Are you for a Constitutional Amendment banning burning the flag?

I read what you said over there.

Pro socialism - I'm not sure exactly what he's talking about here but I'm sure he has a reason he put this here, I'd like to hear it

Pro massive government - I wouldn't call it massive government but selective government (which is even worse). You seem to be anti big government until they can help you, then you're all for it

Pro massive irresponsible spending - You've got to understand this. Bush has racked up the worst defecit in history after giving a tax cut

Pro major intervensionist foreign policy - this is obvious, we attack a country that is no threat to us and used WMD's along with humanitarian problems as an excuse. If we start doing this prepare for war in Africa, we've got many countries worse than Iraq in Africa. We need to stick with defending the US as our policy and not mess with other countries. Especially if we can't handle the task of putting it back together when we tear it down.

Pro massive private life regulation - If many conservatives had their way, it would be illegal to have 2 men or 2 women to have any kind of sexual contact, they want to regulate womens' bodies, they even want to ban burning your property if it has the image of a flagg, that is a bit too much into my private life thank you.
 
Kennedy Urges Bush to Begin Withdrawing Troops in Iraq

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 28, 2005; Page A17


Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) called on President Bush yesterday to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq after Sunday's elections and complete the pullout by early next year, declaring the president's Iraq policy "a catastrophic failure" that is only "fanning the flames of conflict."

Kennedy, one of the most searing critics of the war, said the conflict is being perpetuated by the continuing presence of U.S. forces and the Iraqi perception of being occupied. He laid out his five-point exit strategy, which envisions turning over the battle to the new Iraqi government chosen this weekend, possibly aided by a U.N. military contingent.

"It is time to recognize that there is only one choice: America must give Iraq back to the Iraqi people," Kennedy said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "We have no choice but to make the best we can of the disaster we have created in Iraq. The current course is only making the crisis worse."

Warning against a repeat of mistakes made during the Vietnam War, Kennedy proposed withdrawing 12,000 of the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq "immediately" and the rest "as early as possible in 2006." He acknowledged that pulling out might exacerbate the fighting. "There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages from us," he said. "But there will be much more serious violence if we continue our present dangerous and reckless course."

The White House dismissed Kennedy's remarks. "I think his views are well known," press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The president's views are well known, as well." The Republican National Committee responded more sharply, blasting the speech as a "partisan political attack" and saying "no democracy has ever risen out of defeatism."

The Army expects to keep its troop level unchanged for at least two more years, its top operations officer said this week, and at a news conference Wednesday, Bush declined to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. "Obviously, we'll have the troop levels necessary to complete the mission," he said. "And that mission is to enable Iraq to defend herself from terrorists."

In issuing his plan, Kennedy became the most prominent member of Congress to urge pulling out the troops. Earlier this week, Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) advocated withdrawing all but a force of 30,000 by year's end, and a group of House Democrats introduced a troop pullout resolution on the floor. Republican Rep. Howard Coble (N.C.) said recently that the United States should consider withdrawal if the Iraqi government is unwilling or unable to "shoulder more of the heavy lifting."
 
So you say you would do harm to somebody who was burning the flag. You clearly have no idea what it represents. The person burning a flag is a trillion times more American, than all the flags put together.
 
Voice Of Reason said:
I don't think you're being put down, IMO you fail to understand that to most people who have a life where military service isn't the big event, what you did was what you choose. I've known true warriors who loved the action. Most wished they could still do it, but none I'm aware of ever attended military social clubs after leaving service. Nor do they follow anyone in a blind manner. That's why they were good at what they did, because other than the orginal deployment order, they were on their own. Don't confuse military service with a higher order.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe they could just be angry? Trying to make a point? Burning a flag isn't near as trashy as, let's say - killing somebody



I love America, too. I love its potential and I love that it's ours. It belongs to the people. America is me and you. The flag is a freakin flag. It's not America - it's a symbol. Put it in persective, Hunter. You don't do damage to the real thing (America, it's people and it's freedoms) to defend an SYMBOL. You start insulting, deporting and killing people because of the flag and you are undermining what it stanRAB for.



They died defending the country - not a SYMBOL. I can't imagine what runs through the mind of somebody who claims to love America but wishes to undermine its first ammendment.

And worRAB like desecrate makes me think you find the flag sacred - it's not, be careful Hunter - you do have a jealous God. The one thing that tees him off the most is misplaced worship.



As was said - there are plenty of totalitarian regimes you can go live under of you don't desire freedom.



I love Canada. By the way - there are plenty of red-necks there, too. France - not so much. Paris is amazing though. Most beautiful city I have ever seen.
 
I would not be to sure of that....Did you know that prior to 1989 and the Supreme Court ruling that the flag was not protected that all 50 states had a law banning the desecration of the flag......

I think the closest battle will be in the Senate but if it passes there it coes through the states with flying colors (Pardon the Pun.)
 
This thread kind of reminRAB me of a hilarious skit on 'Mr. Show With Dave and Bob' (short-lived show, but hilarious and creative as hell), where David Cross plays a character that tries to defecate on the American flag to make a statement, but he can't, because our founding fathers, Lincoln in particular (yes, they did that on purpose) developed a color pattern on the American flag (it happened to have 50 stars) which would induce constipation on its viewers. The skit suggests that at the time there was a flag-defecation crisis and one of the ideas proposed by Benjamin Franklin was to create the flag out of feces so as to defeat the whole purpose of trying to defecate on the flag.

So, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic...

Anyway, I will probably join a Marine Corps ROTC in college, and to be quite honest, I'm not concerned with anyone burning our flag. I feel very comfortable in knowing that someone can do that here, it only goes to show that our little experiment has worked. It is our duty to protect the right to want to hate America or our government. I cannot elaborate on the importance.
 
Because I am and American Patriot and the American Flag represents this country and even though you find it hard to believe men have died defending it.........

I don't know what other flags your talking about.........

PS: can you ever make a post without attacking someone?



Or an America hater, socialist, or communist.......
 
Jim I could care less what people in other countries do with the flag.......My concern is with what so called American citizens do with it here.........The first amendment grants freedome of speech...........It is a real stretch that and action such as desecrating the flag is speech..........
 
1... Me either

2. I am for small government

3. I am for spending and tax cuts....I can give the Prez a pass on this on account of 9/11/01 and 2 wars........

4. Almost everyone in every country said Sadam had WOMD.....I personally think he did and they are buried somewhere in the massive desert......You have to understand that a WOMD does have to be a 30 ft missle......It can be something as small as a flask of smallpox that could kill thousanRAB........One thing for sure Sadam will never use WOMD on us.......This president believes in fighting terrorists in the streets of Baghdad rather then in the Streets of NY........

5. 2 men or 2 women can do anything they want in the privacy of their bedroom..........I believe they should have equal rights as most conservatives do...We think Civil Unions will accomplish that.......Where we part company is we don't believe the definiton of marriage should be changed.......

All that said if the democrats had put up a viable alternative like say a Joe Leiberman I might have voted for him but he has no chance........

I have my difference with President Bush as far as spending and immigration goes but when it comes to your man Kerry it was a slam dunk decison.......

You will find that little man rants and raves but makes little sense..He is into insults and name calling I just ignore him..........
 
I am trying to understand how and action can be defined as speech.......To me speech is using ones voice...........

The issue to me is a very passionate one and I believe there are other ways to register ones disapproval then desecrating something so many Americans consider sacred.......

The sad part is that is exactly why the scum do that........
 
Tell me, were your ancestors chased off the land during a famine and came to America because they thought it was an opportunity for them to survive without a feudal system? Well, they were right, weren't they? :rolleyes:
Our Forefathers believed in self-determination, not Nanny governments that provided for you. The 1994 election was about bringing personal responsibility and less government back to the people. The public was scared to death of the possibility of national healthcare run by the same Beltway bureaucrats that couldn't take care of our Veterans or elderly but now wanted control,over 1/7th of the nations private economy. Too bad Newt and company couldn't overcome the liberal media demagoguery.

BTW, my first ancestor came over as a Scottish indentured servant in the mid-1700's as well.
 
You still don't understand.

Burning the flag is not a acceptable behavior. But banning it because you don't like it is a slap in the face aganist the freedoms we enjoy, not to mention that banning it is spitting on the graves of every US soldier who gave his or her life to defend these freedoms.

Perhaps when you reach the age where you can vote, you will understand.

If you cannot support everyone's freedoms, you deserve none yourself.
 
georged said:
You don't think that this clown saying people that work in support of combat troops are not worth crap?

I wonder where this country would be without the great military we have always had.......Probably speaking German or Russian or even Japanese.......

Well i guess there is nothing else to say...........
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top