for freedom.  If so, I apologize.  However, the part about reasonable limits begs the question: “If we all determine flag-burning to be beyond reasonable limits, (by Constitutional Amendment), why do you have a problem with that?

By the way, here’s the big scary slippery slope amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

Seriously now, I don’t see where we’re going to find further infringement to the right of free speech or anything else.

As long as the flag they are burning is their own property they can do whatever. IF they destroy property and cause destruction??? No way…

As long as the flag they are burning is their own property they can do whatever.

That’s only been the case since 1989 when the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution.

It’s hard for me to see a downside to respecting our flag.  I do respect individual action on this one, though, like Rick Monday in center field in Dodger Stadium.

A great, but largely forgotten, baseball moment Robert.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I was watching that game on live TV at the time.  The roar from the crowd was the kind that gives you goosebumps.  I still get them when I relive the incident.

Was Monday jailed for stealing the property of others?

No.  The lefties on the Supreme Court hadn’t legitimized flag-burning yet, I believe.

Gosh...Did anyone see the Astros and the Braves? ...  I love those guy’s!

A realator wants to show my house again… I’ll be back…

Here’s the link:

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d46/psy/dev/Fall01/patriotism/ballgame.html

The roar from the crowd was the kind that gives you goosebumps. I still get them when I relive the incident.

Here’s the audio and some pictures of the incident if you wish.

Just think, around this Blog today Monday would be the bad guy and the flag burning, bell bottom wearing hippies would be the bad guy.

Beat me, damn it!

TW: Thanks so much for the audio link.  It brought tears to my eyes.  Rick Monday got two standing ovations for what he did, and this was just after the end of the Vietnam War.  The MSM has never given a true picture of the American people.

I saw this link when it was new.  (Fark) Anyway what’s real neat is that Monday was a Cub playing in LA and he got the standing O from the “enemy” crowd.

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

I predict bad results from this . . . it’ll be ironic and terrible when every dumbass redneck gets arrested for bbq sauce stains on their flag shirts.

it’ll be ironic and terrible when every dumbass redneck gets arrested for bbq sauce stains on their flag shirts.

Out of principled arguements, resorting to stupidities.

Since we all know that section 8, paragraph k of the Federal Law governing our flag instruct us that burning is actually a proper way to decommission a flag.
It could be argued that this flag amendment is an attempt to regulate intent of the match holder.

Whistler, I’m just taking this to its logical conclusion . . . the flag will have to be sacred and after this ammendment ANY use of the image will be regulated and monitored.  Lawsuit after lawsuit will be filed and laws supporting the ammendment will become more oppressive with time, until exactly what I said in satire will become the ironic truth.

Wrap your freedom-crushing head around that one.

Wasn’t there a story about a man who renounced his citizenship early in our countries history? I think it was called A Man Without A Country… I’m not sure if he burned the flag or not? When a citizen of the USA burns the flag in protest, it seems as though they are renouncing our country??? I say let’s deport them! Yeah that’s the ticket.

Whistler, I’m just taking this to its logical conclusion

Illogical conclusion.  I could argue as reasonably that you could burn down a building with a flagpole because you were expressing yourself.

ANY use of the image will be regulated and monitored.

It already is.  There are regulations about commercial use.  I don’t think that it’s been oppressive.

Lawsuit after lawsuit will be filed and laws supporting the ammendment

Why because people like you can’t understand it?  How can you file a lawsuit against the constitution?

until exactly what I said in satire will become the ironic truth.

Well there is some truth to that.  At least back in the 60’s it was illegal to have clothing made out of the flag. 

However I believe that the country has the right and duty to regulate the use of it’s main symbol.

Frankly I expect common sense laws to come out of this amendment.  If they don’t I’ll likely quit wearing my American Flag shirt.

I think it was called A Man Without A Country.

Yep, haven’t read the book, but did read the Classic Comic so I’m an expert.

Didn’t it have to do with supposedly a person caught up in the Aaron Burr secession movement?

Anyway he blurted out that he never wanted to see his country again.  The judge ordered him kept on Navy Vessels so that he would fufill his wish.

I wanted Alec Baldwin to leave sooooooo bad!

I wanted Alec Baldwin to leave sooooooo bad!

Looks like his career is slooooowly petering out.

I think his stupid politics has hurt his career.  Who cares what he thinks.

He is such a dud. Go away Alec! Bye bye.  Bush probably won because people went out and voted in hopes of Alec Baldwin leaving. HA!

DD:

too bad we can’t do the same to those that said they would leave the country if Bush won the election.

It seems that there is some rather convincing evidence that he didn’t win the election.

The real convincing evidence is that GWB is the President… How low can you go?

It seems that there is some rather convincing evidence that he didn’t win the election.

Moonbat Alert!

Not “convincing”, not “evidence”.

Using an article in the Rolling Stone written by RFK and an article in the NYT written by anyone on their staff should be considered “suspicious” and pure “fantasy.”

I didn’t see anything convincing about his account.  Neither did the Captain.

EB...Bite your tongue! The NYT’s and Rolling Stones surely aren’t reporting anything but facts??? NOT! CV Rick has to be kidding and toying with us.

Democrats don’t think, they feel.  And they feel like they should always win.

Poor losers.

Insincerity alert!

Carrick is not an authority on elections . . .

Neither is some clown named captain.

If you’d like to attack the authenticity or claims of the article, please do . . . but “the source” bullshit is just ridiculous.  NYT, Rolling Stone . . . yet you’ll post ‘the captain,’ Malkin, or Talon News like it’s gospel.  You guys are predictable to a fault.

Ahhh...the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

Haven’t heard that one for a while.  Thanks for keeping it real, Rick.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I got your ‘real’ right here.

Such substantive and persuasive arguments tonight Rick…

Bravo.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

this blog deserves more?  bring 2h9 in for more death threats . . . or have another catfight about Diane . . .

when in Rome . . .

I could care less what those commenters say, Rick.  Everybody gets a little nasty in internet forums.

My point was that you aren’t making an argument.  What you’re doing is the equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears and going “lalalalala icanthearyou...”

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

and this is the equivalent to an internet dogpile.

I’m a reasonable man and have a reasonable life.  I’m not prone to conspiracy theories - never have been.  However, I believe that there is enough money and power at stake in the presidential race that it was intentionally stolen.  I think the evidence is ample and persuasive and that’s it’s not sour grapes to be concerned about subversion of the electoral process in my country.

In short: “I think there’s a conspiracy because I want to think one and I’m not about to waste time by arguing about it with people who are smarter than me.”

Does that about sum it up?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Is that what you think, Rob?  It’s not even close to what I said.  Fine display of all that intelligence by just making shit up about me, huh?

It’s not even close to what I said. Fine display of all that intelligence by just making shit up about me, huh?

Well, well!  Care for some gander sauce on that well-cooked goose of yours there, Rick?

See, there really is a God… and he’s apparently got quite a sense of humor.

Fine display of all that intelligence by just making shit up about me, huh?

I wasn’t saying that I was smarter than you, I was saying that Carrick and Captain Ed are.

And, of course, you are copping out with that “they aren’t election experts so I don’t have to listen to their arguments” nonsense.

Just back up your opinions.  That’s all I’m saying.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I back up my opinions all the time . . . what you want here is me to go into a link-fest like Diane would do.  I don’t have time for all that. 

I posted the article.  I’ve read the article.  I read this clown captain’s response, and I’m unconvinced.  But I certainly don’t have the time to do a cut/paste point by point against it . . . not with my work schedule.  That doesn’t mean I can’t - you’ve seen me do such before.  But if it makes you feel better to question my intelligence, go ahead . . . that’s how many kids build their self-esteem.

Oh, so you’re right...you’re just much too busy to explain to all of us dullards.

Gotcha.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

oh no, y’all are the geniuses, I hear.

docdave writes:

Although I agree that the flag amendment is not something we need, the only ones that I see will be bothered by it are the anti-American lefties who this amendment is aimed at.

To DocDave:

I have to say that Dave has you on this one.  Conservatives should see no reason to pass this mundane attempt to show how patriotic these Congressmen are. 

And Dave, thanks for bringing this thread back to the topic at hand and away from some nut spouting about conspiracy theories.  Of course now that this post is off the main page I doubt many will continue to post in it.

I have to say that Dave has you on this one. Conservatives should see no reason to pass this mundane attempt to show how patriotic these Congressmen are.

So the lefties are out there defining what the conservatives should and should not believe?  Somehow I don’t think we’re going to listen.

The Supreme Court as recently as 1989 decided that action = speech.  Very Orwellian.  Up until that point the right to burn the flag had lain, hidden in the Constitution until 5 our of 9 justices saw it there in plain sight. 

Our response on the other hand is to follow the rules, draft a very narrow amendment (that won’t spill into free speech), and fix the problem the El Supremo court made.

Why do you libs feel so threatened about everything?

So you’re pissed about the Supreme Court. That’s good. You should be. We all should be. But the solution to your anger isn’t to restrict individual freedom for all Americans!

But the solution to your anger isn’t to restrict individual freedom for all Americans!

Of all of the acts of government that restrict our freedom or behaviors you sure picked an odd one to get upset over.

Censorship--which is exactly what this is--is the vilest act the State can accomplish. Of course the State is going to start with something the vast majority of the populace finds morally objectionable: such as pornography or, as in this case, flag-burning. That’s step one. If people refuse to speak out against it, they’ll move on to something slightly less objectionable--the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, “Piss Christ”, whatever--until eventually the government is the sole arbiter in what gets written, painted, or created. Ayn Rand’s not just being Ayn Rand when she notes that all Man’s horrors have been done for altruist motives. History has proven all too clearly that when you give the State an inch, they will take everything. No less than Man’s mind is at stake here.

“A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society or to put it on a better road.”

First of all burning is an action, not speech.  So it’s not censorship.  Secondly the amendment is so narrowly written that there can be no slippery slope arguement made except by moonbats.

First of all burning is an action, not speech.

So is typing, so is painting, so is reading. 

So it’s not censorship.