2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:
It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:
It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
Yeah, but what does the Notorious RBG have to say, man?
FWIW, while I detest flag burning, I do not think it should be illegal.
The Nazi march in Skokie Illinois is about as clear an indication as you can get on how much value the Supremes place on freedom of speech and expression
Now I am going to thank God for making me retarded or something
Again to my main point - do you want to get people on your side in regards to BLM or do you want to piss them off and mess with their sacred Sunday ritual?
Do you want the discussion to be on the issue? The media prefers to keep a scorecard because the issue is uncomfortable for the broadcasters as well. And their advertisers who control the content anyway
81% of our enlightened public thinks this is about protesting the national anthem and they wonder why the guys they want to be would do such a thing.
From day 1 I said Kaep was within his rights but also saw where this was headed.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:
It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
“protection from unnecessary desecration”
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:
It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival...
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
“protection from unnecessary desecration”
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
Considering his first point was he agreed with Beto, I don’t think he’s arguing that it does.
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
I'm not saying or implying that it is. Obviously burning is one thing, and kneeling is another.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
Still, it's illuminating to read how a patriotic, liberal, brilliant American conceives of the flag. That's the point of the quotes: to show an example of how many Americans view the flag.
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
I'm not saying or implying that it is. Obviously burning is one thing, and kneeling is another.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
Still, it's illuminating to read how a patriotic, liberal, brilliant American conceives of the flag. That's the point of the quotes: to show an example of how many Americans view the flag.
Makes sense. "Liberal." Seeing things in the Constitution that don't actually exist...like the right of the government to criminalize flag burning based on first amendment. Why don't you fucks drop the whole 'liberal' charade already, you aren't liberals. Not anymore. That word has been hijacked.
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
It's a fucking song you pussy.
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so.
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?
Noted BBC craver trys to talk tuff. Pretty common for frustrated dudes who have yet to come out of the closet. I’ve known a couple. One was to the point of suicide but then He was brave enough to follow through and lives a happy life.
If you need someone to talk to about this, DM me and I can hook you up with him. Or don’t and run your drift boat into the boulder again and pretend it was an accident.
So your homo buddy was on the verge of suicide until you sucked his cock, and then he lived a happy life?
Cool story, bro.
No worries buddy. This is an open invite. When you’re ready drop me a line. He’ll get ya dialed in.
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
It's a fucking song you pussy.
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so.
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?
This is my rifle this is my gun, this is for fighting this is for fun.
Makes sense. "Liberal." Seeing things in the Constitution that don't actually exist...like the right of the government to criminalize flag burning based on first amendment. Why don't you fucks drop the whole 'liberal' charade already, you aren't liberals. Not anymore. That word has been hijacked.
Justice Stevens didn't argue that the First Amendment gives power to the federal or state governments to criminalize flag burning. I don't argue that either. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Makes sense. "Liberal." Seeing things in the Constitution that don't actually exist...like the right of the government to criminalize flag burning based on first amendment. Why don't you fucks drop the whole 'liberal' charade already, you aren't liberals. Not anymore. That word has been hijacked.
Justice Stevens didn't argue that the First Amendment gives power to the federal or state governments to criminalize flag burning. I don't argue that either. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
You should watch it. If Democrats can find more like that, we? might be in trouble.
Yep. Haven't seen any poles but that clip alone is enough to think he can unseat the Zodiak Killer rather easily
He articulated a view in opposition to the constituent without condemning that person. That seems to be in short supply in the SJW ranks right now.
The reasonable people disagreeing was a nice thing to say and very smart for a politician. The problem with the (not) anthem protests is the arguments for it being disrespectful sometimes came out like this “THEY are disrespecting MY country”. That’s racism. So yeah really nice but racism is deserving of being condemned.
This is where it gets problematic for me. I haven’t heard a good argument for it being disrespectful. If you hold a position that you can’t make a good argument for and there are people making arguments for your position that are blatantly racist, how is anyone on the other side supposed to tell the difference?
It would nice if the “SJW”s wouldn’t condemn everyone but it would also be nice if the other side stopped coming down on the same side as racists every single time.
And this is where I will have to break with you on this. Yes, some of the "disrespect" side are coming at this because of race. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
But my dad was a Marine and raised me my entire life to respect the flag/anthem/pledge etc because of all the men and women who gave their lives to protect it and what it stands for. He has of course stopped watching the NFL over this issue and I can 100% guarantee his stance would be the same if the players taking a knee were white people protesting Obama and affirmative action.
There is a (fairly large) segment of the population where you don't fuck with the flag, period. Considering they put their lives on the line to protect the flag and what it represents, and lost plenty of fellow soldiers who were doing the same, I think it's reasonable for them to be heated about this and take it as disrespectful to those who have fallen. And I don't think it necessarily makes them racist to feel that way, even though racists definitely do feel the same way.
TYDFHS
Does the flag represent freedom or blind patriotism?
Ugh. The density of the liberal faction never ceases to amaze here. It’s about the flag. It represents our freedoms which the military is sworn to defend. Both of them.
This debate is so fucking tired. If the kneelers actually gave a shit about why they are being told to kneel by their overlords, they would do something other than attempt to make a spectacle during the National Anthem. They would engage community leaders to make them accountable for whatever injustices they fell are occurring in their community.
But guess what, most of them don’t do that. They just showboat for their Twitter followers to show how #woke they are.
To me this “protest” is akin to a teenage Kid waiting to pitch a fit about not getting their way once the whole neighborhood, friends and family are at the BBQ. It’s not going to gain you any ground with anyone. It’s just an attempt to embarrass their parents. Where as if they had a mature conversation with their parents before anybody came over, they might gain some ground for their cause.
I don’t disrespect the kneelers just because of the issues I’ve covered in earlier posts. I also disrespect them because they don’t have the intelligence nor balls to try to gain ground for their cause productively.
Looks like a douche. Didn’t click. Don’t care what alleged douche says, it’s disrespectful.
It's a fucking song you pussy.
I’ll take things spoiled wanna be anarchists who have thoroughly disappointed their parents say for $400 Alex.
You sound tuff skeets. No not really. No one has ever made that false distinction.
The “song” is a salute to those that are serving our country currently and for those that served. But more for those that paid the ultimate price for their country.
But liberal POS, like say... You, side with the lazy person using his bosses dime in order to stand for,uh.... something I guess.
The reality is that if these guys truly cared about the cause that they protest for. They would have already been known for it in their community. As they would be using their fame to publically meet with Community leaders to raise awareness for their cause and work together to find solutions to their problem.
But why do that when you just do nothing and shit on the folks that gave them the Freedom to do so.
Thanks for speaking for all that served even though you didn't.
Fuck you are a dense fucking guppy. Ask around to those that have served, what they think of the Sunday kneelers. You’ll find about 81% of them don’t stand with the kneelers. I didn’t serve, never claimed to have. But of those that I know that did or are currently serving, have no patience for those that disrespect the flag and the song.
My brother did infantry in the Marines, spent 7 months in Afghanistan in not much more than a small tent. He has told me multiple times he supports the protests. He also didn't join the military to protect a piece of cloth or the sanctity of a song, so go figure.
What did He join for? And why can’t any libtard reply to a correct poast?
I don't know exactly why he joined. Intelligent guy but shitty student so he didn't have plans for school straight out of high school. He was never overly patriotic before or after his service though.
Seems as if the lack of intelligence runs in the family. Are you aware Of the oath that He took when He was sworn into the Marines?
This is my rifle this is my gun, this is for fighting this is for fun.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
HTFH. Go back to school little fish.
The word "allow" in this context does not carry the same meaning as "authorizes" or "empowers" or "grants power to" or whatever else. It means "does not prohibit." The First Amendment, in the opinion of Justice Stevens and the other dissenters (Justices White, O'Connor, and Rehnquist), does not prohibit the states from criminalizing flag burning.
Comments
1. I agree with Beto O'Rourke's position.
2. Many of the people who do not like it, as @dnc has pointed out, have sound reasons for feeling that kneeling is disrespectful.
As some of you might recall, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in the famous flag-burning case. He served in the Navy in WWII, and he believed the First Amendment did not protect flag burning:
Respondent was prosecuted because of the method he chose to express his dissatisfaction with those policies. Had he chosen to spray paint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Though the asset at stake in this case is intangible, given its unique value, the same interest supports a prohibition on the desecration of the American flag.
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
FWIW, while I detest flag burning, I do not think it should be illegal.
Now I am going to thank God for making me retarded or something
Again to my main point - do you want to get people on your side in regards to BLM or do you want to piss them off and mess with their sacred Sunday ritual?
Do you want the discussion to be on the issue? The media prefers to keep a scorecard because the issue is uncomfortable for the broadcasters as well. And their advertisers who control the content anyway
81% of our enlightened public thinks this is about protesting the national anthem and they wonder why the guys they want to be would do such a thing.
From day 1 I said Kaep was within his rights but also saw where this was headed.
Please explain how kneeling in front of the flag is desecrating it.
In fact, I disagree with Justice Stevens' conclusion that the First Amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning.
Still, it's illuminating to read how a patriotic, liberal, brilliant American conceives of the flag. That's the point of the quotes: to show an example of how many Americans view the flag.
This debate is so fucking tired. If the kneelers actually gave a shit about why they are being told to kneel by their overlords, they would do something other than attempt to make a spectacle during the National Anthem. They would engage community leaders to make them accountable for whatever injustices they fell are occurring in their community.
But guess what, most of them don’t do that. They just showboat for their Twitter followers to show how #woke they are.
To me this “protest” is akin to a teenage Kid waiting to pitch a fit about not getting their way once the whole neighborhood, friends and family are at the BBQ. It’s not going to gain you any ground with anyone. It’s just an attempt to embarrass their parents. Where as if they had a mature conversation with their parents before anybody came over, they might gain some ground for their cause.
I don’t disrespect the kneelers just because of the issues I’ve covered in earlier posts. I also disrespect them because they don’t have the intelligence nor balls to try to gain ground for their cause productively.