Pali Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Personally, I find it ironic when soldiers begrudge someone for exercising the very rights those soldiers are ostensibly fighting for - one of which is the right to disagree with, mock, or insult the country without being thrown in jail or otherwise punished. And if you would read what I've said more carefully, you'd notice that at no point have I defended flag-burning - what I'm defending is the RIGHT to burn a flag, the right of a citizen to express his or her discontent with the government in whichever way seems appropriate for them. If our military disagrees with this notion, then this country is in a far worse place than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 What is upsetting is that people are willing to go to such a level to do that with out thinking what it REALLY means. That action is not done to fix the problems of the country, but show an anti-American stand point. In which case, get the **** out. You're not welcome in my country. What is so terrible about a military looking at the symbol they wish to protect with honor and dignity? If anyone burns it, it is a spit in the eye to everyone that has served past and present. If you support that, than you are a piece of **** and do not deserve to call yourself an American. If they want that right, they have it. But to execute it is another thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 We have the freedom to do whatever the **** we want. However there are consequences to doing what we do. Having the freedom to do what you want (such as burning the flag, shooting someone, or openly expressing your hatred for someone) is just that.. being able to do those things. There are consequences to all of them. Defamation of character is one. Murder is another. Just because you believe we have the right to do whatever we want doesn't mean that we won't have consequences surrounding every single action we take. If we didn't have consequences, we'd be in Anarchy, and wouldn't be able to function as a country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledgerbay Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 trick- thank you for your service to this country. You (as an american citizen) have the RIGHT to burn a flag. But if that is you chosen way of dissent, your ignorant. The point is, in 1776 we (as a free country) chose to revolt from a tyranical gvt, and in doing so created a list of "god given" inalienable rights .That means they cannot be taken by any other human on earth. I beleive that we have fallen to allow our govt to tell us what is best for us, make our decisions, and generally take care of us for supposed "safety". I dont feel any safer now than I did pre- 911 if anything I feel less safe. anyone who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves nerither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erana Posted January 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Do you think that the Republican party using the US flag in their logo is desecration? Many would argue that it is. What about the commercialization of the US flag? If flag-burning was made illegal as flag desecration and enforced, so too must all other forms that could be interpreted as desecration. The reason you can wear a US flag picture on your shirt or fly one from a business or home is the same reason you can burn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 I'm curious, leadgerbay -- Doesn't Trick reserve the right to be disgusted, and have an opinion of dislike for those who would burn the american flag, especially for all the years he put in as a soldier? I would hope you say yes. ...and in doing so created a list of "god given" inalienable rights .That means they cannot be taken by any other human on earth. Does this mean that you believe it's okay for someone, for instance to murder someone else, and not have his rights taken from him? (such as being free from jail, etc?) AND A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE: I never said it shouldn't be a right. I said I was disgusted that people would even do that. I also believe that, flag burning, should have consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Trick, when war protesters burn flags, they're not doing it to be anti-American - they're doing it to be pro-America, to make a statement that our current govt is not acting as they think it should. They are trying to make America better in the ways they think best. You may disagree, but don't mistake their motives. The flag means different things to different people, and therefore will be treated with differing levels of respect. Jibber, when I refer to freedoms and rights, I am referring to legal ones. Legally, I have the right to treat a flag however I wish. Legally, you do not have the right to harm me because of how I treated the flag. This is as it should be. Ledgerbay, nowhere in the Constitution, the document our rights derive from, will you find them referred to as god-given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimulfr Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 We have the freedom to do whatever the **** we want. However there are consequences to doing what we do. Having the freedom to do what you want (such as burning the flag, shooting someone, or openly expressing your hatred for someone) is just that.. being able to do those things. There are consequences to all of them. Defamation of character is one. Murder is another. Just because you believe we have the right to do whatever we want doesn't mean that we won't have consequences surrounding every single action we take. If we didn't have consequences, we'd be in Anarchy, and wouldn't be able to function as a country. I think you are confusing the "freedom" to do something with the "ability" to do something. Legally you do not in fact have the freedom to do whatever you want. In the constitutional sense, having freedom to do something means you can do it without fear of government censure or reprisal (such as being arrested and thrown in jail). Sure, you have the physical ability to murder someone, but you don't have the constitutional freedom to do it, because when caught you will be punished by being jailed. Nor do you have the constitutional freedom to defame someone, because it is a crime punishable by either compensation or imprisonment. You have freedom to worship freely, and you have freedom of expression. These are things that the government cannot legislate against, and cannot make illegal. Constitutionally assured freedoms are things that you should not expect consequences for doing, or else they wouldn't be real freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Ledgerbay' date=' nowhere in the Constitution, the document our rights derive from, will you find them referred to as god-given.[/quote'] The constitution protects our rights. The declaration of independence was written before the constitution, which outlined our rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledgerbay Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 first off I was speaking to or about trick other than to say thank you. second off anyone who would burn a flag to say the govt is wrong makes no sense, the flag does not represent our government it represents us as a nation of states combined to make a union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 The constitution protects our rights. The declaration of independence was written before the constitution, which outlined our rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think you're a bit confused on the roles these documents played on the formation of our govt. The Declaration of Independence was precisely that - a declaration of independence. It mentions rights in the context of how Britain was violating rights the colonists felt they should have - it does not at all outline what rights people will have in any potential new govt. to come. The Constitution was our govt's charter - it is what outlines how the govt will be formed and what powers it will have. This is where our rights actually ARE outlined, most notably in the aptly named Bill of Rights - it is this document that limits what our govt can do. Legal rights are defined by charter or by law - the declaration was neither. It is not a bind on the actions of the US govt, therefore it cannot be a source of legal rights under that govt. Ledger, as I said, the flag means different things to different people. Perhaps the intended statement is that the actions being protested are destructive to how the protester views America should be. Do not assume that because you don't understand the message that one can't be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enethier Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Can we bring this back to discussion about the GOP debates? Continuing down this road of talking about burning flags and documents that the government has already bastardized is only going to create tension between players that can be avoided. What did everyone think of the florida debate? Was it fair to all candidates? Which candidate made interesting points, and which points are those? I am interested in knowing what all of you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Haven't watched them, so I guess I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Based on beach bod, the only candidate worth voting for is: Barack, not to be confused with Baraka... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 It just doesn't matter, really. While Romney and Gingrich are busy destroying each other, Ron Paul is busy garnering minimal support and still being forced to run as an independent (because one of the first two will somehow screw the GOP out of a successful nominee), Santorum is busy being a bigoted, ignorant *******, and Bachmann is busy doing what she does best - being a raving lunatic. My prediction? GOP: Romney Independent: Paul + others who don't stand a chance Dem: Incumbent Result? Either 1) Incumbent re-elected or 2) Country tears itself apart at the seams. Regardless, the inauguration happens after the projected date of the end of the world, so I suppose it's all moot. PS - I know Bachmann's not still in the race, I just wanted to point out that she's a raving lunatic. Sorry 'bout it... not sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.