Flag Burning and Free Speech

[Berzerker]

A couple weeks ago I was watching videos of Milo linked by other members to see what he was about and came across a different unrelated video of an attempted flag burning. A smallish man with a scruffy beard looking like my impression of a 60s' radical was surrounded by cops, media and spectators, as he prepared to burn the flag.

The cops were there to protect him as some of the people became increasingly vocal and violent. A large soldier in uniform came up behind him and began repeatedly shouting "my brother died for you"! Apparently his brother was also a soldier and had died in the line of duty. Eventually the cops escorted the would-be flag burner from the crowd as he - and the cops - got pelted with what appeared to be water balloons.

Now, I've never sacrificed for my country (do taxes and my labor count?) so the flag just isn't that important to me but I can see why somebody else who did might feel differently. Its just a symbol... and as George Carlin said, I leave symbols to the symbol-minded. But its a symbol that has come to represent both the good and bad. It represents the ideals "we" supposedly believe in (like freedom of speech?) and the US government - and I've never met anyone who had no complaints about politicians and bureaucrats.

Because of this often contradictory message contained within the flag I never found it an effective outlet for expressing (my) opinions about policies. I dont like when politicians wrap themselves in the flag, why would I clothe them with it when opposing their decisions? Besides, the message kinda gets lost when people end up arguing about who the flag represents on any given day.

But I did find the soldier's understandably emotional "defense" of the flag both illogical and less than respectful. If his brother died for the flag burner, he died so he could burn the flag. And what if the flag burner was protesting a war that cost the soldier his life? What if politicians lied us into the war? Shouting down opponents of the war that took my brother's life would be the last thing on my mind.

Frankly I dont want anyone dying for me, Jesus was one too many. And to use that death to silence critics of government? Basically the flag burner was being told to keep quiet because a soldier died for his freedom of speech. I find that far more offensive than burning the flag. This issue and the Pledge of Allegiance show how the "right" oppose free speech and religion and that political correctness is not limited to their opponents.

On a sidenote... Anyone else notice how Clinton Foundation funding has dried up ever since she lost the election? If you ever needed evidence of just how corrupt the people running government are, thats it. Bribery is illegal...sometimes. But nobody's burning flags to protest her corruption.

 

[Gigaz]

It is probably a matter of personal conviction whether a country can matter at all. Because what is the country, if not the sum of its people? Sure, countries stand for other things, but they are ultimately just symbols and conventions which we found convenient. We could abandon and abolish them as we please. Now, there are people who would disagree, and those usually identify as Nationalists or Patriots or something. When you burn the flag for them to see, it is probably comparable to desecration of a religious symbol. It is supposed to provoke those who are emotionally attached to the symbol. The flag burning itself has little to do with the things which the flag stands for.

 

[Zkribbler]

This is the problem with symbolic speech.

Flag defenders see the flag as symbolizing freedom. Flag burners see the flag as symbolizing the government. So, when a protester burns a flag to protest government policies, flag defenders see it as protesting freedom..

 

[warpus]

I mean, if you want to burn or eat a flag, go for it. If you live in a free enough society nobody is going to care.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think it depends on why they burn it... or, in the case of a bunch of Quebec separatists some years ago, why they stomped on it and dragged their muddy feet over a Canadian flag and the then-Quebec premier (Jacques Parizeau) referred to the Maple Leaf as a "bit of red rag." Yeah, he sure increased English Canada's sympathy for the separatists with that remark.

It wouldn't have bothered me much if someone had burned a Canadian flag during Stephen Harper's time in office. Now? It depends on why the person burns it and whether or not they use one made in Canada or one made in China. The Chinese-made ones hold no meaning for me.

 

[Synobun]

I don't really care if a flag gets burned. They mean nothing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

On a sidenote... Anyone else notice how Clinton Foundation funding has dried up ever since she lost the election? If you ever needed evidence of just how corrupt the people running government are, thats it. Bribery is illegal...sometimes. But nobody's burning flags to protest her corruption.

Nice toss in of a false narrative. Were you hoping it would just get absorbed without anyone pointing it out as the lie that it is?

 

[W|M]

I think it depends on why they burn it... or, in the case of a bunch of Quebec separatists some years ago, why they stomped on it and dragged their muddy feet over a Canadian flag and the then-Quebec premier (Jacques Parizeau) referred to the Maple Leaf as a "bit of red rag." Yeah, he sure increased English Canada's sympathy for the separatists with that remark.

I'm no national liberationist, but surely if French Canada wants to seperate from English Canada, they shouldn't really care about what English Canada thinks of the seperation, as long as it's done

 

[Synobun]

I'm no national liberationist, but surely if French Canada wants to seperate from English Canada, they shouldn't really care about what English Canada thinks of the seperation, as long as it's done

In theory. In practice, however, any type of separation would still have Quebec as being severely reliant on Canada. Separating with as much hostility as you can muster peacefully would go a long way towards souring negotiations for said reliance.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm no national liberationist, but surely if French Canada wants to seperate from English Canada, they shouldn't really care about what English Canada thinks of the seperation, as long as it's done

Parizeau had a habit of shooting his mouth off in official speeches, not giving a damn how insulting he was being toward anglophone Quebecois, or people of various ethnicities. It evidently never occurred to him that there are quite a few anglophones who are fluent in French, or at least know enough to tell when they're being insulted.

He's not the only politician who did this. Stephen Harper had a habit of saying things in French that he would never say in English, such as insulting my province's premier. He never had the guts to criticize her to her face, but would mouth off in French, in Quebec, and not even think that his words would get back to Albertans.

Not that I want to turn this into a French/English Canadian threadjack, but the fact is that it's a lot messier than one province full of francophones vs. nine provinces and three territories full of anglophones. Quebec has anglophones and First Nations in that province who are adamant that if Quebec separates, they're not going with it.

 

[Zkribbler]

.. Anyone else notice how Clinton Foundation funding has dried up ever since she lost the election?.

I didn't notice. Are the Clinton Foundation's annual numbers for 2016 posted somewhere? I doubt if the audit is even done yet. When they are, the CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES will be for the entire year, not by months, and so I doubt there will be anyway of telling. I think someone fed you some Fake News.

On a similar note, the Trump Foundation was never registered and has never been audited. Originally, the NY AG's office demanded he get his registration papers in by last December. Then, for undisclosed reasons he was granted a continuance for an undisclosed amount of time. Has anyone heard what's going on with that?

 

[Berzerker]

Nice toss in of a false narrative. Were you hoping it would just get absorbed without anyone pointing it out as the lie that it is?

define the word 'lie' and provide the evidence for your accusation

I shouldn't have to ask

 

[Timsup2nothin]

define the word 'lie' and provide the evidence for your accusation

I shouldn't have to ask

The first and most obvious indication is that you posted it.

You asked.

EDIT: Perhaps more explanation is in order. You have provided repeated demonstrations that you are willing to post the right wing talking point of the day, lifted from Red State or Breitbart or your "hot takes direct to your inbox" e-mail forwarding circle or wherever it is you get them. Because I've already been debunking such nonsense at the nonsense sources, like Breitbart or Dingbat Donny's Facebook page and whatnot I really can't be bothered debunking them here, because here pretty much everyone is fully capable of doing it for themselves if they are willing. It is unfortunate that you can't be bothered checking before you post such absurdities...or even thinking about them. In this case, as Zkribbler already pointed out, just a brief thought reveals that even if what you claim happens to be true there is no way the information could exist in the public domain.

 

[Berzerker]

Identifying liars is hard work, I'm sure the other forum members are inspired by your vigilance and courageous intervention

 

[Berzerker]

The first and most obvious indication is that you posted it.

You asked.

EDIT: Perhaps more explanation is in order.

ya think?

You have provided repeated demonstrations that you are willing to post the right wing talking point of the day, lifted from Red State or Breitbart or your "hot takes direct to your inbox" e-mail forwarding circle or wherever it is you get them.

Where are these repeated demonstrations? I'd settle for one.

Because I've already been debunking such nonsense at the nonsense sources, like Breitbart or Dingbat Donny's Facebook page and whatnot I really can't be bothered debunking them here, because here pretty much everyone is fully capable of doing it for themselves if they are willing. It is unfortunate that you can't be bothered checking before you post such absurdities...or even thinking about them. In this case, as Zkribbler already pointed out, just a brief thought reveals that even if what you claim happens to be true there is no way the information could exist in the public domain.

"If"? You said it was a lie, now it might be true? Does that make you the liar? As to the last part, why? Is everyone sworn to secrecy? "There is no way" is not true. We dont need an end of year audit to know if donors are getting stingy. But it is almost March, just how long will it take them to figure it out?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"If"? You said it was a lie, now it might be true? Does that make you the liar? As to the last part, why? Is everyone sworn to secrecy? "There is no way" is not true. We dont need an end of year audit to know if donors are getting stingy. But it is almost March, just how long will it take them to figure it out?

They've already figured it out. What they haven't done is provide any information that supports the idiotic nonsense being made up and put out by the right wing internet circle jerk and parroted here by you. However, as a contributor they have informed me, and the actual facts do not support your BS claim. You are parroting nonsense, as usual. Because your idea of "investigation" prior to parroting is whether you like the sound of it rather than whether it came to you from a source that has any credibility at all...which those of us who are regulars here have had ample opportunity to notice.

As to your willingness to "settle for one," why in the world should I bother? You obviously don't care that you have no credibility, with me or with anyone else. Otherwise you would check the junk you parrot before you put it here under your name. You whine and cry about "prove it" every freakin' time. Sometimes people bother, sometimes they don't, but repetition is memorable enough for me to say that anything you post is immediately suspect, so again; NO, I just can't be bothered. As usual, you have parroted the popular false narrative of the day from the usual "sources," been called on it, and crybabied about getting called on it. Just another day.

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: Enough squabbling, please. Debate politely or not at all.

 

[Zkribbler]

On a similar note, the Trump Foundation was never registered and has never been audited. Originally, the NY AG's office demanded he get his registration papers in by last December. Then, for undisclosed reasons he was granted a continuance for an undisclosed amount of time. Has anyone heard what's going on with that?

The NY AG was on Bloomburg tonight, talking mainly about Trump. The Foundation was briefly mentioned, The AG was very complimentary towards Trump's lawyers, saying that they were very forthcoming with any documents asked for. Sounds like the investigation still has far to go.

 

[Berzerker]

They've already figured it out. What they haven't done is provide any information that supports the idiotic nonsense being made up and put out by the right wing internet circle jerk and parroted here by you. However, as a contributor they have informed me, and the actual facts do not support your BS claim.

They tell donors how much other donors are giving but not the public? Are donors sworn to secrecy? Do the donors ever tell the public when they reduce or stop giving? Did any donors decide to be less generous in recent months? Did any become more generous since she lost?

As to your willingness to "settle for one," why in the world should I bother? You obviously don't care that you have no credibility, with me or with anyone else. Otherwise you would check the junk you parrot before you put it here under your name. You whine and cry about "prove it" every freakin' time. Sometimes people bother, sometimes they don't, but repetition is memorable enough for me to say that anything you post is immediately suspect, so again; NO, I just can't be bothered. As usual, you have parroted the popular false narrative of the day from the usual "sources," been called on it, and crybabied about getting called on it. Just another day.

After accusing me of repeatedly lying via posts from Red State and Breitbart, you dont even have one example? So why did you post again?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They tell donors how much other donors are giving but not the public? Are donors sworn to secrecy? Do the donors ever tell the public when they reduce or stop giving? Did any donors decide to be less generous in recent months? Did any become more generous since she lost?

No, but they do tell donors how things are going overall and the whole "funding is drying up" is an outright lie being spread by fake news sites and their parrots. Try a different false narrative. I'm sure you can find one, given your obvious wealth of sources.