Posted on 06/27/2006 3:49:32 PM PDT by DTogo
:)) lolol....this is too funny...we got a lot of non-sequiturs going on here....
How much do them non-sequiturs cost anyway.....:)) how can one take this serious....
"So speech we disagree with should be met with violence. That's good"
Burning a flag.....is not really freedom of speech..as in the spirit....we can debate that until the cows come home.
No, you don't get a say in "my world", but you're not allowed to make any mistakes at all.
>>>Burning a flag.....is not really freedom of speech
Is writing a check to your favorite politician speech?
Your reply in no way explains how my interpretation of your response to my question was incorrect.
no, it's usually a waste of time...:))and I don't do that....anyway.
Really? Now, why isn't that a surprise.......:), Then, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree and accept it, or you will have to ponder the true meaning of life gained from wisdom of common sense gained from your interpretation of my response to your question and why it is correct but you think its not correct but in reality its actually a figment of your imagination......except on Sundays...when that's a day of rest. So, this explanation should be clearer.....:))))
The debates on the subject on FR are more informed than anything I've seen in the media...
Mark Steyn:
A flag has to be worth burning
from The Chicago Sun-Times, June 26th 2005
I was very honored to be the first non-American to win the Eric Breindel Award. This column from a year ago was quoted in The New York Post 's editorial on this year's winners:
The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:
“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn’t presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society. And maybe others would roll their eyes and say that, granted it’s been clear since about October 2001 that the Federal legislature has nothing useful to contribute to the war on terror and its hacks and poseurs prefer to busy themselves with a lot of irrelevant grandstanding with a side order of fries, they could at least quit dragging us into it.
And maybe a few would feel as many of my correspondents did last week about the ridiculous complaints of “desecration” of the Koran by US guards at Guantanamo – that, in the words of one reader, “it’s not possible to ‘torture’ an inanimate object”.
That alone is a perfectly good reason to object to a law forbidding the “desecration” of the flag. For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat Senators want to make speeches comparing the US military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It’s always useful to know what people really believe.
For example, two years ago, a young American lady, Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza. Her death immediately made her a martyr for the Palestinian cause, and her family and friends worked assiduously to promote the image of her as a youthful idealist passionately moved by despair and injustice. My Name Is Rachel Corrie, a play about her, was a huge hit in London. Well, okay, it wasn’t so much a play as a piece of sentimental agitprop so in thrall to its subject’s golden innocence that the picture of Rachel on the cover of the Playbill shows her playing in the back yard, aged seven or so, wind in her hair, in a cute pink T-shirt.
There’s another photograph of Rachel Corrie – at a Palestinian protest, headscarved, her face contorted with hate and rage, torching the Stars & Stripes. Which is the real Rachel Corrie? The “schoolgirl idealist” caught up in the cycle of violence? Or the grown woman burning the flag of her own country? Well, that’s your call. But, because that second photograph exists, we at least have a choice.
Have you seen that Rachel Corrie flag-burning photo? If you follow Charles Johnson’s invaluable Little Green Footballs website and a few other Internet outposts, you will have. But you’ll look for it in vain in the innumerable cooing profiles of the “passionate activist” that have appeared in the world’s newspapers.
One of the big lessons of these last four years is that many, many beneficiaries of western civilization loathe that civilization - and the media are generally inclined to blur the extent of that loathing. At last year’s Democratic Convention, when the Oscar-winning crockumentarian Michael Moore was given the seat of honor in the Presidential box next to Jimmy Carter, I wonder how many TV viewers knew that the terrorist “insurgents” – the guys who kidnap and murder aid workers, hack the heads off foreigners, load Down’s syndrome youths up with explosives and send them off to detonate in shopping markets – are regarded by Moore as Iraq’s Minutemen. I wonder how many viewers knew that on September 11th itself Moore’s only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and Washington instead of Texas or Mississippi: “They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the plane’s destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!”
In other words, if the objection to flag desecration is that it’s distasteful, tough. Like those apocryphal Victorian matrons who discreetly covered the curved legs of their pianos, the culture already goes to astonishing lengths to veil the excesses of those who are admirably straightforward in their hostility.
If people feel that way, why protect them with a law that will make it harder for the rest of us to see them as they are? One thing I’ve learned in the last four years is that it’s very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for “vilification of religion”, which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, “xenophobia” is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the west’s ever more coercive constraints on free expression. The problem is not that some people burn flags; the problem is that the worldview of which flag-burning is a mere ritual is so entrenched at the highest levels of western culture.
Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It’s not. It gets burned because it’s strong. I’m a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don’t ask me why – we had a small contribution to the Kosovo bombing campaign but evidently it was enough to arouse the ire of Slobo’s boys. I’ve never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling “Death to the Little Satan!”, but you can’t have everything.
That’s the point: a flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that’s not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can’t stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It’s the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.
"I do not understand your continued denial of the very clear implications of your answer"
Well, then my continued denial of my clear implications should then be clear as you have answered very clearly that my implications were clear. Now, if they were clear, normally this means that they are understood. My continued denial of my clear implications means that I stand by the old saying, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it", and my clear impications of my answer means that I understand my response well, which obviously draws us to the logical conclusion that you do not.....as this is non-secuiter response that you sent, but I do appreciate that you can clearly see that my answer had clear implications. So, this should be a clear response as well. ya tink.....
So, that you can sleep at night, if you still don't understand I suggest you write it about 100 times on the blackboard so that is sinks in.....
I respond in this way, due to your nonsensical responses. Which ones you ask...just check all of them and the silly games that a 21-25 year old or younger would play. I will not give specific examples as my time with this nonsensical and obviously deceptive posting is a time waster.
You can deal with it....if its illogical now, then write it 200 times on the blackboard. If you still don't understand it, well, try rebirth.
"That is not a rational justification for denying the obvious meaning of an answer that you have given to my question."
*****Well, this is an incorrect assertion that you are making, and unacceptable. From my opinion it is rational. Therefore you are wrong. Just because you can't understand does not make it my problem.
"So you are acknowledging that you are once again refusing to substantiate your unsupported assertions?"
**** Again, I shall repeat as to make it more clear. The responses you send are without logic and obviously designed to confuse or become a clever departure from the true spirit of these forums. You most always make a false or inaccurate assertion based on a bait and hook technique, with no real desire to discuss the issues in the spirit of the thread. It is overlooked by the mods by the methods you use, even though it is simplistic rambling. The assertions are supported by your own postings and obvious with those who have knowledge of your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
Your positions are illogical in that you offer no substantiantions nor any logical postings....as you chase my screen name around like a little puppy dog......:)) My position is very logical as you are failing to see the logic or you are refusing to see in order to fulfill a personal agenda of some sort that is obviously failing.
so, here we go again........and round and round....yours is a simple task.......but, eventually i will move on or just send you an icon that is deserving of your worthless posting....:)) lolol...
I spied a lot of D's there.. I wonder if that means anything. :) /sarc....
During my conversations with you, I have observed that you frequently reply to questions or statements with statements that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or are not actually responses to questions asked. I have also observed that you refuse to support any assertion that you make with evidence, instead choosing to make excuses for your refusal to support your claims. I can only conclude from your behavior that you are not interested in honest discussion, or in presenting an honest, rational viewpoint. In light of this deduction, I have concluded that there is no purpose in corresponding with you. There can be no meaningful exchange of information when you willfully refuse to provide information and when you insist that your assertions be taken as truth and then go to great lengths to justify refusing to provide any evidence to support them as valid.
"In a situation where burning a similarly constructed and shaped object of different appearance than a US flag is criminally prosecutable, then burning a flag should also be criminally prosecutable."
**** you are incorrect in this assertion. You obviously miss the whole point and don't understand the symbolism. Burning a cross is symbolic, it is not the shape it is the intent and the purpose that is in contention. Therefore, burning a flag is equal to burning a cross not by the shape, but because of the symbolism and the purpose. I therefore agree with you, that...quote you..."then burning a flag should be criminally prosecutable"...bravo, you are finally getting it.
"This argument is only valid when presented to an individual who believes that such a double standard is acceptable. I do not, nor -- I suspect -- does anyone else here."
****You are right once again. Alarm Rider wrote:
"You would most likely be attacked and/or prosecuted if you burned a "rainbow" flag as a protest against "gay' rights, but burning an American flag is ok." This would be valid if you burned a "rainbow" flag and a gay rights who was a muscle builder or knew karate and decided to kick your collective....oppps, can't say the A word. As far as the second statement you are once again making bad assumptions, as I agree with him and therefore with one that agrees, invalidates your claim.
"Again, you are arguing against a double-standard that no one here is promoting. Moreover, I am aware of no laws that would prohibit "flushing a Koran", provided that the Koran was the private property of the flusher and that the resulting flush did not cause damage to plumbing owned by another person."
**** You are once again making a false assumption from an illogical conclusion which is apparent. It is no double standard and your assertion of laws prohibiting flushing a Koran is non-secuiter in this posting. Please explain how this applies to alarm riders assertion?
"This argument is only valid when presented to an individual who believes that such a double standard is acceptable. I do not, nor -- I suspect -- does anyone else here."
****Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. as well...I agree with him and therefore his commment is invalid and incorrect. when are you going to learn...
"During my conversations with you, I have observed that you frequently reply to questions or statements with statements that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or are not actually responses to questions asked. I have also observed that you refuse to support any assertion that you make with evidence, instead choosing to make excuses for your refusal to support your claims. I can only conclude from your behavior that you are not interested in honest discussion, or in presenting an honest, rational viewpoint. In light of this deduction, I have concluded that there is no purpose in corresponding with you. There can be no meaningful exchange of information when you willfully refuse to provide information and when you insist that your assertions be taken as truth and then go to great lengths to justify refusing to provide any evidence to support them as valid."
**** this is amazing...we are joined at the hip and thinking as one....I was just going to say the exact same thing and you read my mind. Back home in North Carolina we would call this statement, "this is the pot calling the Kettle black".......lolol...:))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.