[Politico2]

Ok, I concede it wasn't the best analogy, but my point is that even if the flag was damaged, it does not excuse one from further marking on it. Does it?

If you feel the flag is "damaged" it should be burned. It does not provide an excuse to write on it.

Ok, it was a pretty poor analogy.

[cake_crumb]

"Ok, it was a pretty poor analogy."

It was a really p*ss poor analogy. While I agree with you that we should not be writing on flags, this flag is special.

This flag is not just a symbol. In a way, this flag is all of us.

If the US Marines don't mind, and will proudly fly this symbol of us while killing the murderous b*stards, I don't mind either.

[RightWhale]

an excuse to write on it.

People shouldn't write on their flag. However, people have written on their flags before and will again. Especially battlefield flags.

[at bay]

Yes, bad precedent. But not as bad as the little flags I have seen at Long's Drugstores with writing across the whole flag that someone seeks to profit from selling.

I would much rather have it discussed in a forum like this than to have the first amendment "new and improved" to decide what is and is not defined as desecration v. tackiness.