Trump

[kscarbel2]

11 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

I strongly disapprove, however I also recognize that they have the right to be disrespectful to the flag and to the nation that provides them with the freedom to be ignorant. Same with the KKK. They are a bunch of idiots spouting some pretty stupid ideas...but I support their right to speak. Nobody has to listen, just as nobody has to watch the @$$#0£€ burning the flag.  They want attention. Nobody has to give it to them.

If you want to have freedom for yourself, you have to defend the freedom of others. To attempt to revoke certain freedoms from some just because you disagree with them, well, somebody probably disagrees with you, too. Should they be allowed to revoke your freedoms based upon that same reasoning you used to deny the freedom of others?

I believe the "right to speak" and desecrating the United States flag, are two separate matters.

I acknowledge that you feel United States citizens have the "right" to burn (desicrate) the United States flag.

Thank you for sharing your thought on the matter.

My understanding is (anyone correct me if I'm wrong), under 18 U.S. Code § 700, i.e. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties:

"Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

(reference - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700)

Actions that may be treated as flag desecration include burning it, urinating or defecating on it, defacing it with slogans, stepping upon it, damaging it with stones or guns, cutting or ripping it, verbally insulting it, or dragging it on the ground.

Thus, according to the laws of the United States of America, all of the individuals pictured above have broken federal law.

(Any ordinarily prudent person with ethics, morals and values would never even think of desecrating their country's flag)

In my humble opinion, all of individuals above, so dissatisfied with the United States, should be deported within 48 hours and never allowed to return.

It has been argued that, regarding the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional for a government to prohibit the desecration of a flag in an act of "symbolic speech." However, any ordinarily prudent person would state such a notion is a distortion of the First Amendment’s intent. Our country’s founding fathers would have hung any and all individuals who burned our nation’s flag.

In order for everyone to enjoy "freedom" in the United States, we must all abide by accepted standards of behavior, ethics, morals and values. Desecrating our national flag is NOT acceptable behavior. If one abhors our country to such degree, they should be deported to the greener grasses on the other side of the fence.

 

 

[grayhair]

21 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

Let's say, for example, that safety advocates wanted to keep highway speeds at 55mph, but you feel the speed limit should be 70mph.

If you win, they lose. If they win, you lose. Everyone can't have it their way.

In order for one or more groups to "have it their way", one or more other groups will NOT have it their way.

It's all taught in Reality 101.

Yes, except in this great country you are allowed to move to a different state if you don't like the way things are done where you live.  After 6 years in upstate NY I had enough so I moved to Texas where a citizens personal rights seem to get at least some consideration.  I can drink a 32 oz. soda if I choose to, and I can purchase a firearm without arbitrary approval of the local sheriff.  And I can legally drive 85 mph on some interstates if I choose to do so.  Just sayin'.  I you don't like the local regs, you can always move...

 

[kscarbel2]

17 minutes ago, grayhair said:

Yes, except in this great country you are allowed to move to a different state if you don't like the way things are done where you live.  After 6 years in upstate NY I had enough so I moved to Texas where a citizens personal rights seem to get at least some consideration.  I can drink a 32 oz. soda if I choose to, and I can purchase a firearm without arbitrary approval of the local sheriff.  And I can legally drive 85 mph on some interstates if I choose to do so.  Just sayin'.  If you don't like the local regs, you can always move...

I've long heard that San Antonio was, all-in-all, the most comfortable city in Texas. What are your thoughts?

[grayhair]

45 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

I've long heard that San Antonio was, all-in-all, the most comfortable city. What are your thoughts?

Wow, that's a tough question.  The population is exploding down here.  Major companies are relocating their HQ to TX every day and the complexion of all of the major cities is changing.  That said, all the major cities have a variety of suburbs, truly something for everyone in every price range.  Dallas is different from Ft. Worth is different than Houston is different than Austin is different than San Antonio.  And the E. TX piney-woods cities like Nacogdoches and Lufkin are different still.  And then there is "the Valley,"  Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen, etc.  All that with no disrespect to Lubbock, San Angelo, Amarillo and El Paso.  Personally I like the various Dallas suburbs because of proximity to DFW airport where you can fly direct to almost anywhere in the Americas.  Austin is more upscale than San Antonio.  I've been to all these cities many times and still can't answer your question.  Sorry, I thought I could answer but just too many possibilities.  Oh yeah, and Corpus Christi is very nice, on the  Gulf with beaches, marinas, etc.     

Edited July 26, 2016 by grayhair

[kscarbel2]

6 minutes ago, grayhair said:

Wow, that's a tough question.  The population is exploding down here.  Major companies are relocating their HQ to TX every day and the complexion of all of the major cities is changing.  That said, all the major cities have a variety of suburbs, truly something for everyone in every price range.  Dallas is different from Ft. Worth is different than Houston is different than Austin is different than San Antonio.  And the E. TX piney-woods cities like Nacogdoches and Lufkin are different still.  And then there is "the Valley,"  Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen, etc.  All that with no disrespect to Lubbock, San Angelo, Amarillo and El Paso.  Personally I like the various Dallas suburbs because of proximity to DFW airport where you can fly direct to to almost anywhere in the Americas.  Austin is more upscale than San Antonio.  I've been to all these cities many times and still can't answer your question.  Sorry, I thought I could answer but just too many possibilities.  Oh yeah, and Corpus Christi is very nice, on the  Gulf with beaches, marinas, etc.     

At the very least, it doesn't sound like there's a bad egg in the bunch.

With Dallas in mind, you know that I value a major airport nearby with direct int'l flights.

How is the crime? What direction is it headed?

[grayhair]

If you want direct International flights, that knocks it down to DFW or IAH (Houston.)  There are people that love Houston but I don't recommend it.  More traffic, more crime too.  If you were to relocate to DFW suburbs of Grapevine, South Lake, Flower Mound, area you'd be 10 or 15 minutes from DFW.  Lots of non-stops to Europe, S. America, and Asia plus of course nearly anywhere in U.S. and Mexico and Canada.  Some of my buddies don't even bother to drive to the airport, just take a cab for $15.  Zip through TSA Pre and away you go.  And crime in those suburbs is extremely low to almost nonexistent.  C'mon down!  

[RowdyRebel]

3 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

I believe the "right to speak" and desecrating the United States flag, are two separate matters.

I acknowledge that you feel United States citizens have the "right" to burn (desicrate) the United States flag.

Thank you for sharing your thought on the matter.

My understanding is (anyone correct me if I'm wrong), under 18 U.S. Code § 700, i.e. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties:

"Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

(reference - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700)

Actions that may be treated as flag desecration include burning it, urinating or defecating on it, defacing it with slogans, stepping upon it, damaging it with stones or guns, cutting or ripping it, verbally insulting it, or dragging it on the ground.

Thus, according to the laws of the United States of America, all of the individuals pictured above have broken federal law.

(Any ordinarily prudent person with ethics, morals and values would never even think of desecrating their country's flag)

In my humble opinion, all of individuals above, so dissatisfied with the United States, should be deported within 48 hours and never allowed to return.

It has been argued that, regarding the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional for a government to prohibit the desecration of a flag in an act of "symbolic speech." However, any ordinarily prudent person would state such a notion is a distortion of the First Amendment’s intent. Our country’s founding fathers would have hung any and all individuals who burned our nation’s flag.

In order for everyone to enjoy "freedom" in the United States, we must all abide by accepted standards of behavior, ethics, morals and values. Desecrating our national flag is NOT acceptable behavior. If one abhors our country to such degree, they should be deported to the greener grasses on the other side of the fence.

 

 

Problem is, the law is unconstitutional.  What part of "Congress shall make no law" is so difficult to comprehend?

...and the Founding Fathers included the right to free speech because they knew what it was like to have to watch what was said for fear of retribution from the King.  The 1st Amendment is there to protect the right of ANYONE to dissent, protest, and express their discontent with what the government is doing...so long as they are doing so peaceably and not destroying property other than their own.  As long as they are the rightful owner of the flag they are burning (or have the rightful owner's permission), then they have just as much right to burn it as they do to burn anything else they own.   The Founding Fathers also included in the 5th Amendment the prohibition on taking life, liberty, or property from any person without due process.  In other words, they wouldn't have hung anyone over a peaceable protest...even if a flag was burned.

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, RowdyRebel said:

Problem is, the law is unconstitutional.  What part of "Congress shall make no law" is so difficult to comprehend?

...and the Founding Fathers included the right to free speech because they knew what it was like to have to watch what was said for fear of retribution from the King.  The 1st Amendment is there to protect the right of ANYONE to dissent, protest, and express their discontent with what the government is doing...so long as they are doing so peaceably and not destroying property other than their own.  As long as they are the rightful owner of the flag they are burning (or have the rightful owner's permission), then they have just as much right to burn it as they do to burn anything else they own.   The Founding Fathers also included in the 5th Amendment the prohibition on taking life, liberty, or property from any person without due process.  In other words, they wouldn't have hung anyone over a peaceable protest...even if a flag was burned.

I respect your thoughts.

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

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it give United States citizens the “right” to burn the flag.

Freedom of “speech” and flag desecration.........are two separate matters.

There have been attempts, in this politically correct age, to adopt a flag desecration amendment. But like yourself, congress strongly disapproved of allowing people to desecrate our nation’s flag. So rationality and American ethics, morals and values prevailed, and congress voted it down.

Thus,  desecration of the United States flag today remains an illegal act, and rightly so.

And, I personally believe, the burning of the United States flag is "a slap in the face" to every current and former member of our military from 1776 to the present who has placed his life on the line for our great country.

[RowdyRebel]

Like I said, I find it repulsive and insulting when people burn the flag...however it is their right to do so.  As much as I'd like to take a "love it or leave it" approach and give them the boot, there are things this government does that I don't agree with either.  Should I have to leave too?  For example, the over-regulation of our industry...ELD mandates and such....or the whole Obamacare BS...or the fact that "stand down" orders were given resulting in the death of an ambassador and 3 other Americans...or the legislating that occurs from the bench in so many instances it isn't funny.  Executive power grabs, a legislature that doesn't care, and a judiciary that places more value on "precedent" than the actual Constitution. 

If I have the right to dissent and disagree with actions our government is making, so does the next guy.  If I say he doesn't have the right to dissent and disagree, what claim would I have to that same right?

[41chevy]

It a sign of Respect and National Pride plus the are strict rules for the display, uses and disposal of the flag. Many died or like myself came home severely wounded for God, Country and the the flag and any piece of crap who desecrates , wears it or supports the burning or other abuses of it should be punished for breaking the law and for the lack of respect to the Flag, the Nation and it Active duty and Veterans. No excuses or BS about their right to self expression, it is just liberal, hippy bullshit and hiding behind their view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That fit with spitting on us when we did our duty. .NOT one of them put on a uniform or did any thing to support the country (Peace Corps or other services) that gives them freedoms. Hate the country and flag? Leave, we won't miss you.

Burn it in front of me and it will be the last time you do it.    Paul

 

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

[RowdyRebel]

Spitting on a person is assault, and should be treated as such.  Spit on me, and I'll feed you a knuckle sammich.

Yes, if you respect the country, you should respect the flag. If you respect the sacrifice so many have made to keep the freedoms that flag represents, you should respect the flag. In the "land of the free", though, respect for the flag, country, or anything else cannot and SHOULD not be mandated.  

Having put up with the BS you did in NY, you ought to recognize the importance of having the freedom to do your own thing and be more outraged at government overreach than by some knucklehead using the freedom he's lucky to have to demonstrate his own ignorance and stupidity. As long as he isn't stealing the flag from a flagpole to burn, and he isn't harming or endangering anyone else as he burns it, then I don't think it is the government's place to tell the idiot that he can't burn it just because of what it is. 

I don't support the flag burning, only the freedom one has to have to be able to do it. If we executed or locked up for life those who burned our flag, we'd be no better than N. Korea, China, Cuba, or any other commie dictatorship.

[grayhair]

.

[kscarbel2]

7 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

Like I said, I find it repulsive and insulting when people burn the flag...however it is their right to do so. 

As much as I'd like to take a "love it or leave it" approach and give them the boot, there are things this government does that I don't agree with either.  Should I have to leave too?  For example, the over-regulation of our industry...ELD mandates and such....or the whole Obamacare BS...or the fact that "stand down" orders were given resulting in the death of an ambassador and 3 other Americans...or the legislating that occurs from the bench in so many instances it isn't funny.  Executive power grabs, a legislature that doesn't care, and a judiciary that places more value on "precedent" than the actual Constitution. 

If I have the right to dissent and disagree with actions our government is making, so does the next guy.  If I say he doesn't have the right to dissent and disagree, what claim would I have to that same right?

No American citizen "has the right" to burn the United States flag...........legally or morally.

United States law prohibits desecration of the United States flag. Thus, nobody has "the right" to do it.

I don't know how to explain this point to you any more clearly than that.

For someone that finds it repulsive and insulting, you certainly bend over backwards in support of illegal desecration of our nation's flag.

[kscarbel2]

3 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

Spitting on a person is assault, and should be treated as such.  Spit on me, and I'll feed you a knuckle sammich.

Yes, if you respect the country, you should respect the flag. If you respect the sacrifice so many have made to keep the freedoms that flag represents, you should respect the flag. In the "land of the free", though, respect for the flag, country, or anything else cannot and SHOULD not be mandated.  

Having put up with the BS you did in NY, you ought to recognize the importance of having the freedom to do your own thing and be more outraged at government overreach than by some knucklehead using the freedom he's lucky to have to demonstrate his own ignorance and stupidity. As long as he isn't stealing the flag from a flagpole to burn, and he isn't harming or endangering anyone else as he burns it, then I don't think it is the government's place to tell the idiot that he can't burn it just because of what it is. 

I don't support the flag burning, only the freedom one has to have to be able to do it. If we executed or locked up for life those who burned our flag, we'd be no better than N. Korea, China, Cuba, or any other commie dictatorship.

??????????

[david wild]

Burn the flag, get deported if not born here. if born here you need adjustment. 

[kscarbel2]

55 minutes ago, david wild said:

Burn the flag, get deported if not born here. if born here you need adjustment. 

David, I think you're being too kind.

When a U.S. citizen desecrates (burns) the U.S. flag, that reflects their utter disgust with the United States of America.

The only resolution is for them to be expelled from this nation that they despise so deeply.

Such an action would serve as a much needed wake up call for recent generations who take living in the world's best nation for granted.

[david wild]

I agree, our flag defines our country, if you do not respect it then you should be removed, go to another country and pull that crap, you would disappear and most likely never be seen again, why are we the only nation that cannot take pride in our country, our flag and our heritage ???  Makes me sick with all this let's be nice to the pukes, screw the pukes, take pride, be proud and support our country and it's flag or don't be here. 

[RowdyRebel]

Yes, it is against the law, but the law violates the Constitution, which makes the law invalid. You can argue the fact that it is the law until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the simple fact that under the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." -- Marbury V Madison, 1803

[Keith Pommerening]

10 hours ago, 41chevy said:

It a sign of Respect and National Pride plus the are strict rules for the display, uses and disposal of the flag. Many died or like myself came home severely wounded for God, Country and the the flag and any piece of crap who desecrates , wears it or supports the burning or other abuses of it should be punished for breaking the law and for the lack of respect to the Flag, the Nation and it Active duty and Veterans. No excuses or BS about their right to self expression, it is just liberal, hippy bullshit and hiding behind their view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That fit with spitting on us when we did our duty. .NOT one of them put on a uniform or did any thing to support the country (Peace Corps or other services) that gives them freedoms. Hate the country and flag? Leave, we won't miss you.

Burn it in front of me and it will be the last time you do it.    Paul

 

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

Just tell it as you see it.  I love it.  Sir, I salute you.  Thanks,  Keith

[kscarbel2]

22 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

Yes, it is against the law, but the law violates the Constitution, which makes the law invalid.

You can argue the fact that it is the law until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the simple fact that under the Constitution, "

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I respect your personal opinion that "the law violates the Constitution ".

However, the view of our country's judicial system and most folks on this forum runs contrary to your opinion.

It is an "inarguable" fact that:

1. Desecrating the United States flag is against the law.

2. The first amendment does NOT give U.S. citizens the "right" to desecrate the United States flag.

Frankly sir, I find your adamant support for allowing people to desecrate (e.g. burn) the United States flag most troubling and un-American.

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

18 U.S. Code § 700, i.e. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties:

"Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

[kscarbel2]

Bill Clinton is as shady as..............Hillary Clinton.

But he's a heck of a salesman. He could sell ice cubes to Eskimos.

He makes for the perfect politician or used car salesman.

Slick Willies' Used Cars.........."I'd give 'em away but my wife won't let me"

.

.

 

[Jason O]

One way to end flag burnings would be for law enforcement to simply walk away and go to lunch.   Surely there would be a few patriots nearby that will put a stop to it, and teach the protestors a lesson.  

I know, not very practical today since everyone has a camera phone. 

[RowdyRebel]

The Revolutionaries tarred & feathered the King's tax collectors. They also dumped crates of tea they didn't own into the Boston Harbor. Burning a flag you own pales in comparison.

Political speech and expressing your dissent with our government is ABSOLUTELY protected by the 1st Amendment. Congress has tried (and failed) numerous times to control and regulate political speech, and every time it happens, the courts strike it down. It doesn't matter if they are attempting to silence political ads 30-60 days prior to elections, or place limits on how much a person may use his dollars to speak during a campaign, or much to your dislike, even burning a flag in protest of some government action.

I don't like seeing it any more than you. However, as someone who strongly believes in the Constitution, I have to defend their right to do so...just as I vehemently disagree with the KKK, but support their right to peaceably assemble and spout off their hateful and ignorant rhetoric. Just because you disagree with what someone is doing doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. As long as they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights in the process (destroying property owned by others, causing injury/death to others, etc.) then they should have the right to put their stupidity, ignorance, and lack of respect on full display.  

I have the right to ignore them, as everyone should. They seek attention, so don't give it to them. Don't take their picture. Don't video tape them. Don't buy the newspapers with them on the front page. Change the channel if they are on the news. When the media outlets realize the fastest way to lose viewers/readers is to publish these idiots, they will stop covering these incidents. If when a flag is lit, everyone just turned and walked away leaving the idiot there to protest by himself, it won't be much of a protest. Protesting loses it's appeal when you realize nobody gives a $#!+.

[Jason O]

Rowdy-

Well stated.  I hadn't considered the flag itself was that person's  (protestor's) private property.  

[kscarbel2]

7 hours ago, RowdyRebel said:

The Revolutionaries tarred & feathered the King's tax collectors. They also dumped crates of tea they didn't own into the Boston Harbor. Burning a flag you own pales in comparison.

Political speech and expressing your dissent with our government is ABSOLUTELY protected by the 1st Amendment. Congress has tried (and failed) numerous times to control and regulate political speech, and every time it happens, the courts strike it down. It doesn't matter if they are attempting to silence political ads 30-60 days prior to elections, or place limits on how much a person may use his dollars to speak during a campaign, or much to your dislike, even burning a flag in protest of some government action.

I don't like seeing it any more than you. However, as someone who strongly believes in the Constitution, I have to defend their right to do so...just as I vehemently disagree with the KKK, but support their right to peaceably assemble and spout off their hateful and ignorant rhetoric. Just because you disagree with what someone is doing doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. As long as they are not infringing upon anyone else's rights in the process (destroying property owned by others, causing injury/death to others, etc.) then they should have the right to put their stupidity, ignorance, and lack of respect on full display.  

I have the right to ignore them, as everyone should. They seek attention, so don't give it to them. Don't take their picture. Don't video tape them. Don't buy the newspapers with them on the front page. Change the channel if they are on the news. When the media outlets realize the fastest way to lose viewers/readers is to publish these idiots, they will stop covering these incidents. If when a flag is lit, everyone just turned and walked away leaving the idiot there to protest by himself, it won't be much of a protest. Protesting loses it's appeal when you realize nobody gives a $#!+.

No on here has brought freedom of speech into question.

The flaw in your thought process is that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment, does it provide U.S. citizens with the "right" to desecrate (e.g. burn) the United States flag.

Rather, U.S. law forbids it.

The First Amendment gives one the "right" to freedom of speech (i.e. the right to express your opinion without censorship or restraint).

However, the First Amendment does not hand out the "right" to desecrate our nation's flag.

Dissent - The expression or holding of opinions at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially held.

I continue to find your adamant support for allowing people to desecrate (e.g. burn) the United States flag most troubling and un-American.