Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White People

[raykeller]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293044/posts
Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White People
dailycaller.com ^ | Chuck Ross

Posted on 5/24/2015, 8:38:24 AM by rktman

Eric Sheppard, the Valdosta State University student who was confronted last
month by an Air Force veteran after he stomped on the American flag, has
issued a violent 4,700-word anti-white rant in which he threatened to
"annihilate those who come after me."

Sheppard is wanted by police after they found a gun in his backpack days
after the flag-stomping demonstration. In his lengthy letter, submitted to
The Valdosta Daily Times this week, Sheppard said he will not surrender and
will use violence if necessary.

The flag incident made national news after Michelle Manhart, an Air Force
veteran and former Playboy model, was arrested after she confronted Sheppard
and other demonstrators. She snatched the flag and held onto it until her
arrest. The incident was captured on video and went viral. (RELATED: Veteran
Arrested After Stopping Flag-Stomping Protest)


(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

[deep]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
<Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:

>
>
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293044/posts
>Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White People
>dailycaller.com ^ | Chuck Ross
>
>Posted on 5/24/2015, 8:38:24 AM by rktman
>
>Eric Sheppard, the Valdosta State University student who was confronted last
>month by an Air Force veteran after he stomped on the American flag, has
>issued a violent 4,700-word anti-white rant in which he threatened to
>"annihilate those who come after me."

...which would be self defense by any right wingers' definition.

>
>Sheppard is wanted by police after they found a gun in his backpack days
>after the flag-stomping demonstration.

Flag desecration has been determined to be freedom of speech and
protected by the First Amendment. The gun, of course, is protected
by the Second Amendment.

>In his lengthy letter, submitted to
>The Valdosta Daily Times this week, Sheppard said he will not surrender and
>will use violence if necessary.

So he must be a conservative then.

>
>The flag incident made national news after Michelle Manhart, an Air Force
>veteran and former Playboy model, was arrested after she confronted Sheppard
>and other demonstrators. She snatched the flag and held onto it until her
>arrest.

Did she snatch the flag or have a flag on her snatch?

>The incident was captured on video and went viral. (RELATED: Veteran
>Arrested After Stopping Flag-Stomping Protest)

Clearly she was interfering with someone else's Constitutional rights.

Oh, wait, I remember, only conservatives have rights, right?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:21:45 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
><Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293044/posts
>>Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White People
>>dailycaller.com ^ | Chuck Ross
>>
>>Posted on 5/24/2015, 8:38:24 AM by rktman
>>
>>Eric Sheppard, the Valdosta State University student who was confronted last
>>month by an Air Force veteran after he stomped on the American flag, has
>>issued a violent 4,700-word anti-white rant in which he threatened to
>>"annihilate those who come after me."
>
>...which would be self defense by any right wingers' definition.
>
>>
>>Sheppard is wanted by police after they found a gun in his backpack days
>>after the flag-stomping demonstration.
>
>Flag desecration has been determined to be freedom of speech and
>protected by the First Amendment. The gun, of course, is protected
>by the Second Amendment.

Another Progressive disagrees with you.

Flag Needs Protection

By Senator Dianne Feinstein
On the morning of February 24, 1945 — when I was a 12-year-old girl —
I picked up a copy of the San Francisco Chronicle. On its cover, there
was a full-page picture of the now iconic Joe Rosenthal photograph of
American marines raising the United States flag at Iwo Jima.

For me and for the nation, the photograph was a jolt of electricity
boosting our morale during the terrible island-to-island Pacific
battles of World War II. The sight of those troops hoisting Old Glory
forever cemented my view of our flag.

Today, our flag remains a vibrant symbol of our democracy, our shared
values, our commitment to justice, and our eternal memory of those who
have sacrificed to defend these principles. It is because of all that
our flag embodies that I have co-sponsored the Flag Protection
Amendment.

Throughout our nation's history, the flag has been protected by law.
In 1989, 48 of our 50 states had statutes restricting flag
desecration. In 1974, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote that:
"(T)here would seem to be little question about the power of Congress
to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent
overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a
monument, subject to similar protection."

I agree with Justice White — the American flag is our monument in
cloth.

But its protection ended in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck
down a Texas law prohibiting flag desecration. Congress responded by
passing the Flag Protection Act of 1989, but the Supreme Court struck
down that law as well. The only way to restore protection to the flag
is to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, any legislation passed by
Congress would be struck down.

The Flag Protection Amendment would not prohibit flag burning. Rather,
the Amendment would simply return to Congress the ability to protect
the flag as it has been protected throughout most of this nation's
history.

Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must
choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First
Amendment. I strongly disagree.

There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American
flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This
Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe.

[Ed Huntress]

At the time the S.C. was wrestling with those flag-desecration laws, a
very smart newsman wrote a good piece on our laws and the role that
the flag fulfills in our country versus others. I just tried to find
it but I came up short. Basically, though, this is what it said:

The unique history of the USA has left us with a unique, or nearly
unique, idea of the role our flag fulfills in our national symbolism.
People of many countries respect their flags, but they don't give it
the almost sacred treatment that we give to ours. For many others, the
flag *as a symbol* is strong, but the flag *as an object* is a piece
of cloth.

Which leaves us with a bit of a dilemma, because we are (or were, at
that time) also extreme in our views about free speech. We apply them
to signs, placard, movies, art, and almost everything that can be
thought of as an expression of views -- particularly political views,
which is what the 1st was most concerned with protecting.

The conflict is obvious. And it swings back and forth a bit over time.
But we haven't lost that feeling that the flag is more than a symbolic
gesture. The flag itself has a sacredness.

FWIW, I agree with Feinstein. We should have an Amendment to protect
it. I also agree with the S.C. that our Constitution as it is protects
the "speech" component of displaying (or burning) the flag. Political
expression doesn't get much stronger, or less qualified, than that.

IMO, though, it's also a form of advocacy to violence and destruction
of the shared "property" component of such a unique national symbol.
So I'd favor such an Amendment.

But until we enact one, hands off.

--
Ed Huntress

[One Party System]

"raykeller" <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote in
news:mjt2c0$ipl$1...@dont-email.me:

Evidence that flag stompers can't be trusted or civilized. Kill 'em all.

--
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient
to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an
easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to
make themselves prominent before the public.

Booker T. Washington

[One Party System]

deep wrote in news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com:

I can't wait to desecrate you.

[max headroom]

deep <deep> wrote in news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
> <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:

>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293044/posts
>> Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White People
>> dailycaller.com ^ | Chuck Ross

>> Posted on 5/24/2015, 8:38:24 AM by rktman

>> Eric Sheppard, the Valdosta State University student who was confronted last
>> month by an Air Force veteran after he stomped on the American flag, has
>> issued a violent 4,700-word anti-white rant in which he threatened to
>> "annihilate those who come after me."

> ...which would be self defense by any right wingers' definition.

This must be the same logic that declared Treyvon Martin defended himself when he attacked George
Zimmerman, who was observing him. I never read any "right winger" make that claim.

>> Sheppard is wanted by police after they found a gun in his backpack days
>> after the flag-stomping demonstration.

> Flag desecration has been determined to be freedom of speech and

> protected by the First Amendment....

Irrelevant.

> ... The gun, of course, is protected by the Second Amendment.

Some say no right is absolute. Bringing a gun on campus is illegal in Georgia.

>> In his lengthy letter, submitted to
>> The Valdosta Daily Times this week, Sheppard said he will not surrender and
>> will use violence if necessary.

> So he must be a conservative then.

Right-- a black conservative student who stomped on the flag. Gotcha.

>> The flag incident made national news after Michelle Manhart, an Air Force
>> veteran and former Playboy model, was arrested after she confronted Sheppard
>> and other demonstrators. She snatched the flag and held onto it until her
>> arrest.

> Did she snatch the flag or have a flag on her snatch?

Gotta hand it to you for being the rare pinkie who expressed interest in her snatch rather than his
anus.

>> The incident was captured on video and went viral. (RELATED: Veteran
>> Arrested After Stopping Flag-Stomping Protest)

> Clearly she was interfering with someone else's Constitutional rights.

Counter-protest. Her right.

> Oh, wait, I remember, only conservatives have rights, right?

Only human beings.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 15:40:41 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>It took a while to find it. This is the work of a college student,
>mind you. Not PhD material IMHO. I assume literature and grammar were
>not his major. Note that when he gets to Biblical quotes, he seems to
>think a bit over 100 years represents one generation. I guess history
>and logic weren't majors either.
>
>It does remind me of Gunner's Great Cull, however.
>WS
>
>
>Here’s the manifesto in its entirety:
>
> Memorandum Ultimatum
>
> Let me Clear the Air and Set the Record Straight once and For All
>on Questions Inquiries Suggestions and otherwise in regards to this
>Entire Ordeal. We Will Determine who Is Truly Guilty and Who is Truly
>Innocent Throughout the Course of this Literary Revelation.

<snip>

Damn, that guy is a real Culler! Gunner ought to get his black
girlfriend to send him an invitation to join RCM. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

With luck..when they hang him..they will hang him below an upside down
US flag.

Gunner

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/24/2015 4:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> Another Progressive disagrees with you.
>
> Flag Needs Protection
>
> By Senator Dianne Feinstein
>

> Today, our flag remains a vibrant symbol of our democracy,
>

So, where has Di Fi been living? The USA I love
is a constitutional Republic.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[Ed Huntress]

Maybe she was talking about the representative democracy that our
Founders created:

"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the
structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret,
if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have
been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.-- Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

--
Ed Huntress

[Scout]

"deep" wrote in message news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
> <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293044/posts
>>Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White People
>>dailycaller.com ^ | Chuck Ross
>>
>>Posted on 5/24/2015, 8:38:24 AM by rktman
>>
>>Eric Sheppard, the Valdosta State University student who was confronted
>>last
>>month by an Air Force veteran after he stomped on the American flag, has
>>issued a violent 4,700-word anti-white rant in which he threatened to
>>"annihilate those who come after me."
>
> ...which would be self defense by any right wingers' definition.

Gee....and here I was thinking armed resistance to police attempting to
confiscate the gun and arresting a criminal in illegal possession if that
gun to be something else....

[Ed Huntress]

Hmmm. 'Might be, if that's what happened. But it isn't. The police
found a backpack with a gun in it on campus, and they think it belongs
to Sheppard. So they issued a warrant for his arrest.

There's no indication that there was any armed resistance.

But, as Gunner has repeatedly pointed out, the history of gun control
is that it was intended to disarm black people. Maybe this is what he
was talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 05/24/2015 03:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> The unique history of the USA has left us with a unique, or nearly
> unique, idea of the role our flag fulfills in our national symbolism.
> People of many countries respect their flags, but they don't give it
> the almost sacred treatment that we give to ours. For many others, the

> flag*as a symbol* is strong, but the flag*as an object* is a piece
> of cloth.

Rather like the Muslims and the Qur'an? Or a Vodoun fetish?

[rbowman]

On 05/24/2015 07:40 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> So, where has Di Fi been living? The USA I love
> is a constitutional Republic.

So are Malta and Liberia... I think even the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics had a constitution stashed away someplace. Is the US not a
representative democracy at least in theory?

[max headroom]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:de15mah2gf6trutdq...@4ax.com:

"A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, 'Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic
or a monarchy?' With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, 'A republic, if you can keep
it.'"

"This exchange was recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later
reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review...."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it

[Martin Eastburn]

His right was to demonstrate. He could do that to the flag.

He executed free license like yelling fire - after he did it several
days in a row. His right was protected. He did what he wanted.
He went into excessive mode and that isn't protected.

Martin

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/24/2015 11:30 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> His right was to demonstrate. He could do that to the flag.
>
> He executed free license like yelling fire - after he did it several
> days in a row. His right was protected. He did what he wanted.
> He went into excessive mode and that isn't protected.
>
> Martin
>

Hmm. So there is no Constitutionally protected
excessive mode?

-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org

.
.

[Ed Huntress]

And what is the difference between the two?

--
Ed Huntress

[John B.]

Apparently Gunner is too young to know as the first gun control laws
I've found is one from 1600-something, in the Massachusetts Bay
Colony, that outlawed the sale or trading of fire-locks to the
Indians (who, I guess aren't "Indians" any more). No mention of Black
Folks in that law.

But, for Gunner's edification, the first "gun laws" I've found was an
order that every able bodied man MUST posses a musket and ammunition.

Didn't need a NRA in those days :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[max headroom]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:nr26ma5pln64llft2...@4ax.com:

Jefferson had more hair.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 06:28:19 -0700, "max headroom"

Ha-ha! Yes, that's about the extent of it.

I've probably asked that question here 30 times, and that's the best
answer yet.

--
Ed Huntress

[Scout]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nqD8x.70004$uB2....@fx24.iad...

> On 5/24/2015 11:30 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> His right was to demonstrate. He could do that to the flag.
>>
>> He executed free license like yelling fire - after he did it several
>> days in a row. His right was protected. He did what he wanted.
>> He went into excessive mode and that isn't protected.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> Hmm. So there is no Constitutionally protected
> excessive mode?

Certainly not. After all, it could be said that he was attempting to incite
a riot.....going to tell us that is protected speech?

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
> <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3293044/posts
>>Valdosta State Student Who Stomped US Flag Wants To Kill All White
>>People dailycaller.com ^ | Chuck Ross
>>
>>Posted on 5/24/2015, 8:38:24 AM by rktman
>>
>>Eric Sheppard, the Valdosta State University student who was
>>confronted last month by an Air Force veteran after he stomped on the
>>American flag, has issued a violent 4,700-word anti-white rant in
>>which he threatened to "annihilate those who come after me."
>
> ...which would be self defense by any right wingers' definition.
>
>>
>>Sheppard is wanted by police after they found a gun in his backpack
>>days after the flag-stomping demonstration.
>
> Flag desecration has been determined to be freedom of speech and
> protected by the First Amendment. The gun, of course, is protected
> by the Second Amendment.
>
>>In his lengthy letter, submitted to
>>The Valdosta Daily Times this week, Sheppard said he will not
>>surrender and will use violence if necessary.
>
> So he must be a conservative then.

You know better than that or you are utterly stupid. Only you know for
sure which that is.

>>The flag incident made national news after Michelle Manhart, an Air
>>Force veteran and former Playboy model, was arrested after she
>>confronted Sheppard and other demonstrators. She snatched the flag and
>>held onto it until her arrest.
>
> Did she snatch the flag or have a flag on her snatch?
>
>>The incident was captured on video and went viral. (RELATED: Veteran
>>Arrested After Stopping Flag-Stomping Protest)
>
> Clearly she was interfering with someone else's Constitutional rights.
>
> Oh, wait, I remember, only conservatives have rights, right?

If the twit had the right to descecrate the flag we would not have all
those rules about how it is to be handled and treated.

>>(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
>>
>

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[deep]

By their fruits let them be known.

>
>>>The flag incident made national news after Michelle Manhart, an Air
>>>Force veteran and former Playboy model, was arrested after she
>>>confronted Sheppard and other demonstrators. She snatched the flag and
>>>held onto it until her arrest.
>>
>> Did she snatch the flag or have a flag on her snatch?
>>
>>>The incident was captured on video and went viral. (RELATED: Veteran
>>>Arrested After Stopping Flag-Stomping Protest)
>>
>> Clearly she was interfering with someone else's Constitutional rights.
>>
>> Oh, wait, I remember, only conservatives have rights, right?
>
>If the twit had the right to descecrate the flag we would not have all
>those rules about how it is to be handled and treated.
>

Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
govern the handling of the flag. Lots of people think it's just a
piece of cloth.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:17:44 -0600, deep wrote:


>Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>govern the handling of the flag. Lots of people think it's just a
>piece of cloth.

Your lie will be added. Holy shit, you get more fucking stupid and
ignorant every damn day.

United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag

§1. Flag; stripes and stars on
The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes,
alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be
forty-eight stars [Note: Sec. 2 provides for additional stars; Today
the flag has fifty stars representing the fifty states — Webmaster],
white in a blue field
§2. Same; additional stars
On the admission of a new State into the Union one star shall be added
to the union of the flag; and such addition shall take effect on the
fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission
§3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for
exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word,
figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any
nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States
of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any
such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been
printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached,
appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design,
or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the
District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to
public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be
given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being
an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article
or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall
have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a
representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to
advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the
article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by
imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion
of the court. The words "flag, standard, colors, or ensign", as used
herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any
picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of
either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any
size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors,
or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a
representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the
stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part
or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same
without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag,
colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.
§4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it
stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag
with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should
remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it
at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in
uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military
salute. [See Congressional Notes re use of "under God."]
§5. Display and use of flag by civilians; codification of rules and
customs; definition
The following codification of existing rules and customs pertaining to
the display and use of the flag of the United States of America be,
and it is hereby, established for the use of such civilians or
civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform
with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments of
the Government of the United States. The flag of the United States for
the purpose of this chapter shall be defined according to title 4,
United States Code, Chapter 1, Section 1 and Section 2 and Executive
Order 10834 issued pursuant thereto.
§6. Time and occasions for display
It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to
sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However,
when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed
twenty-four hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of
darkness.
The flag should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously.
The flag should not be displayed on days when the weather is
inclement, except when an all-weather flag is displayed.
The flag should be displayed on all days, especially on
New Year's Day, January 1
Inauguration Day, January 20
Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, third Monday in January
Lincoln's Birthday, February 12
Washington's Birthday, third Monday in February
Easter Sunday (variable)
Mother's Day, second Sunday in May
Armed Forces Day, third Saturday in May
Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), the last Monday in May
Flag Day, June 14
Father's Day, third Sunday in June
Independence Day, July 4
Labor Day, first Monday in September
Constitution Day, September 17
Columbus Day, second Monday in October
Navy Day, October 27
Veterans Day, November 11
Thanksgiving Day, fourth Thursday in November
Christmas Day, December 25
and such other days as may be proclaimed by the President of the
United States
the birthdays of States (date of admission)
and on State holidays.
The flag should be displayed daily on or near the main administration
building of every public institution.
The flag should be displayed in or near every polling place on
election days.
The flag should be displayed during school days in or near every
schoolhouse.
§7. Position and manner of display
The flag, when carried in a procession with another flag or flags,
should be either on the marching right; that is, the flag's own right,
or, if there is a line of other flags, in front of the center of that
line.
The flag should not be displayed on a float in a parade except from a
staff, or as provided in subsection (i) of this section.
The flag should not be draped over the hood, top, sides, or back of a
vehicle or of a railroad train or a boat. When the flag is displayed
on a motorcar, the staff shall be fixed firmly to the chassis or
clamped to the right fender.
No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same
level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America,
except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea,
when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church
services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the
flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag
equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or
in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the
United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That
nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the
practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United
Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other
national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of
the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United
Nations.
The flag of the United States of America, when it is displayed with
another flag against a wall from crossed staffs, should be on the
right, the flag's own right, and its staff should be in front of the
staff of the other flag.
The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and
at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of States or
localities or pennants of societies are grouped and displayed from
staffs.
When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies
are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the
latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from
adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first
and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag
of the United States or to the United States flag's right.
When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown
from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of
approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of
the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.
When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff
projecting horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony,
or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed at the
peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff. When the flag is
suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole
at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union
first, from the building.
When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the
union should be uppermost and to the flag's own right, that is, to the
observer's left. When displayed in a window, the flag should be
displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of
the observer in the street.
When the flag is displayed over the middle of the street, it should be
suspended vertically with the union to the north in an east and west
street or to the east in a north and south street.
When used on a speaker's platform, the flag, if displayed flat, should
be displayed above and behind the speaker. When displayed from a staff
in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the United States of
America should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of
the audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman's or
speaker's right as he faces the audience. Any other flag so displayed
should be placed on the left of the clergyman or speaker or to the
right of the audience.
The flag should form a distinctive feature of the ceremony of
unveiling a statue or monument, but it should never be used as the
covering for the statue or monument.
The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the
peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The
flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the
day. On Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half-staff until
noon only, then raised to the top of the staff. By order of the
President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of
principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of
a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their
memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign
dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to
Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized
customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the
death of a present or former official of the government of any State,
territory, or possession of the United States, or the death of a
member of the Armed Forces from any State, territory, or possession
who dies while serving on active duty, the Governor of that State,
territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be
flown at half-staff, and the same authority is provided to the Mayor
of the District of Columbia with respect to present or former
officials of the District of Columbia and members of the Armed Forces
from the District of Columbia. The flag shall be flown at half-staff
30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days
from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a
retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or
military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a
State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the
following day for a Member of Congress. The flag shall be flown at
half-staff on Peace Officers Memorial Day, unless that day is also
Armed Forces Day. As used in this subsection —
the term "half-staff" means the position of the flag when it is
one-half the distance between the top and bottom of the staff;
the term "executive or military department" means any agency listed
under sections 101 and 102 of title 5, United States Code; and
the term "Member of Congress" means a Senator, a Representative, a
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
When the flag is used to cover a casket, it should be so placed that
the union is at the head and over the left shoulder. The flag should
not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground.
When the flag is suspended across a corridor or lobby in a building
with only one main entrance, it should be suspended vertically with
the union of the flag to the observer's left upon entering. If the
building has more than one main entrance, the flag should be suspended
vertically near the center of the corridor or lobby with the union to
the north, when entrances are to the east and west or to the east when
entrances are to the north and south. If there are entrances in more
than two directions, the union should be to the east.
§8. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of
America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing.
Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional
flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a
signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or
property.
The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground,
the floor, water, or merchandise.
The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always
aloft and free.
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.
It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always
allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged
with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below,
should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the
platform, and for decoration in general.
The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such
a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any
way.
The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor
attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design,
picture, or drawing of any nature.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding,
carrying, or delivering anything.
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner
whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions
or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper
napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and
discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or
halyard from which the flag is flown.
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic
uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of
military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic
organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself
considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a
replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting
emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably
by burning
§9. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag
During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag
is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform
should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and
veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military
salute. All other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, or if applicable,
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Citizens of other countries
present should stand at attention. All such conduct toward the flag in
a moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.
§10. Modification of rules and customs by President
Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United
States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or
repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed,
by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States,
whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such
alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation
United States Code Title 36

§301. National anthem
Designation. — The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
Conduct During Playing — During rendition of the national anthem —
when the flag is displayed —
individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first
note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in
uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention
with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if
applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and
hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and
when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were
displayed.
§302. National motto
"In God we trust" is the national motto.
§303. National floral emblem
The flower commonly known as the rose is the national floral emblem.
§304. National march
The composition by John Philip Sousa entitled "The Stars and Stripes
Forever" is the national march.
§901. Service flag and service lapel button
Individuals Entitled To Display Service Flag.— A service flag approved
by the Secretary of Defense may be displayed in a window of the place
of residence of individuals who are members of the immediate family of
an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States during
any period of war or hostilities in which the Armed Forces of the
United States are engaged.
Individuals Entitled To Display Service Lapel Button.— A service lapel
button approved by the Secretary may be worn by members of the
immediate family of an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States during any period of war or hostilities in which the
Armed Forces of the United States are engaged.
License To Manufacture and Sell Service Flags and Service Lapel
Buttons.— Any person may apply to the Secretary for a license to
manufacture and sell the approved service flag, or the approved
service lapel button, or both. Any person that manufactures a service
flag or service lapel button without having first obtained a license,
or otherwise violates this section is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000.
Regulations.— The Secretary may prescribe regulations necessary to
carry out this section.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:37:30 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<Klausscha...@gmx.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:17:44 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>
>>Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>>govern the handling of the flag. Lots of people think it's just a
>>piece of cloth.
>
>
>Your lie will be added. Holy shit, you get more fucking stupid and
>ignorant every damn day.

There is no penalty for not complying with it, however. The penalties
were struck down in two Supreme Court cases, and they apply to both
Title 4 and Title 18 penalties:

"Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were
contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The
Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the
statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag
Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I
year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically
defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the
United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the
Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11,
1990. "

So you're talking about a "law" that has no teeth. It's...umm...sort
of a set of recommendations now that the penalties have been struck
down.

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That means that STOMPING ON AND BURNING A Qur'an is also NOT doing any
harm to anyone. And it's free speech. Or Burning the Communist
Manifesto....?


It's NOT Book burning it's simply free speech and a statement.






--
That's Karma

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com:

http://www.fightthebias.com/Links/flag_etiquette.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html
http://indutex.net/flagcare.html
http://www.vfw.org/Community/Flag-Education/
http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/flagdisplay.pdf

Once more you display how you love to wallow in ignorance like a pig.

Lots of people think it's just a
> piece of cloth.
>
>
>>>>(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
>>>>
>>>
>

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:k1s6ma5bi4nuc6jgf...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:37:30 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <Klausscha...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:17:44 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>>>govern the handling of the flag. Lots of people think it's just a
>>>piece of cloth.
>>
>>
>>Your lie will be added. Holy shit, you get more fucking stupid and
>>ignorant every damn day.
>
> There is no penalty for not complying with it, however. The penalties
> were struck down in two Supreme Court cases, and they apply to both
> Title 4 and Title 18 penalties:
>
> "Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were
> contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The
> Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the
> statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag
> Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I
> year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically
> defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the
> United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the
> Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11,
> 1990. "
>
> So you're talking about a "law" that has no teeth.

No, the term used was "rule" not "law".

It's...umm...sort
> of a set of recommendations now that the penalties have been struck
> down.





--

[Ed Huntress]

Toothless "rules," then.

It's a set of laws, RD. They're laws that can't be enforced because
they've been struck down by the Supreme Court. But they're still part
of US Code, like some other unconstitutional laws that can't be
enforced.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:43:58 -0500, RD Sandman

So what do those "rules" mean if they can't be enforced?

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Some Home owners associations ban flying the flag and will fine you for
doing so.

That's a "rule".

The Rebel flag can't be flown over State buildings in some States.
That's a law.

The flag being flown under any other flag is


The Military has specific UCMJ codes for the U.S. flag.

["""""" 900. Art. 100. Subordinate compelling surrender
Any person subject to this chapter who compels or attempts to compel the
commander of any place, vessel, aircraft, or other military property, or
of any body of members of the armed forces, to give it up to an enemy or
to abandon it, *or who strikes the colors or flag* *to* *an* *enemy*
*without proper authority* , shall be punished by death or such other
punishment as a court-martial may direct."""""""]
--
That's Karma

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 15:09:02 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:37:30 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><Klausscha...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:17:44 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>>>govern the handling of the flag. Lots of people think it's just a
>>>piece of cloth.
>>
>>
>>Your lie will be added. Holy shit, you get more fucking stupid and
>>ignorant every damn day.

==================================================
==================================================
================= WARNING! ========================
GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD!
================= WARNING! ========================
==================================================
==================================================

>There is no penalty for not complying with it, however. The penalties
>were struck down in two Supreme Court cases, and they apply to both
>Title 4 and Title 18 penalties:

>So you're talking about a "law" that has no teeth. It's...umm...sort
>of a set of recommendations now that the penalties have been struck
>down.

Thanks for agreeing with me that there are rules, Ed. You sure made
Dudu look foolish.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 15:26:56 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

Right. It's a statement a lot like Sheppard's statement. It says that
you want more American soldiers killed.

Which also says you're an irresponsible idiot. Enjoy your free speech,
Scotty.

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

More specifically, Dudu claimed there were no "rules" only "customs."

RULE: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles
governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law,
statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat,
injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline,
direction; formal ordinance
"health and safety rules"

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 13:13:57 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

"Rules" for whom? And what's the penalty for disobeying them?

As he said, they're more like customs, although they aren't quite
that, either. What they are is another example of how brain-dead
Congress is, since they know the penalties have been struck down and
the "rules" are just so much babble.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 13:15:43 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

And who is it that is "regulated" or "governed" by these rules, except
for federal government employees while they're on the job?

If nobody is regulated, if no one's conduct is "governed," is it still
a "rule"? Or is it babble?

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/military_justice/punitive-articles-of-the-.shtml


--
That's Karma

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:20:58 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

So, you think that Sheppard is in the military?

As I said, the "rule" applies only to federal employees while they're
on the job.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:a607madngqmgt7pua...@4ax.com:

The point is, if you had been following the thread is that the termm used
was "rules". I am the one who introduced it in a comment to Dudu.

But they're still part
> of US Code, like some other unconstitutional laws that can't be
> enforced.

Whatever......

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:db07madnv14ujhur1...@4ax.com:

That's why they are rules of decorum or courtesies, not an enforceable
law.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EP
A.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in
news:XkL8x.34035$%F6.2...@fx12.iad:

If you are in the military.....it doesn't affect off base civilians. If
you are a serviceman (or woman) and are walking across base when taps
sounds, you are to stop, face the direction of the base flag and salute
until taps is finished playing. However, if you don't, I rather doubt
they will throw you in the stockade to face a firing squad at dawn.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EP
A.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in

news:OuL8x.30434$MB1....@fx21.iad:

Any thing in particular you wish me to look at? I am not about to scan
the UCMJ for your answer.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 15:41:41 -0500, RD Sandman

It's a distinction without a difference. You're using the false
distinction to make an argument about a moot point.

>
> But they're still part
>> of US Code, like some other unconstitutional laws that can't be
>> enforced.
>
>Whatever......

Call it what you like, RD. It's a law -- part of the US Code -- but
it's a law that is meaningless because it can't be enforced. It's not
an enforceable law, and it's not an enforceable "rule."

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 15:42:38 -0500, RD Sandman

Great. Then criticize Sheppard for a lack of decorum.

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>And who is [..]

Back up there, Eddie.

The statement being successfully refuted is

>>>>>>Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>>>>>>govern the handling of the flag.

As I have proven and you've already agreed, there are. End of story.

You can go off on one of your tangents now if it amuses you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:17:02 -0400, Ed Huntress

I know this is difficult for you. So let me help.

>>>>>Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>>>>>govern the handling of the flag.

rules DEFINITION

rule

plural noun: rules; noun: Rules
1.

one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles
governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law,
statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat,
injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline,
direction; formal ordinance
"health and safety rules"

Anything else I can help you understand?

>And what's the penalty for disobeying them?

And that's irrelevant, as you already know, isn't it?

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:tv27mapmui5ilo7rm...@4ax.com:

Then it, essentially, is not there anymore.

It's not
> an enforceable law, and it's not an enforceable "rule."
>



--

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:p437ma9r8n0avg3lg...@4ax.com:

Why should I criticize her? For what she did?

[Scout]

"deep" wrote in message news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com...

Thus why you are known to be ignorant, stupid, bigoted and racist......

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:03:18 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

Yeah. Why are you such a dimwit? <g>

There is no "governing" of conduct. There is no penalty for not
adhering to the "rule." There is no "commandment, requirement, formal
ordnance," or "regulation."

Your definition does not apply. But I don't expect you to admit it.

>
>>And what's the penalty for disobeying them?
>
>And that's irrelevant, as you already know, isn't it?

Only if it's not a rule.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:07:54 -0500, RD Sandman

Eric Sheppard is the man who stomped on the flag and said he wants to
kill white people. He's totally lacking in courtesy and decorum. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:28:05 -0400, Ed Huntress

[crickets.wav]

>
>
>
>>Anything else I can help you understand?
>
>Yeah. Why are you such a dimwit? <g>
>
>There is no "governing" of conduct. There is no penalty for not
>adhering to the "rule."

Speaking of dimwits, thanks for admitting there are rules. Now show us
a definition that specifies there MUST be a penalty if it's a "rule."

See? Even you can be "taught."

[chuckle]

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:l557ma903g2fdssl2...@4ax.com:

OK. I remember reading the article but did remember who was named what.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Rules of Solitaire

The goal of Solitaire is to stack all the cards in their four
foundations (piles), one for each suit, in order, from Ace up to King.
If you can accomplish this within the rules, you win!

Moving cards to their foundation stacks can be done from both the
field and the waste pile. [see more at
http://www.howtoplaystuff.com/how-to-play-solitaire/ ]

So tell me, Ed. If you break the rules of solitaire do you spend the
weekend flagellating yourself?

"POINT PROVEN!"
Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:46:43 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

>>adhering to the "rule." There is no "commandment, requirement, formal
>>ordnance," or "regulation."
>

>Speaking of dimwits, thanks for admitting there are rules.

No, you just failed with your own definition. You hung yourself with
your own words, Klaus.

Look let's just be frank about what's going on here. You despise dudu
so much that, after you realized the entire set of "rules" that you're
hanging your hat on has been declared unconstitutional, you're trying
desperately to pull out definitions and twist semantics to rescue your
screwup.

But you failed. You failed with your own definition. If you weren't
such an egotist, you might have said, "well, yeah, if there is no
enforcement, no penalty, no 'commandment,' 'requirement,' or other
element of my definition, then I guess there is no 'rule'"

But we know from long experience that you'd never admit such a thing,
don't we, Klausie?

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 18:20:45 -0400, Ed Huntress

No, Eddie, you just admitted there are rules.

>Look let's just be frank about what's going on here.

Yeah, lets. You jumped in without know what the hell was going on, and
stupidly agreed with Dudu that there are no rules regarding the flag.

I showed you there were. I even gave you the definition.

You're STILL fighting. I'm loving it.

> You despise dudu
>so much that, after you realized the entire set of "rules" that you're
>hanging your hat on has been declared unconstitutional, you're trying
>desperately to pull out definitions and twist semantics to rescue your
>screwup.

Um, no, the entire set of "rules" have NOT been "declared
unconstitutional." If they had, they wouldn't be in the Code any more.

And look! There they are!

>But you failed. You failed with your own definition. If you weren't
>such an egotist, you might have said, "well, yeah, if there is no
>enforcement, no penalty, no 'commandment,' 'requirement,' or other
>element of my definition, then I guess there is no 'rule'"

You keep claiming there has to be a penalty in order for it to be a
rule.

I've always knocked down that argument. Didn't take much, either.

>But we know from long experience that you'd never admit such a thing,
>don't we, Klausie?

Why would I admit something that's not true, Eddie? Meanwhile, look in
the mirror.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:10:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

>>> Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that
>>> govern the handling of the flag.
>

>Some Home owners associations ban flying the flag and will fine you for
>doing so.
>
>That's a "rule".

Here's another rule.

The Federal HOA Flag Statute, The Freedom to Display the American Flag
Act of 2005.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Freedom to Display the American Flag Act
of 2005".

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act-

(1) the term "flag of the United States" has the meaning given the
term '"lag, standard, colors, or ensign" under section 3 of title 4,
United States Code;

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES.

A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential
real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any
policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a
member of the association from displaying the flag of the United
States on residential property within the association with respect to
which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to
exclusive possession or use.

[max headroom]

deep <deep> wrote in news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com:

So be it: Your fruits are putrid. Let it be known that you are utterly stupid.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/25/2015 4:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> news:XkL8x.34035$%F6.2...@fx12.iad:
>
>> On 5/25/2015 3:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> deep wrote in news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:30:43 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> deep wrote in news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
>>>>>> <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
| |

| | [christmas presents]

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/25/2015 5:59 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:10:19 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:43:58 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> deep wrote in news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:30:43 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> deep wrote in news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
>>>>>> <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>

Does anyone other than combattants scroll
past six or seven layers of trailing text to
read the comment below? I don't.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[Gunner Asch]

And of course..he is on the List.

[rbowman]

On 05/25/2015 03:32 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Eric Sheppard is the man who stomped on the flag and said he wants to
> kill white people. He's totally lacking in courtesy and decorum. d8-)

Valdosta ain't what it used to be or he would be totally lacking oxygen
too.

[Martin Eastburn]

Can't yell FIRE in a movie house! Violation of law.
Seems like free speech but it is excessive taking free license.

There are many other examples of taking liberties away from someone.

Martin

On 5/25/2015 6:10 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 5/24/2015 11:30 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> His right was to demonstrate. He could do that to the flag.
>>
>> He executed free license like yelling fire - after he did it several
>> days in a row. His right was protected. He did what he wanted.
>> He went into excessive mode and that isn't protected.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> Hmm. So there is no Constitutionally protected
> excessive mode?

[Martin Eastburn]

The only issue there is an irate person burning their book.
Might be your right, but be cautious.
Like telling a tiger to stop eating the guy in front of you.
You can do it, but it might not be wise.

Martin

On 5/25/2015 2:26 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/25/2015 1:03 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:nqD8x.70004$uB2....@fx24.iad...

>>> On 5/24/2015 11:30 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>>> His right was to demonstrate. He could do that to the flag.
>>>>
>>>> He executed free license like yelling fire - after he did it several
>>>> days in a row. His right was protected. He did what he wanted.
>>>> He went into excessive mode and that isn't protected.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. So there is no Constitutionally protected
>>> excessive mode?
>>

>> Certainly not. After all, it could be said that he was attempting to
>> incite a riot.....going to tell us that is protected speech?
>
>
> That means that STOMPING ON AND BURNING A Qur'an is also NOT doing any
> harm to anyone. And it's free speech. Or Burning the Communist
> Manifesto....?
>
>
> It's NOT Book burning it's simply free speech and a statement.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Martin Eastburn]

One rule of law that was violated was the displaying of the flag.
Improper display can be a fine.

If a law exists as the Code does - it is the law. The sentence is
currently overlooked. The law may grow teeth some day as laws do.

Martin

On 5/25/2015 3:25 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:20:58 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:

>
>> On 5/25/2015 3:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

>>> news:k1s6ma5bi4nuc6jgf...@4ax.com:

>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 11:37:30 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> <Klausscha...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:17:44 -0600, deep wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>> Those aren't rules. They're customs. There are no "rules" that

>>>>>> govern the handling of the flag. Lots of people think it's just a
>>>>>> piece of cloth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your lie will be added. Holy shit, you get more fucking stupid and
>>>>> ignorant every damn day.
>>>>

>>>> There is no penalty for not complying with it, however. The penalties
>>>> were struck down in two Supreme Court cases, and they apply to both
>>>> Title 4 and Title 18 penalties:
>>>>

>>>> "Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were
>>>> contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The
>>>> Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the
>>>> statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag
>>>> Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I
>>>> year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically
>>>> defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the
>>>> United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the
>>>> Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11,
>>>> 1990. "
>>>>

>>>> So you're talking about a "law" that has no teeth.
>>>

>>> No, the term used was "rule" not "law".
>>

>> http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/military_justice/punitive-articles-of-the-.shtml
>
> So, you think that Sheppard is in the military?
>
> As I said, the "rule" applies only to federal employees while they're
> on the job.
>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

But you take the time to reply and that is most gratifying.

[deep]

Nope, I'm just pointing out the evil and stupidity of conservative
ideology. All you can do is scream rubber and glue like the immature
little idiot you are.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 21:15:38 -0500, Martin Eastburn
<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>One rule of law that was violated was the displaying of the flag.
>Improper display can be a fine.
>
>If a law exists as the Code does - it is the law. The sentence is
>currently overlooked. The law may grow teeth some day as laws do.
>
>Martin

No, Martin, and this is the central point. The "fine" aspect of those
statutes was overturned in a pair of Supreme Court rulings, in 1989
and 1990. There is no law or "rule" that can be enforced. In legal
terms, it's nothing more than some suggestions made by Congress.

Of course, they're always the proper arbiter of how people should
behave -- not.

--
Ed Huntress

[WestBass@gov.com Nik West]

"deep" wrote in message news:g0q8matehean58iar...@4ax.com...

####
Yet when constantly proven wrong(thousands of times in your case:), you run
away from any debate like an adult, and "Filter" those people that do call
you on ALL of your lies!
What's wrong with Scout and RD?
They proved you wrong (and stupid) MANY times, and then you just replied;
"They never refuted what I said", (or my favorite;) "I was only joking!"

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 08:35:04 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 May 2015 21:15:38 -0500, Martin Eastburn
><lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>>One rule of law that was violated was the displaying of the flag.
>>Improper display can be a fine.
>>
>>If a law exists as the Code does - it is the law. The sentence is
>>currently overlooked. The law may grow teeth some day as laws do.
>>
>>Martin
>
>No, Martin, and this is the central point. The "fine" aspect of those
>statutes was overturned in a pair of Supreme Court rulings, in 1989
>and 1990. There is no law or "rule" that can be enforced.

Poor Ed.

According to his made-up definition, unless a rule can be "enforced,"
it can't be a rule.

That's why solitaire has no rules.

You just throw playing cards down on a table and let the wind blow
them around.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Ideology like this?

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=a1cd0267-7e9c-9af9-7d2a-7b035af0bbda

[deep]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 13:03:01 -0700, "max headroom"
<maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:

Progressives are right, and always have been. You people try to stop
progress because of your selfishness and greed. You always lose in
the long run because you are wrong about everything. The only thing
that remains to be seen is how many must die this time before you once
again lose. And lose you will. You always do.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

We'll add that to your list of lies.


http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's LAND OF A THOUSAND LIES
OVER ONE THOUSAND DOCUMENTED
(That's 999 for Dudu)
Lies, Falsehoods,
Fabrications, Distortions,
and Deceptions!
Since July, 2011

[max headroom]

deep <deep> wrote in news:g0q8matehean58iar...@4ax.com:

> ideology....

With lies and stupidity. Do you ever wonder why everyone laughs at you, or why no one defends you?

[max headroom]

deep <deep> wrote in news:2tq8mad8igq20nem6...@4ax.com:

Are you quoting Stalin or Mao? My money's on Stalin.

[deep]

I don't need anyone to defend me. I do it with the facts. You are
blinded by your conservative prejudices. Take for example the paper
I referenced about black families in America. Not one of you would
even read it and objectively comment on it. Not one of you. Other
the other hand there's several progressives that post here that agree
with me completely.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

R
O
F
L
M
A
O

[max headroom]

deep <deep> wrote in news:54v8ma9gvnbbhq5bu...@4ax.com:

> I don't need anyone to defend me. I do it with the facts....

<guffaw>

So you say, but it's obvious you don't even finish reading the few cites you find.

> ...You are blinded by your conservative prejudices. Take for example the paper

> I referenced about black families in America. Not one of you would

> even read it and objectively comment on it. Not one of you....

Maybe because you posted it in talk.politics.GUNS. I suppose those in alt.survival,
misc.survivalism, and rec.crafts.metalworking are too astute to even read your off-topic bilge.

> ... Other the other hand there's several progressives that post here that agree
> with me completely.

Funny that their posts don't show up here.

[RD Sandman]

Klaus Schadenfreude <Klausscha...@gmx.com> wrote in
news:lm67ma1mh763s8adq...@4ax.com:

If you play it on the computer, you cannot break the rules. The game
won't let you. ;)


--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[RD Sandman]

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3sO8x.9310$o65.2776
@fx13.iad:

??

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:54v8ma9gvnbbhq5bu...@4ax.com:

Objective comments rely on the bias or view of the beholder in many
cases. In some, comments that I feel are objective, you may not or vice
versa.

Not one of you. Other
> the other hand there's several progressives that post here that agree
> with me completely.

I must of missed those on-line comments.....who did other than possibly
Baxter? Please be specific.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:13:16 -0700, "max headroom"

So hows that USSR thingy working out?

(Grin)

Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:19:26 -0500, RD Sandman

And who are those "rules" for, except for people who voluntarily agree
to play the game?

If there's no game, there are no rules. And the citizens of the US are
not playing the game.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:d3d9mad8gceh77vbn...@4ax.com:

No shit?? Really?? You mean they don't apply to anyone playing baseball
or golf?

> If there's no game, there are no rules. And the citizens of the US are
> not playing the game.
>



--

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/26/2015 1:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3sO8x.9310$o65.2776
> @fx13.iad:
>
>> On 5/25/2015 4:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> news:XkL8x.34035$%F6.2...@fx12.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 5/25/2015 3:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> deep wrote in news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 12:30:43 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> deep wrote in news:7094mahguksp9524j...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 May 2015 10:40:24 -0700, "raykeller"
>>>>>>>> <Leftardsar...@loosers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>> | |
>> | | [christmas presents]
>
> ??
>

The tapering tower of right bracket
symbols > on my computer looks like
half of a pine tree.

I use humor to remind lazy people to
trim excess text.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:02:44 -0500, RD Sandman

And what "game" are the flag "rules" for? Who knows if you've won?

There are no flag "rules," unless you're a government employee on the
job.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:m5g9ma9vcco5m9cld...@4ax.com:

Depends on who is playing. See below.

> There are no flag "rules," unless you're a government employee on the
> job.

There are no flag laws that are enforceable. We have not disagreed on
that. HOwever, there are some rules and customs and some folks that feel
very strongly about them. Witness the situation that brought up this
entire thread.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:19:26 -0500, RD Sandman

Really?!?!?!?!!

You can get that on the computer now?!?!?!

COOL!!!! :)

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 14:13:50 -0500, RD Sandman

True enough, but there is more than a semantic difference about the
word "rule." I wouldn't care about it but you and Klaus seem to think
it's a big deal.

And then Klaus stuck his foot in it by pasting a dictionary definition
of "rule," and then realized that it doesn't apply to this case.
Quoting his own definition, there is no "governing" of conduct. There
is no penalty for not adhering to the "rule." There is no
"commandment, requirement, formal ordnance," or "regulation."

By that dictionary definition, there is no "rule." But, as I also
said, call it what you want.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 08:35:04 -0400, Ed Huntress

<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 May 2015 21:15:38 -0500, Martin Eastburn
><lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>>One rule of law that was violated was the displaying of the flag.
>>Improper display can be a fine.
>>
>>If a law exists as the Code does - it is the law. The sentence is
>>currently overlooked. The law may grow teeth some day as laws do.
>>
>>Martin
>
>No, Martin, and this is the central point. The "fine" aspect of those
>statutes was overturned in a pair of Supreme Court rulings, in 1989
>and 1990. There is no law or "rule" that can be enforced. In legal
>terms, it's nothing more than some suggestions made by Congress.
>
>Of course, they're always the proper arbiter of how people should
>behave -- not.

Gee Ed, I've been kill-filing those that post to
alt.survival,misc.survivalism or talk.politics.guns, or one of the
other idiot groups, and suddenly there you are.

Remember Ed, One IS "judged by the company that he keeps" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 07:57:53 +0700, John B. <johnbs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, wait a minute. Martin is not bad company. Neither is RD. The
other turkeys are refugees from a freak show, but I often forget to
trim the cross-posts. It's a bad habit that I keep have to keep trying
to break.

Now, if we killfile everyone who posts to those groups, the group on
RCM becomes rather small. But I do, when I remember, trim the
cross-posts. I just have to remember more often.

--
Ed Huntress

[Martin Eastburn]

NO NO - you don't read.

Just because the Supreme Court put a stay on any teeth the code had,
making bring a charge a law violation itself - The courts CAN NOT
REWRITE or STRIKE OUT WORDS of law. They order stay of prosecution.
In some cases they advise that Congress change the law or they would
invalidate a section themselves with more changes than planned.

The Next court case might make it there that sways the court back and
they reverse the stays. Can't reverse a change.

There was no Overturn. It was a lower case that was overturned. That
judgement. The law is still on the books until congress changes the
law. It is simply ordered not to be used under threat of the court.

A more senior court overturns the lower court ruling. That was it.

Martin

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 22:10:52 -0500, Martin Eastburn

<lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:

>NO NO - you don't read.
>
>Just because the Supreme Court put a stay on any teeth the code had,
>making bring a charge a law violation itself - The courts CAN NOT
>REWRITE or STRIKE OUT WORDS of law. They order stay of prosecution.
>In some cases they advise that Congress change the law or they would
>invalidate a section themselves with more changes than planned.
>
>The Next court case might make it there that sways the court back and
>they reverse the stays. Can't reverse a change.
>
>There was no Overturn. It was a lower case that was overturned. That
>judgement. The law is still on the books until congress changes the
>law. It is simply ordered not to be used under threat of the court.
>
>A more senior court overturns the lower court ruling. That was it.
>
>Martin
>
>
>On 5/26/2015 7:35 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 21:15:38 -0500, Martin Eastburn
>> <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>>
>>> One rule of law that was violated was the displaying of the flag.
>>> Improper display can be a fine.
>>>
>>> If a law exists as the Code does - it is the law. The sentence is
>>> currently overlooked. The law may grow teeth some day as laws do.
>>>
>>> Martin

There is no enforcement or penalty allowed, Martin. It's been declared
a violation of the 1st Amendment.

It's not likely to change. That's why several people in Congress are
pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to protect the flag.

The status of those declared preferences of how the flag should be
handled is now the same as that of a formal recommendation.

--
Ed Huntress

[Martin Eastburn]

That is what I said. But that is a decision of A court. Another court
after some deaths and a few additions might just say different.

>
> It's not likely to change. That's why several people in Congress are
> pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to protect the flag.

If the court changes the stance by major changes - all sorts of things
might happen. One never knows who might sue and who might vote differently.

>
> The status of those declared preferences of how the flag should be
> handled is now the same as that of a formal recommendation.
>

Say what ? you say a right wing or a left wing or a Centralist court
can't change their mind ? Why is there talk about Roe-vs-Wade - again...

Nothing is in concrete, the words are, The constitution is, has been
added to and expanded, but not re-written. To re-write it, a special
constitutional convention must be called and maybe in years it might
reflect a change or not. That is so special, we haven't had one in over
200 years. The Text suggestions that provides an
OPINION on the words is saved in court records. They don't rewrite the
constitution on a court decision. They fill books. Those books reflect
the court and the current thought. The constitution is owned by the
people, not the Court or the President or Congress. The Court interrupt
it during their term.

Martin

[Scout]

"deep" wrote in message news:g0q8matehean58iar...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:19:18 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" wrote in message news:cop6ma5660b971qkn...@4ax.com...

>>Thus why you are known to be ignorant, stupid, bigoted and racist......
>>
> Nope,

Wrong again. You have quite a reputation as an ignorant, stupid, bigoted and
racist person due to the posts you make because those posts where are the
results of your labor is what people judge you on.

[Scout]

"deep" wrote in message news:2tq8mad8igq20nem6...@4ax.com...

We acknowledge your admission that the right wing are the
progressives.......

[Scout]

"deep" wrote in message news:54v8ma9gvnbbhq5bu...@4ax.com...

To bad those facts only exist as illusions within your delusions.