Flag Burning
St.George
my back! Also, this may well prove to have topical implications that come
up during the life of the thread, so cut me a little slack, please.
It's certainly more topical than whether the bloody Balkans are in bloody
Europe!
Anyway, I understand that the United States Supreme Court ruled that (U.S.)
flag-burning WAS protected free speech, by a 5-to-4 margin. What I would
like, please, is opinions of some of the regular posters on this NG as to
whether it should be protected, or whether it is an example of behaviour
sufficiently odious, offensive and provocative as NOT to be considered
speech at all, or at least not the protected kind.
What I would also be interested in is the _strength_ of your opinions,
perhaps on a nine-category scale, where...
1 = VERY strongly feel it should be protected and legal
3 = moderately strongly feel that it should be protected/legal
5 = unable to decide either way
7 = moderately strongly feel that it should be illegal/not protected
9 = VERY strongly feel it should be illegal/not protected
The Supreme Court vote of 5-to-4 implies to me that it is a somewhat
contentious issue in U.S. society, and I think it would be interesting, and
at least semi-relevant, to examine it here. A one-word, or number, reply is
fine, and I look forward to your comments!
Many Thanks
Mark
Quasi-evil American
the world that want the life we have here I give it a nine
Richard Jackson
Mark,
The act of flag burning as a protest is one I find repugnant, at est. I
wish the specific act was defined by Constitutional ammendment as
illegal and end all argument.
On a personal level, it is better for both the protesters and me if I am
not present at such a display. I would hate to have to pay the fine for
putting a few knots on someone's head.
Of course in the process, I would probably exercise my right of free
speech to state my thoughts about them. If I did so correctly, they
would assault me and I would have the right to defend myself in self
defense. I wouldn't hit them too hard in that case, because I'd want to
hit them a lot.
--
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
patrick randolph crotty
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
p@u.c
>my back! Also, this may well prove to have topical implications that come
>up during the life of the thread, so cut me a little slack, please.
>
>It's certainly more topical than whether the bloody Balkans are in bloody
>Europe!
>
>Anyway, I understand that the United States Supreme Court ruled that (U.S.)
>flag-burning WAS protected free speech, by a 5-to-4 margin. What I would
>like, please, is opinions of some of the regular posters on this NG as to
>whether it should be protected, or whether it is an example of behaviour
>sufficiently odious, offensive and provocative as NOT to be considered
>speech at all, or at least not the protected kind.
My opinion is this: on the day they outlaw flag-burning, I will
publicly burn a flag.
The flag is an old symbol of the United States, and I think that if you
are an American and value your country, you ought to treat it with
respect. I have little regard for activists who would gratuitously burn
or otherwise deface it. Countless Americans have fought and died
for the nation over which the Stars and Stripes flies and the ideals
which it represents, and I have no trouble understanding why so many
are deeply offended by seeing someone take a match to it.
But one of the ideals which the founders of the US espoused, and
to which the nation they founded lives up with varying degrees of
success, is the right to express unpopular opinions. Free speech
does not exist unless you grant it to those whose ideas, and manner
of expressing them, you find utterly repugnant. Burning a flag
is not speech in the most technical sense of the term, but then neither
is wearing a T-shirt with a picture of Josef Stalin on the front, or
tattooing a swastika on your forearm. If we accept that flag-burning
should be outlawed because it is offensive to the majority, then we
must accept that other activities such as these should be outlawed too.
And then we will be on a very slippery slope indeed.
The flag is not the United States. The flag is not liberty. The
flag is not the blood of the men who fell at Iwo Jima and Antietam. It
is a *symbol* of these things. And it is nothing but the most
primitive kind of fetishism to confuse a symbol with reality.
An attack on the flag is an act of disrespect for the ideals it
represents -- but it in no way threatens those ideals themselves,
as long as the majority still hold them. Is flag-burning offensive?
Absolutely. Does it pose a threat to public safety or national
security? Absolutely not. And thus making it illegal would be
indefensible.
For me, ultimately, the American flag represents the right to
burn an American flag without fear of government retribution --
and for that reason, burning it makes you look stupid. But should
flag-burning be outlawed by Constitutional amendment, then the
flag will have essentially become a symbol of oppression, of the
idea that the feelings of the majority should trump an individual's
right to political expression. And thus, if and when such an amendment
is ratified, I will buy an American flag and burn it in a public place.
So, I guess you could call that a 1.
Mitchell Holman
}
}Mark,
}
}The act of flag burning as a protest is one I find repugnant, at est. I
}wish the specific act was defined by Constitutional ammendment as
}illegal and end all argument.
}
Of all the constitutional amendments proposed in
recent years, this flag-burning ban has to be the most
pointless and unnecessary to come down the pike. I
mean, when was the last time someone burned the flag?
And how many people even noticed, much less were
personally affected by it? If the pointless passage of
the 18th and 21st amendments teaches us anything, it
is that the Amendment process needs to be reserved for
matter of lasting national importance, and not used as
the fodder of trivial political grandstanding.
IMHO, that is.
Mitchell Holman
"Children are naive -- they trust everyone.
School is bad enough, but, if you put a child
anywhere in the vicinity of a church, you're
asking for trouble".
-- Frank Zappa, April 1993 --
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <st_george@***netmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39adb...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Before I give you my vote, let me give you a short take on my view of
this question. I feel that very few will pick 3, 5, or 7. Just as we
here view the DP, hardly anyone sits on the fence on this issue. It's
an issue as polarized as the question we discuss here. Do we value
Freedom of Expression more or Love of Country more? And that's
why even SCOTUS was divided on this issue, and I feel you'll get a lot
of divided answers from Americans. You must know I spent 40 years
in a structured military environment, 20 as active military, and 20 as
an advisor to the military, so it would seem that I would be a strong 9.
I love my country, without a doubt... I've already admitted to being
jingoistic. But I also hold Freedom of Expression as an absolute. I
vote 1, because to do so does not detract from this love I have for
my country, but serves to reinforce my belief that respect for its
principles MUST be greater than respect for its symbols. Symbols
are abstract by definition, but principles are what we personally
believe in, not abstracts. People fight and die for principles, not
symbols, and those who have died for principles are lessened if
we claim that what they did die for was a symbol, and not a
principle or a way of life.
A PV
Richard Jackson
<0A19CD60F8773C01.CBB86FF0...@lp.airnews.net>,
As you say, that is your opinion, Mitchell. You have a perfect right to
that opinion just as I do with mine.
The only reason I would make such an act an ammendment would be to
eliminate the free speech debate about the right to burn the flag. The
question is, who has the ability to persuade Congress, and the States to
do that? If a majority of the people want such a thing done, it should
be done. If not, it should not.
Bebbyc
>
>Of all the constitutional amendments proposed in
>recent years, this flag-burning ban has to be the most
>pointless and unnecessary to come down the pike. I
>mean, when was the last time someone burned the flag?
At Gary Graham's execution.
Beverly
Mitchell Holman
You don't end debates by passing laws against them.
The
}question is, who has the ability to persuade Congress, and the States to
}do that? If a majority of the people want such a thing done, it should
}be done. If not, it should not.
}
Fortunately the majority does not always get their
way in this country. That is what makes us a republic
rather than a mob rule.
Rev. Don Kool
Patty Crotty <prcr...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> St.George <st_george@***netmatters.co.uk> wrote:
> >OK, it's off-topic; but then so is every second post on this NG, so get off
> >my back! Also, this may well prove to have topical implications that come
> >up during the life of the thread, so cut me a little slack, please.
> >
> >It's certainly more topical than whether the bloody Balkans are in bloody
> >Europe!
> >
> >Anyway, I understand that the United States Supreme Court ruled that (U.S.)
> >flag-burning WAS protected free speech, by a 5-to-4 margin. What I would
> >like, please, is opinions of some of the regular posters on this NG as to
> >whether it should be protected, or whether it is an example of behaviour
> >sufficiently odious, offensive and provocative as NOT to be considered
> >speech at all, or at least not the protected kind.
>
> My opinion is this: on the day they outlaw flag-burning, I will
> publicly burn a flag.
Sure you will, Patty, sure you will. Your "activism" begins and
ends with posting to this newsgroup while you sit safely ensconsed
in college thanks to your mommy and daddy. If flag burning were to
become illegal and you were to get arrested for burning one, you
would quickly come face to face with the criminals you so
desperately wish to save from just punishment. Your naivete would
be as quickly stripped from you as your ability to remain anal
retentive. When you grow up and eventually stop wasting your mommy
and daddy's money, you will realize that the just Death Penalty is
the only appropriate and morally right punishment for those that
choose to murder. Happily President George W. Bush will soon be
stepping up the pace on just executions and relieving Death Rows of
their backlog.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
John Rennie
I am not going to vote as it is not my flag. I do however have a
question: Is it allowed to use the design of the American Flag on
underpants (shorts) or a shopping bag? The Union Flag (Jack) is used for
these purposes and many others.
Mitchell Holman
That is the whole problem with this entire flag desecration
issue. If you throw a used paper napkin with a flag logo on it into
the fire, is that a crime? If you cut up your flag T-shirt for house
rags, are you suddenly a felon? And what about the figure of
Uncle Sam, whose whole outfit consists of cut up pieces of the
American flag?
Small wonder that no one charged with the responsibility
of interpreting or enforcing this law wants it passed. It is a legal
nightmare.
PS: Do you know what the US military does with flags that
have worn out? That's right, they burn them.
Richard Jackson
<8747619BE65FFF18.78B220F0...@lp.airnews.net>,
This one would.
> The
> }question is, who has the ability to persuade Congress, and the States
to
> }do that? If a majority of the people want such a thing done, it
should
> }be done. If not, it should not.
> }
>
> Fortunately the majority does not always get their
> way in this country. That is what makes us a republic
> rather than a mob rule.
>
>
Really Mitchell? Is that why we still have capital punishment in 38 of
the states of the US, or is it because a majority of the people still
support having capital crime statutes and the politicians knwo it?
Take your time, I'm sure you will figure it out soon.
Mitchell Holman
Your devotion to freedom of speech is quite underwhelming.
}
}> The
}> }question is, who has the ability to persuade Congress, and the States
}to
}> }do that? If a majority of the people want such a thing done, it
}should
}> }be done. If not, it should not.
}> }
}>
}> Fortunately the majority does not always get their
}> way in this country. That is what makes us a republic
}> rather than a mob rule.
}>
}>
}
}Really Mitchell? Is that why we still have capital punishment in 38 of
}the states of the US, or is it because a majority of the people still
}support having capital crime statutes and the politicians knwo it?
Did a majority of the people decide to call a halt to all
executions from 1972 - 1976? Did a majority of the people
decide to abolish executions for rape? Did a majority of the
people impose the current moratorium on all executions in
Illinois?
Richard Jackson
<844F125C43E58009.AEA99CB7...@lp.airnews.net>,
Nope. I just don't extend that freedom to desecration of the flag. If
it was a Constitutional Ammendment not to do so, it would not be a
matter of freedom of speech but someone breaking a Constitutional
provision if they did so. The act itself, of burning the flag, would be
unconstitutional.
> }
> }> The
> }> }question is, who has the ability to persuade Congress, and the
States
> }to
> }> }do that? If a majority of the people want such a thing done, it
> }should
> }> }be done. If not, it should not.
> }> }
> }>
> }> Fortunately the majority does not always get their
> }> way in this country. That is what makes us a republic
> }> rather than a mob rule.
> }>
> }>
> }
> }Really Mitchell? Is that why we still have capital punishment in 38
of
> }the states of the US, or is it because a majority of the people still
> }support having capital crime statutes and the politicians knwo it?
>
> Did a majority of the people decide to call a halt to all
> executions from 1972 - 1976?
Nope, but the will of the people caused it to be reinstated by
meeting the provisions as set forth by SCROTUS.
Did a majority of the people
> decide to abolish executions for rape?
Nope.
Did a majority of the
> people impose the current moratorium on all executions in
> Illinois?
>
>
Nope, but a politician elected by a majority of the voting public of
that state did, and if they do not like it, they can vote him and his
party out of office just as easily.
Like it or not, Mitchell, you are a member of a minority. A vocal
minority to be sure, but a minority. The laws will not be changed
unless a majority of the people see the matter as needing change. Teh
court can rule on the matter, but if so, it has to give conditions why,
and if it is the will of the people, those conditions can be met again.
If the majority of the people don't like what is happening in SCOTUS or
anywhere else, they will either elect people who will directly do what
they want, or who will appoint someone who will.
Remember studying what Andrew Jackson did to the makeup of the Supreme
Court when he took office? Similar measures can be taken again should
the majority require it. Representatives and Senators can be replaced
if they fail to follow majority wishes, and whole political parties can
lose their position based upon majority rule. These are political
realities, Mitchell. I really don't care if you like them or not.
Politicians understand that, and there are enough people who understand
how politicians prostitute themselves to control the politicians. The
easiest way to do that is to control a majority of the vote.
Right now, retentionists control that majority. Until you can change
that, or get enough abolitionists to have a voting majority, we will
continure to have the death penalty and put condemned prisoners to death
against the wishes of people like you. If you get enough liberals on
SCOTUS to overturn the death penalty, we will either elect someone to
appoint what we want on SCOTUS, or refine the rules agains, state by
state to reinstate it. You don't have to like that, just get used to
it.
Larry Smith
Governments change,and freedom and democracy are alive, but not well, in the
USA.
These ideals demand the right to burn a flag in protest against
governmental misbehavior.
That is my opinion.
We owe a massive amount to the 'long haired pinko hippie freaks and queers'
of the 60's. These people knew that the
government was way off track, even when the rest of us were
duped into accepting the system, waving the flag, saying 'America - love it
or leave it'.
They took on the government and forced reform. Would that I
had been able to see the truth so clearly.
Quasi-evil American
I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
On a side note, I was walking in Austin the other day(where I live) and
there was a small protest against the DP (3or4 people). Anyway they were
preparing to burn a
Texas flag, which IMHO is an even worse desecration than burning an American
one, so anyway my buddy and I spot them about to light up the Lone star
flag. We run up to them grab it and give it to the police who are
monitoring the protest, anyway one
of the protest trash takes a swing at me and misses my face but hits my
chest. This all took place less than 3 feet from a cop, so the officers
asked my if I want to press charges for assault, I say yes and now I have a
court date on the 7th of September.
I am asking for 10,000 bucks for pain and suffering since I am a veteran.
If the scum won't settle I intend to prosecute, and if he is convicted he
will spend a long time with all his buddies in the prison system. MAN I
LOVE TEXAS
Odagnop
Quasi-evil American wrote:
Kids say the darndest things... Was this before or after his battle with the
abombinable snowmen in the Bermuda Triangle?
Rev. Don Kool
It is certain that after spending a bit of time getting butt fucked
by his beloved murderers, your wannabe flag burning friend will exit
the Texas criminal justice system with quite a different view on
capital punishment.
Mitchell Holman
}Negative, the army buries its flags.
}I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
}
The United States Flag Code 36s 176(k) states: "The flag, when it is in
such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should
be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
"According to the Marine Corps Flag Manual, Section G, "flags determined
not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization,
privately by burning,"
http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/g1/pao/sentry/000609-goodwin-glory.htm
Mitchell Holman
Let us look at this from a practical point of view. First of all,
what is is a flag? A hand drawing of a flag on a paper napkin?
A flag lapel pin? A flag logo on car license plates? A cloth patch
on a uniform? A tattoo?
Secondly, what is desceration? If I throw that flag paper napkin
in the barbeque fire, is that desecration? What about flag underwear
and flag cake icing and flag backpacks? How do we dispose of those
without committing "desecration"? Is not the figure of Uncle Sam
himself a walking example of cut up ("desecrated") flags?
Sorry, Richard, but your whole scheme is simply unworkable
from a legal standpoint.
If
}it was a Constitutional Ammendment not to do so, it would not be a
}matter of freedom of speech but someone breaking a Constitutional
}provision if they did so. The act itself, of burning the flag, would be
}unconstitutional.
}
keith luscombe
<ile...@canadasucks.com> wrote:
>Negative, the army buries its flags.
>I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
>
>On a side note, I was walking in Austin the other day(where I live)
Is your trailer parked in Jedro Clampett`s (planet visitor) yard?
and
>there was a small protest against the DP (3or4 people). Anyway they were
>preparing to burn a
>Texas flag, which IMHO is an even worse desecration than burning an American
>one,
Oh my oh my! what a henious crime, you poor poor boy! you must have
been so shocked. The vile evil perpetrators should be hung drawn and
quartered without any trial. Or at least forced to live in your or
Jedro`s trailer for at least 1 year, that would teach the cads.
so anyway my buddy and I
You actualy have freinds? this has realy and truly piqued my
interest,did your mommy knit him for you?
. We run up to them grab it and give it to the police
Oh your so public spirited and brave! a real American dream,
please would you be my pen pal?
, anyway one
>of the protest trash takes a swing at me and misses my face
Luckily for you there was a can of Bud sticking out of your foul and
filthy orifice.
This all took place less than 3 feet from a cop, so the officers
>asked my if I want to press charges for assault, I say yes and now I have a
>court date on the 7th of September.
What are they going to charge you with? can you not appeal to the
charitable side of your baby sisters nature, and ask her to drop the
complaint?
>I am asking for 10,000 bucks for pain and suffering since I am a veteran.
Will that be enough to respray your pickup, visit Jedro, and still
have enough for a little therapie?
MAN I
>LOVE TEXAS
And im sure Texarse love you.
Keith
>
A Planet Visitor
You will undoubtedly receive a blizzard of WELL-DESERVED
negative responses to your post, from those clearly seeing
it as an attempt to congratulate yourself on your true
American Spirit. Bravo!! Because you have really shown
yourself to be a "brave," and "fearless," American in the
true spirit of the "Ugly American." A few words of advise:
(1) It's ALWAYS better to avoid attempts at proving how
great you are, because the opposite effect is achieved in
almost all cases. And (2) Change your handle! I would
suggest "Evil-Swiss-visiting-Texas" as more appropriate.
Of course, none of this applies in the case of the response
you received here from Keith "Canvasback." Just so you
know, "Canvasback" is the Antichrist, returned to this
planet in the form of a Cockroach to spread his venom
and poison throughout the land, and especially onto this
newsgroup. Fortunately for the rest of us, God insured
that "Canvasback" was not provided with a brain during
his creation, thus we really have little to worry about except
to try and avoid the vomit he periodically expels, ala "The
Exorcist." How do we know he is the Antichrist?? Well,
he was previously a rather undistinguished boxer (thus
earning him the nickname "canvasback"), and he was
knocked out of his shoes onto his back numerous times,
and the numbers "666" were clearly visible on the soles of
his feet, when he hit the canvas. As Revelations foretold,
he has returned - but fortunately his reappearance has been
revealed to other - he is rendered harmless due to the void
in the cavity where a brain resides - and his reappearance is
recounted by me whenever I see the need, which is often.
TO "Canvasback":
I see you've returned from your too short visit to Egypt
harvesting spare cadavers, for the reincarnation of Hitler's
DNA by Dr Mengele (Oops, I mean "Plastic Surgeons")
and his crew. What's the matter? Weren't the bodies ripe
enough for you and Dr Mengele (Oops, I mean "Plastic
Surgeons")? I don't know the condition of Pol Pot's
body, but perhaps you should wait for the demise of
Ide Amin before making another attempt at recreating
Hitler??
Did you perhaps get the trots from the fresh salad in
Cairo? Or is your digestive system already filled with
sufficient bile to destroy all forms of bacilli?
"keith luscombe" <klus...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:s6dvqsks52kb7o64j...@4ax.com...
p@u.c
Quasi-evil American <ile...@canadasucks.com> wrote:
>I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
>
>On a side note, I was walking in Austin the other day(where I live) and
>there was a small protest against the DP (3or4 people). Anyway they were
>preparing to burn a
>Texas flag, which IMHO is an even worse desecration than burning an American
>one, so anyway my buddy and I spot them about to light up the Lone star
>flag. We run up to them grab it and give it to the police who are
>monitoring the protest,
Is burning the state flag illegal in Texas? If not, then you were
basically acting like a Brownshirt, and deserved to be hit. IMHO.
p@u.c
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote:
[. . .]
> Let us look at this from a practical point of view. First of all,
> what is is a flag? A hand drawing of a flag on a paper napkin?
> A flag lapel pin? A flag logo on car license plates? A cloth patch
> on a uniform? A tattoo?
I've often wondered what would happen if they outlawed flag burning
and you burned a Liberian or Malaysian flag, both of which are
very similar in design to the American one. Or, say, a flag with
the colors changed, so that the stripes were green and orange,
the stars purple, and the field burgundy. Or a flag with 49
stars, which to my knowledge has never been officialy used (except
possibly for a few months in 1959, I guess). Or one with 51. Or one
with fourteen stripes. Or one which, instead of stars, has a
picture of Don McDonald in the field. (In that case, I'm sure we
all agree, it should be a crime *not* to burn the flag!) Or one which
has been topologically deformed into a ovoid shape. Or. . .you
get the idea.
Trying to answer the question of what exactly constitutes an
American flag would give rise to endless, tedious, almost
theological debates in the courts -- time that would be much better
spent on something useful.
Mitchell Holman
}I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
}
}On a side note, I was walking in Austin the other day(where I live) and
}there was a small protest against the DP (3or4 people). Anyway they were
}preparing to burn a
}Texas flag, which IMHO is an even worse desecration than burning an American
}one, so anyway my buddy and I spot them about to light up the Lone star
}flag. We run up to them grab it and give it to the police who are
}monitoring the protest, anyway one
}of the protest trash takes a swing at me and misses my face but hits my
}chest.
You are attempting to take something that is not
yours from it's rightful owner? That is theft, is it not?
If someone stole something of yours that *you* were
holding, would you not strike out at the thief?
Just curious...............
David Marc Nieporent
John Rennie <Jo...@rennie.2000.greatxscape.net> claimed:
In the U.S., you can do whatever you want with the flag. Wear it, use it
for toilet paper, burn it, or honor it. That's the point of the flag, and
what people who sincerely want to ban flag-burning just don't get.
--
David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame
JIGSAW1695
From: niep...@shell.monmouth.com (David Marc Nieporent)
Date: 9/1/00 3:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <8op19q$bg$1...@shell.monmouth.com>
===============================
It is a very sensitive issue and wish that it was not brought up on this NG as
it is sure to cause controversy.
I think the subject should be dropped now.
Jigsaw
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000901171117...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
=================================
Oh dear! The last thing we want on this NG is controversy.
Rev. Don Kool
Little Mitchie Holman wrote:
> "Quasi-evil American" <ile...@canadasucks.com> wrote:
> }Negative, the army buries its flags.
> }I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
> }
>
> The United States Flag Code 36s 176(k) states: "The flag, when it is in
> such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should
> be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
>
> "According to the Marine Corps Flag Manual, Section G, "flags determined
> not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization,
> privately by burning,"
> http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/g1/pao/sentry/000609-goodwin-glory.htm
Little Mitchie, you seem to have that Marine Corps confused with
the Army.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
JIGSAW1695
From: "Rev. Don Kool" old...@home.com
Date: 9/2/00 12:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <39B13089...@home.com>
Little Mitchie Holman wrote:
> "Quasi-evil American" <ile...@canadasucks.com> wrote:
> }Negative, the army buries its flags.
> }I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
> }
>
> The United States Flag Code 36s 176(k) states: "The flag, when it is in
> such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should
> be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
>
> "According to the Marine Corps Flag Manual, Section G, "flags determined
> not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization,
> privately by burning,"
> http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/g1/pao/sentry/000609-goodwin-glory.htm
Little Mitchie, you seem to have that Marine Corps confused with
the Army.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
===============================
I have never heard of any American protocol that calls for an American flag to
be buried . Please cite a source Mitch.
Jigsaw
Mitchell Holman
Since I never claimed that flags were to buried, I have no
need to cite any source for it. Get your attributions straight,
Jiggy.
Odagnop
JIGSAW1695 wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > "Quasi-evil American" <ile...@canadasucks.com> wrote:
>
> > }Negative, the army buries its flags.
> > }I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at Corps level.
> > }
> >
> > The United States Flag Code 36s 176(k) states: "The flag, when it is in
> > such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should
> > be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
> >
> > "According to the Marine Corps Flag Manual, Section G, "flags determined
> > not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization,
> > privately by burning,"
> > http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/g1/pao/sentry/000609-goodwin-glory.htm
>
>
> I have never heard of any American protocol that calls for an American flag to
> be buried . Please cite a source Mitch.
>
> Jigsaw
Jigsaw, that wasn't from Mitch Holman, look more closely. It was from that kid
that likes to post silly self-laudatory whoppers. He'll may try to wow us next by
describing how painstaking it is getting the inscriptions right on all those
little flag tombstones, and how people are run up poles every morning in national
flag cemeteries.
But your jumbling of poster attributions here must allow you some sympathy for
those who do the same with *your* posts. That's the problem with unconventional
ways of denoting who-said-what in a post. There are times when I would have
thought you went abolitionist if I didn't know better. I think you mentioned once
it had something to do with AOL, but I see posts from other AOL subscribers that
use standard posting conventions. And I have run across shareware offered on the
net that allows AOL users the same posting functionality that non-AOL users enjoy.
Of course, people are free to adopt whatever posting conventions they please.
But if they choose nonstandard ones, they impair their ability to be understood.
I know some sane WebTV users (yes, they exist!), when responding to similar
complaints, will explain it doesn't *allow* them to use the normal way of denoting
"who-said-what" in their posts, and they are as frustrated by that as their
readers are. Nobody I know uses AOL, so I don't know all its limitations. But
somehow I don't think they're on a par with WebTV's.
Richard Jackson
<1C4420FC02017EB5.0D667CA5...@lp.airnews.net>,
Hey Mitchell! Here is a newsflash.
The post asked for our opinions. I gave my opinion. Now you don't have
to agree with the opinion, but you should respect my right to have it.
Hell, I don't agree with your opinion, but you are welcomed to it. In
the end, it really does not matter what we think. It is what the people
want that is important.
Mitchell Holman
Ahem.
No one is saying you don't have a right to your opinion.
Don't be so defensive.
Granted, I think your opinion is wrong, and I have posted
the reasons and facts for holding such.
But you are certainly entitled to your opinons.
However erroneous they might be..........
Mitchell Holman
"Anger leads to fear, fear leads to hatred,
and hatred leads to the Dark Side of the Force"
-- Yoda --
JIGSAW1695
>From: ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>Date: 9/2/00 6:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id:
><9961B053271B1506.06F150D3...@lp.airnews.net>
Sorry.... same message to whoever wrote about flags being buried.
JIGSAW1695
>From: Odagnop wate...@payit.com
>Date: 9/2/00 7:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39B18F87...@payit.com>
I dont think there are any real rules concerning attibutions. The only logical
way would be to post the entire thread every time and that could result in some
long long individual somwhat uncomprehensible messages.
It is a problem we will have to live with untill we either come up with a set
of rules that everyone will follow (fat chance on that one) use a foolproof
server.
Right now I use AOL and until something better comes along I will have to live
with it.
Suggestions are appreciated.
Jigsaw
Gary
Warnock wrote in message <8otqlv$fhi$9...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
>
>When a flag is worn out, it should be burned in a dignified
way! This does
>not include hooligans destroying the flag as an insult to the
government!!
>
>
Huh! Someone finally got it right - or came close anyway,
albeit by accident.
Our Flag CANNOT POSSIBLY be desecrated by such conduct. And
what a sick and grandiose delusion it is that it could be. The
only harm that can be brought against our Flag is by a
governemnt that denigrates, tramples upon, and refuses to
protect the rights, liberties, and protections provided by our
Constitution and the principles for which they both stand. OR,
by a populace which allow it's government to do so.
And how bizarre that anyone would even think the Flag _needs_
protection (in this manner) or that _they_ could provide it -
by way of law. Our Flag has been bought and paid for by the
blood, sweat, and tears of millions of Americans (commonly
known as Veterans). Politicians (and other hypocrites) can
jump on the bandwagon, they can jump up and down and wave the
Flag as rightously and as enthusiastically as they please, and
they can pass laws inhibiting _our_freedom_of_speech_ - but
they cannot add one whit to what our Flag stands for.
In fact, the _really_ absurd aspect of all this, is that it
is _precisely_ the fact that we we CAN burn this Flag that
embodies, strengthens, and in fact represents the ESSENCE of
all that it stands for.
Now that that's settled - do we REALLY WANT a law against
INSULTING THE GOVERNMENT? I think not.
G
Gary
Quasi-evil American wrote in message ...
>Negative, the army buries its flags.
>I was in the army and we had a special burial detail up at
Corps level.
>
>On a side note, I was walking in Austin the other day(where I
live) and
>there was a small protest against the DP (3or4 people). Anyway
they were
>preparing to burn a
>Texas flag, which IMHO is an even worse desecration than
burning an American
>one,
I'm not real concerned with your opinion. is it illegal in
Texas to burn the flag? (wouldn't surprise me if it was)
so anyway my buddy and I spot them about to light up the Lone
star
>flag. We run up to them grab it
but I hope it's not, and that the guy has you arrested for
assault and theft. And btw, redneck boy, you run up to me and
touch me or try to take something of mine I'd kick your
redneck ass all the way to the Rio Grande.
and give it to the police who are
>monitoring the protest,
uh-huh, prolly about a hundred of em I bet.
anyway one
>of the protest trash takes a swing at me and misses my face but
hits my
>chest.
aw c'mon, he turned around and accidently caught you with an
elbow
in your big fat beer belly.
>This all took place less than 3 feet from a cop,
I was wondering what made you so brave.
so the officers
>asked my if I want to press charges for assault, I say yes and
now I have a
>court date on the 7th of September.
>I am asking for 10,000 bucks for pain and suffering since I am
a veteran.
>If the scum won't settle I intend to prosecute, and if he is
convicted he
>will spend a long time with all his buddies in the prison
system. MAN I
>LOVE TEXAS
>
>
Good, stay there. And we'll be watching for the headlines.
Dave Proctor
news:MPG.141dae04f...@news.btinternet.com...
> Dave,
> There really is *NO* answer to that one is there? :-)
Well, there is, but according to Jiggy, it is because he does not want his
personal details freely available, since identifying the exact case will
tell everyone his true name.
I am not sure about the United States, but in Australia, those who are
involved or have been ivolved in anything where they may be the subject of
some sort of abuse (such as cops, prosecutors, etc) can obtain silent phone
numbers (so their addresses and phone numbers do not appear in telephone
directories, and are therefore unavailable), their addresses are not
published on the electoral roll (it is a bit of a hassle - about 5 minutes
worth - on polling day, but the secrecy of their address is assured). We in
Australia (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) do not have
this need to hide our identity in the way that Jiggy is saying that he
must.Such is the joy of living in an uncorrupted society.
Dave
--
********************************
dap...@ozemail.com.au
+61 417 464 520
ABN: 73 216 377 413
********************************
Mitchell Holman
}We in Australia (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW)
Totally off-topic, but you might know this: Are the
stories about scads of unsold tickets to the Olympics events
true?
JIGSAW1695
From: "Dave Proctor" dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au
Date: 9/5/00 7:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <Jc5t5.339774$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>
"Shane in UK...." <evilmo...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:MPG.141dae04f...@news.btinternet.com...
> Dave,
> There really is *NO* answer to that one is there? :-)
Well, there is, but according to Jiggy, it is because he does not want his
personal details freely available, since identifying the exact case will
tell everyone his true name.
I am not sure about the United States, but in Australia, those who are
involved or have been ivolved in anything where they may be the subject of
some sort of abuse (such as cops, prosecutors, etc) can obtain silent phone
numbers (so their addresses and phone numbers do not appear in telephone
directories, and are therefore unavailable), their addresses are not
published on the electoral roll (it is a bit of a hassle - about 5 minutes
worth - on polling day, but the secrecy of their address is assured). We in
Australia (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) do not have
this need to hide our identity in the way that Jiggy is saying that he
must.Such is the joy of living in an uncorrupted society.
Dave
===============================
In Florida, as in most states, the vast majority of LE people have unpublished
telephone numbers.
When testifying in court, the officer who is testifying may be asked "where do
you live" or "what is you address". The answer can be (County) name, or the
address of the law enforcment agency.
Thanks for the support.
Jigsaw
Dave Proctor
news:A87AD405D6CFA8B3.DACBF8E6...@lp.airnews.net...
Yes, but it is the same as at previous olympics, the major events have all
sold out, particularly the finals, whilst some of the lesser events (sync.
swimming, etc) are still available.
Dave
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<A87AD405D6CFA8B3.DACBF8E6...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
Not AFAIK. The olympics may have been substantially undersubscribed but,
if so, it would merely have been the fault of the organisers; not a lack
of interest.
I really haven't been following the news as the Olympics interest me not a jot.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Hey now, hey nonny-nonny, singest thou to me this corrosion."
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-0609...@theevilone.its.utas.edu.au...
> In article
> <A87AD405D6CFA8B3.DACBF8E6...@lp.airnews.net>,
> ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>
> > In article <Jc5t5.339774$t91.3...@news4.giganews.com>, "Dave Proctor"
> <dap...@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > }We in Australia (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW)
> >
> >
> > Totally off-topic, but you might know this: Are the
> > stories about scads of unsold tickets to the Olympics events
> > true?
>
> Not AFAIK. The olympics may have been substantially undersubscribed but,
> if so, it would merely have been the fault of the organisers; not a lack
> of interest.
>
> I really haven't been following the news as the Olympics interest me not a
jot.
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
> ----
Why comment then?
Pa...@sgi.netski
Anarchy, The Return of Nemesis
wrote:
>In article <8om724$2cd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>}In article
>}<0A19CD60F8773C01.CBB86FF0...@lp.airnews.net>,
I'm sure the late great Mr. Zappa would have to rethink his objective
a little given the violence in our publically mandated forced
education system from which only the wealthy can flee.
>}>
>}>
>}
>}As you say, that is your opinion, Mitchell. You have a perfect right to
>}that opinion just as I do with mine.
>}
>}The only reason I would make such an act an ammendment would be to
>}eliminate the free speech debate about the right to burn the flag.
>
>
> You don't end debates by passing laws against them.
No more than putting a murderer into a prison stops them from
committing more murders.
Execution is the only proven method that stops murder's for good.
>
>
> The
>}question is, who has the ability to persuade Congress, and the States to
>}do that? If a majority of the people want such a thing done, it should
>}be done. If not, it should not.
>}
>
> Fortunately the majority does not always get their
> way in this country. That is what makes us a republic
> rather than a mob rule.
>
It is sad, the level of elitism the liberal left indulges in :-(