Our symols and how we regard them.

[jamespowers]

"You can be afraid of them if you want"

Didn't say I was... Hard to be, especially not being an American...

Well gee, what difference does it make to you then anyway? Let me worry about them. I'll let you worry about whatever you have to deal with there.
Do they burn flags there often?

Regards to all,

J

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Feltfan...I own a corporation, admittedly not as big a Halliburton, and will tell you that I'm all about making as much money as I can. I'm not about to share it with anyone who is not a member of my immediate family. So I guess that you would say that I contribute to corporate gain and greed thus widening the gap between the haves and the have nots. Anyone can do it the way I did. It just takes a little work. My company grow by leaps and bounds every year.

 

[ClintonHammond]

I donno if I'd say it happened 'often' in Canada... But I know it does happen from time to time.. Disgruntled Natives have... Separatists French have... Anti-separatist English living in Quebec have burned Quebec's flag...

But as with many things in the Canada VS America differences, it just doesn't seem to be as 'big a deal' to us as it is to you folks...

And I'm NOT making a judgement or casting ANY kind of aspersion... just observing a difference.



"what difference does it make to you then anyway?"
Well, not much... but some... some of my best friends are your fellow countrymen...

 

[android]

Feltfan...I own a corporation, admittedly not as big a Halliburton...

So I guess that you would say that I contribute to corporate gain and greed thus widening the gap between the haves and the have nots.

So how many tax breaks do you get at the expense of the property tax payers in your city and county. How many "no bid" deals do you get where the taxpayer then have to foot your windfall profits?

Can you swing a deal with your city council so that they'll forgive your sales tax and property tax by making lame promises about creating jobs and then only hiring half the people you promised and still getting all the breaks anyway?

I'm willing to bet you're in the little league when it comes to leaching off the US taxpayer.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Playing for the Minors, but batting 500...

I do get alot of tax breaks though, and I've squashed the local competition.

 

[feltfan]

Maybe not but do you deny that burning a Flag, Bible or Koran causes a backlash among those who disagree and steels them further against you and might even change the minds of some who might otherwise agree?
What do you have against rational debate instead of useless grandstanding and burning of a flag?
It is counterproductive.

Sure. As it turned out a lot of tactics used in the 60s didn't pan out.
But the fact remains that the assertion that flag burning offends
veterans is often not the case. The question of how productive
protests were in the 60s is a complex one. There does seem to be
a lot of evidence that, when all was said and done, it got us out of
Vietnam early and saved lives. But I'm sure others would disagree
and this isn't the time and place. I'm not advocating flag burning.
I'm asserting diversity among veterans and maintaining that flag burning
is a red herring.

As for the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy, that was kinda my point.
I think it's outdated to say that the accepted definition of a veteran
is rightwing and jingoistic. We have a lot of Vietnam and Gulf veterans
who think otherwise.

 

[jamespowers]

Sure. As it turned out a lot of tactics used in the 60s didn't pan out.
But the fact remains that the assertion that flag burning offends
veterans is often not the case. The question of how productive
protests were in the 60s is a complex one. There does seem to be
a lot of evidence that, when all was said and done, it got us out of
Vietnam early and saved lives. But I'm sure others would disagree
and this isn't the time and place. I'm not advocating flag burning.
I'm asserting diversity among veterans and maintaining that flag burning
is a red herring.

As for the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy, that was kinda my point.
I think it's outdated to say that the accepted definition of a veteran
is rightwing and jingoistic. We have a lot of Vietnam and Gulf veterans
who think otherwise.

I could really tear into the Vietnam debate but I will leave it alone since the hippies screwed up a war we would have otherwise won if it were continued six months more.
Veterans and those currently serving are probably not all the same that is what I said before but at least 60% disagreed with flag burning according to the last poll taken. So I can adjust most to at least 60% and be more accurate if you like. This does not mean that they are right wing either but over 60% of them are also registered Republicans. The two terms are not synonymous though. So I suppose 40% or less could be called "a lot" just not a majority. Therefore burning a flag will not help you much in the eyes of most veterans or a servicemen currently serving.
Jingoistic? I did not assert that they were "fanaticially patriotic" either. Patriotic is fine but you can go to far with it just like socialism. No, wait, socialism is completely wrong---my mistake.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Biltmore Bob]

James...

These guys got their minds already made up. They are already anti conservative, anti big business social communists.

 

[ClintonHammond]

"socialism is completely wrong"

It has worked pretty well in my country....

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Not really...

Free enterprise is the only way to go.

 

[zeus36]

I am an Honorably Discharged Veteran.

Upon entering military service, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Not the Flag or the US Government, or symbols. The flag is a symbol. What it stands for can't be burned. Just disgraced.

From the WEB:

"In 1990, Congress passed the "Flag Protection Act" which imposed a federal ban on flag desecration. Senators opposing bans on flag-burning included Vietnam Veteran Bob Kerry, whose record as a war hero has brought other Democrats around. This Act was later struck down by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Eichman. Congress has made four attempts since 1995 to circumvent the Supreme Court's rulings by trying to enact a constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag. None have passed."

"Bans on flag-burning are clear violations of the free exercise of speech, a fundamental right in our democracy. Using the Constitution to promote patriotic sentiments would be a cynical abuse of legislative power.

Those who support amending the Constitution to protect flags would establish a dangerous precedent that would erode our liberties. They are merely trying to score political points by appearing as the standard bearers of patriotism. Those who burn the flag are merely trying to provoke a reaction. Allowing them to proceed with this particularly abhorrent protest would prove that despite all they say, the U.S. is a country which honors freedom to speak. "

 

[Nathan Flowers]

Gentlemen, let's refrain from the name calling. Let opinions stand for themselves without attaching a label to the person that owns it.

 

[Andykev]

OH SAY CAN YOU SEE WE ARE SCREWED

If I own the flag, I have the right to burn it.

Of course, property rights don't seem to get much consideration in this day and age, just look at the shameful supreme court decision...

Did anyone miss this??? Have you read the decision? The GOVERNMENT can DECIDE to BULLDOZE you HOUSE to put up MORE PROFITABLE TAX GENERATING HOUSES OR CONDOS! Your Constitutonal Protections of PROPERTY have been diminished. Clarence Thomas dissented, and was the voice of reason.

Basically, the "state" (your local , state , county) can declare your property "condemned" in the sake of "the public good", and can be taken from you. Now this is not building bridges, toll ways, or airports. NO! It is the ability of the USA Government(s) to decide that the land you are living on would be better used for "high density" , Retail, or whatever....to produce more taxes...for the general welfare, of course.

SOCALISM or FACISM? It is not the USA I grew up in.


THINK ABOUT IT!

 

[ClintonHammond]

"The GOVERNMENT can DECIDE to BULLDOZE you(sic.) HOUSE..."

Ya... well... first ya did it to the natives, and now that they're all gone you'll do it to yerselves... no surprise there.... Some might even call it Karma

"The flag is a symbol. What it stands for can't be burned."
Hear! Hear!

 

[jamespowers]

I had heard of the stupid and backward decision of the US Supreme Court. Itr just proves that our court is not a majority conservative if this ruling was passed down with a 5-4 decision.
Whatever the case, The states can correct this decision by passing their own state bans. The court only ruled on a Federal level. So far, it looks like Utah has made it so property cannot be taken from one individual for the benefit of another individual or developer---holding it at the level of only public good like parks, schools and roads.
In California, Senator Tom McClintock has also started the process to do the same thing. If you are in California then you need to call him and your local "representative" to voice support for this measure. You can find the numbers easily on the web so I won't post them. If you want to actually do something here is your chance. Tom needs our help and support to get this much needed law through.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Texas is working on that right now, James.

 

[Feraud]

Who is the bad guy here?

From CNN.com

But Tuesday's 5-4 ruling found that local officials can use their "eminent domain" power to condemn homes in a working-class neighborhood for private development in hopes of boosting tax revenue and improving the local economy.

Here is Pfizer's
defense of it's abominable actions.

One more quote from the CNN article:

But writing for the dissenters, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the court overstepped its authority.

"The court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use."

Maybe we all should stop supporting businesses that are essentially drug dealers...

 

[jamespowers]

Maybe we all should stop supporting businesses that are essentially drug dealers...

Better yet, you can stop supporting local politicians who get tons of campaign cash from developers. You know what the results are going to be now. Your local government is the easiest for people to participate in. Run down to the city hall and find out when their meetings are and attend. Pay attention because the next person out on the street due to eminent domain could be you or your parents. If you have a big lot---you have even more to worry about. The meetings also will allow you to get the real information straight fromt he source not the "news"papers.
Also pay attention to the local elections to you city councils or whatever they call themselves where you are. You can get their campaign statements by running down to the local city hall and asking for them. There you will find out who has the backing of developers who are salivating over this ruling. Participate. Watchdogs save money and property.

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

Texas is working on that right now, James.

I have heard about that too. Support them as much as you can there as well. I am doing my part here.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Chad Sanborn]

Yeah right! We will always have the poor. They tried Social Communisim and it didn't work, remember?

Flag burning. whether you consider it a right or not, is a slap in the face of every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine that ever served, fought, or died for the USA.

I believe, that the way the government has corrupted this country, would anger those who died to keep it free, more than a burning of the flag would.
What did they die for, if the government they were defending forgets them and willfully chooses to become the very thing they faught against!

Chad