Thread: 2 U.S. flags burned at Occupy Charlotte land group in jail

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Ody,

    What I'm meaning to say is that supporting the right to do something doesn't mean I support the actual action. I should have been more clear earlier. I'll get to the rest of your post later. I'm still mad. You have no idea how close I am to calling somebody out. I get a little sick of this "with us or against us" closed minded mentality.
    I got it. What you don't understand is that burning the flag isn't free speech, or speech at all. It's vandalism masquerading as speech, but with a very specific and clear meaning, namely the repudiation of America. Or do you deny that this is their intent? That burning the symbol of our nation, the one thing that all Americans can claim equal ownership of, has some other meaning? All that I'm saying is that if someone wants to publicly repudiate America, we should take them at their word and withdraw their citizenship.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Politically tired.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I'm all for the First Amendment, but there have always been recognized limits on free speech, the classic examples being that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, incite to riot or advocate the violent overthrow of the US government or murder of public officials. In short, we recognize that there are limits on speech that protect a more fundamental right, which is the right to life. Burning a flag (which is not "speech", BTW), is an incitement to riot, advocacy of violence against the United States and, if we want to play the liberal game, hate speech. It's a deliberate insult to the entire nation, not just our political policies or one administration, and a repudiation of everything that the flag represents. You want to make that statement? Fine. But actions have consequences, and the consequence of publicly repudiated the United States ought to be the renunciation of citizenship.


    ROFLOL! Maybe you should have waited until you had time to proof read your post.

    The

    A right is a freedom to act. Supporting a right means that you are supporting the right, even if you disagree with how the person conducting it exercises that right. One can support the right to speak, even if one disagrees with what is said, but that doesn't mean that you have to provide a forum for the speaker or disseminate their words, nor does the speaker have the "right" to be free of the consequences of their speech. Burning the flag has a specific meaning: the rejection of America. We should accept that and hold those who choose to reject America accountable for that. The Immigration and Nationality Act contains the provisions for renunciation of US citizenship:

    1481. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN; VOLUNTARY ACTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTIONS

    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
    (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
    (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
    (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
    (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
    (4)
    (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
    (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
    (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
    (6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
    (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
    (b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
    I simply propose that the act be amended to add the following:

    (6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, or the deliberate, public destruction or desecration of the National Colors whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
    We're at war. They're burning the flag. Actions have consequences. See below for an example that should have resulted in immediate deportation and exile.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B1FHeIP53Q
    Okay, I can see making flag burning illegal under the issue that it can provoke violence or disruption of the peace. I think hate speech might be a stretch in most cases because Americans are the majority here. Now, if that flag burning was meant to provoke hatred against the troops or those working for government, then the case could be made that it's hate speech, that it could encourage violence against such individuals, and therefore should be illegal.

    Now, the rest I think is a major stretch. Burning a flag is a far cry from a written renunciation, and it's definately not an act to overthrow the government. Now, some of these people who advocate overthrowing the government through a socialist revolution or some other means. I think if it could be proven that they're advocating that, then their citizenship could be and should be revoked. But honestly Ody, I think the flag burning issue is a stretch.

    on edit: I still can't watch the video yet. I have no way of hearing it here or at home once I get home (tech problems at home). I'll see what I can do to bring a set of headphones tomorrow.
    Last edited by Lanie; 01-07-2012 at 01:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Politically tired.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I got it. What you don't understand is that burning the flag isn't free speech, or speech at all. It's vandalism masquerading as speech, but with a very specific and clear meaning, namely the repudiation of America. Or do you deny that this is their intent? That burning the symbol of our nation, the one thing that all Americans can claim equal ownership of, has some other meaning? All that I'm saying is that if someone wants to publicly repudiate America, we should take them at their word and withdraw their citizenship.
    Some of the people who burn the flag do in fact have a desire for America to be destroyed. Some people are just mad as heck at the American government and want to show those feelings. They're passionate and often do inappropriate things to show their feelings. That doesn't make them a treasoner.

    If the flag burner could be proven to be somebody who wants the US overthrown or destroyed (proven through their advocacy, groups they're in, etc), then I would be okay with their citizenship being revoked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I'm all for the First Amendment, but there have always been recognized limits on free speech, the classic examples being that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, incite to riot or advocate the violent overthrow of the US government or murder of public officials. In short, we recognize that there are limits on speech that protect a more fundamental right, which is the right to life.
    The courts have always (or usually...) careful about not stripping 1st amendment rights unless the most extreme examples. This isn't the type of thing you want to play lawyer with just to ban things you find offensive.

    Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights enshrined in our constitution, anyone who really defends what's best about America should be extremely cautious about limiting this freedom.

    Destroying freedoms to protect the country will result in a country not worth protecting.

    Burning a flag (which is not "speech", BTW),
    Is spending money speech? According to right-wing layers and judges (including the supreme court), it is.

    Speech extends beyond verbal enunciations, to the realm of nearly all symbolic expression.

    What if we banned photoshopped pictures of Obama because a "picture isn't really speech"? That would be insane.

    is an incitement to riot, advocacy of violence against the United States and, if we want to play the liberal game, hate speech.
    Far more flags have been burned than riots have been incited. That's just your own limited interpretation of that expression. Some people who burn flags will claim that it is simply an expressive action of free speech, expressing that we live in a country with freedom of speech in the very act of burning the flag.

    I don't know how you would demonstrate that a burning flag somehow signifies a call to riot.

    There is no call to violence either either, the same applies.

    Hate speech? don't bother playing the liberal game buddy.

    It's a deliberate insult to the entire nation, not just our political policies or one administration,
    Okay, let's assume it is, insulting the nation isn't and shouldn't be a crime. It sounds like you want this to be a totalitarian state.

    and a repudiation of everything that the flag represents.
    Except for freedom of speech. The US flag represents freedom to many people, and the first amendment to the constitution regards freedom of speech, and burning a flag isn't just in support of freedom of speech, it's a living action of it.

    No amount of words can support a freedom in the same way that the action of exercising that freedom.

    You want ot have the words, the rhetoric of freedom, as long as no one actually exercises it.

    The first amendment wasn't written into hte constitution to protect friendly, agreeable, nice speech that everyone likes, because no one would try to stop that. It was written to protect offensive speech. In fact, if you believe that the constitution was written to limit the powers of the government, then 1st amendment is more specifically meant to protect speech which is opposed to the government.

    You want to make that statement? Fine. But actions have consequences, and the consequence of publicly repudiated the United States ought to be the renunciation of citizenship.
    and you call me a totalitarian
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Some of the people who burn the flag do in fact have a desire for America to be destroyed. Some people are just mad as heck at the American government and want to show those feelings. They're passionate and often do inappropriate things to show their feelings. That doesn't make them a treasoner.

    If the flag burner could be proven to be somebody who wants the US overthrown or destroyed (proven through their advocacy, groups they're in, etc), then I would be okay with their citizenship being revoked.
    "Treasoner"? Forget about the flag, just stop desecrating the language.

    You miss the point. I'm not proposing that we retroactively prosecute flag burners, I'm proposing that we amend that law so that from now on, burning the flag constitutes renunciation of citizenship. After that law is changed, anyone who deliberately desecrates it will be presumed to know what that act means, and be dealt with accordingly. Anyway, now that I've clarified that, I'm now in the unusual position of of having to talk about legitimate restrictions on free speech to a Marxist, who is otherwise inclined to ban pretty much anything that smacks of free will in the economic sphere. It should be fun, but it won't be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The courts have always (or usually...) careful about not stripping 1st amendment rights unless the most extreme examples. This isn't the type of thing you want to play lawyer with just to ban things you find offensive.

    Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights enshrined in our constitution, anyone who really defends what's best about America should be extremely cautious about limiting this freedom.

    Destroying freedoms to protect the country will result in a country not worth protecting.
    Funny, but I seem to recall making the same points about economic liberty when you wanted to impose economic totalitarianism. Go figure.

    Freedom of speech isn't an absolute. As the law has demonstrated, there are specific statements which constitute a renunciation of citizenship. I simply believe that an offensive act whose sole purpose is to shock and offend those who actually love this country should be added to the list of statements that constitutes that renunciation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Is spending money speech? According to right-wing layers and judges (including the supreme court), it is.

    Speech extends beyond verbal enunciations, to the realm of nearly all symbolic expression.

    What if we banned photoshopped pictures of Obama because a "picture isn't really speech"? That would be insane.
    Photoshopping a picture of a politician isn't the same as burning a flag. Physically altering the politician is the equivalent of burning the flag. I'm willing to stipulate that photoshopping fire onto a photo of the flag doesn't meet the same level of incitement as the burning of an actual flag.

    As for campaign expenditures, there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to limit how private individuals spend their money. Whether or not money equals speech (and it doesn't, but it does facilitate the dissemination of speech, which is another critical right), the feds have no more right to , regulate campaign spending than they have to regulate any other kind of spending, so long as the end result is legal. The argument that a campaign contribution must be regulated by the people who have a vested interest in perpetuating their own incumbency should have been laughed off of the national stage long before it got to the Supreme Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Far more flags have been burned than riots have been incited. That's just your own limited interpretation of that expression. Some people who burn flags will claim that it is simply an expressive action of free speech, expressing that we live in a country with freedom of speech in the very act of burning the flag.
    Some people claim that defecating on a police car is an expressive action of free speech, rather than a physical representation of mental incontinence. They're also wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I don't know how you would demonstrate that a burning flag somehow signifies a call to riot.
    Burn one on an active Army installation and watch what happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Hate speech? don't bother playing the liberal game buddy.
    Okay, then burning a cross is just as legitimate an act of expression?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Okay, let's assume it is, insulting the nation isn't and shouldn't be a crime. It sounds like you want this to be a totalitarian state.
    Coming from you, that accusation is rich.

    Burning the flag goes beyond insult. It's an act of rejection. It's a statement that the perpetrator rejects, not just a policy of the US, but any connection to the nation. Publicly renouncing your connection to the rest of America has consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Except for freedom of speech. The US flag represents freedom to many people, and the first amendment to the constitution regards freedom of speech, and burning a flag isn't just in support of freedom of speech, it's a living action of it.
    No, burning the US flag is actually an attack on the Constitution and the nation as a whole, which includes the First Amendment. The proof of this is the fact that flag burners are invariably totalitarians who use our freedoms in order to undermine them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    No amount of words can support a freedom in the same way that the action of exercising that freedom.

    You want ot have the words, the rhetoric of freedom, as long as no one actually exercises it.

    The first amendment wasn't written into hte constitution to protect friendly, agreeable, nice speech that everyone likes, because no one would try to stop that. It was written to protect offensive speech. In fact, if you believe that the constitution was written to limit the powers of the government, then 1st amendment is more specifically meant to protect speech which is opposed to the government.

    and you call me a totalitarian
    We do, because you are. Given the opportunity, you'd impose the same monstrous tyranny on us that your idols have imposed throughout history. You pay lip service to freedom of speech, while you undermine all other freedoms.

    BTW, Dennis Miller had a great line about Michael Moore that absolutely applies to you:

    He's (Michael Moore) going to wake up every day for the rest of his life, and he's going to tell us how he hates everything about this country except his right to hate it. And then we say that we love it and he's going to tell us what naive sheep we are and that he's the true patriot because he hates it and he sees all the problems in it. Yeah, right, Mike. You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? Michael Moore simultaneously represents everything I detest in a human being and everything I feel obligated to defend in an American. Quite simply, it is that stupid moron's right to be that utterly, completely wrong.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Politically tired.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    "Treasoner"? Forget about the flag, just stop desecrating the language.

    You miss the point. I'm not proposing that we retroactively prosecute flag burners, I'm proposing that we amend that law so that from now on, burning the flag constitutes renunciation of citizenship. After that law is changed, anyone who deliberately desecrates it will be presumed to know what that act means, and be dealt with accordingly. Anyway, now that I've clarified that, I'm now in the unusual position of of having to talk about legitimate restrictions on free speech to a Marxist, who is otherwise inclined to ban pretty much anything that smacks of free will in the economic sphere. It should be fun, but it won't be.
    Okay, but why should somebody lose their citizenship when they haven't been prosecuted of a crime? I don't think citizenship should be lost that easily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Okay, but why should somebody lose their citizenship when they haven't been prosecuted of a crime? I don't think citizenship should be lost that easily.
    But it already can be lost that easily. You can renounce your citizenship by making a public announcement in front of just about any federal official. In today's media-saturated environment, that statement can be made anywhere and it will be seen by the necessary people. The text of the statement that you have to make isn't specified in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, so it is up to congress to define what does and does not constitute that repudiation of citizenship. In other words, anyone who wants to renounce their citizenship can do so pretty much anytime that they want, with no more preparation than a web cam and a statement. It doesn't even have to be a hateful or angry statement, simply a statement to the effect that the speaker renounces their citizenship. It's already easy. What I am proposing is that the act of flag-burning, which is a deliberate desecration of the national colors, an act that is meant to insult the nation as a whole, constitutes a rejection of America, and therefore ought to constitute such a statement, with the understanding that those who publicly reject America this way should be taken at their word. This way, when the occuposers or some other group that loathes this nation decidse that they want to insult the rest of the country, they will have the option of making their protest genuinely meaningful, rather than a simple piece of agitprop. If they don't have the courage of their convictions, and are willing to stand by the consequences of their actions, then they can find another, less inflammatory way to protest.

    In other words, I'm saying that they can have their protest, but that it will have a specific, legally-binding meaning. Now, can anyone explain why that shouldn't be the case?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,223
    I'm still mad. You have no idea how close I am to calling somebody out. I get a little sick of this "with us or against us" closed minded mentality.
    Then do it you mindless twit. It's been awhile since I pwned your Libtard ass...it sems the last time I made you look like an idiot has faded form your pointy little head.

    Don't just flap your gums...bring it.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Politically tired.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    But it already can be lost that easily. You can renounce your citizenship by making a public announcement in front of just about any federal official. In today's media-saturated environment, that statement can be made anywhere and it will be seen by the necessary people. The text of the statement that you have to make isn't specified in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, so it is up to congress to define what does and does not constitute that repudiation of citizenship. In other words, anyone who wants to renounce their citizenship can do so pretty much anytime that they want, with no more preparation than a web cam and a statement. It doesn't even have to be a hateful or angry statement, simply a statement to the effect that the speaker renounces their citizenship. It's already easy. What I am proposing is that the act of flag-burning, which is a deliberate desecration of the national colors, an act that is meant to insult the nation as a whole, constitutes a rejection of America, and therefore ought to constitute such a statement, with the understanding that those who publicly reject America this way should be taken at their word. This way, when the occuposers or some other group that loathes this nation decidse that they want to insult the rest of the country, they will have the option of making their protest genuinely meaningful, rather than a simple piece of agitprop. If they don't have the courage of their convictions, and are willing to stand by the consequences of their actions, then they can find another, less inflammatory way to protest.

    In other words, I'm saying that they can have their protest, but that it will have a specific, legally-binding meaning. Now, can anyone explain why that shouldn't be the case?
    Okay, I still don't agree with you, but this can make logical sense.

    Now, suppose a person has been diagnosed as having an intellectual disability (i.e. what used to be called retarded), should they still have their citizenship taken away?

    Also, some kids have pretty much been brainwashed by their parents. They don't necessarily see the light at the age of eighteen. Don't you think some people should have a chance to change their minds?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Politically tired.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,623
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    Then do it you mindless twit. It's been awhile since I pwned your Libtard ass...it sems the last time I made you look like an idiot has faded form your pointy little head.

    Don't just flap your gums...bring it.
    I thought about it, but the truth is you're not worth it Tx. It wastes my time when I could be doing more productive things and talking to smarter people. Oh, and remember when I dedicated the Asshole song to you on that other forum? Well, you're not even good enough for that anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •