I don't know shit about this dude but I really like this answer

RaceBannon

Squirt

My opinions on the topic:

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:

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.

GrundleStiltzkin

Squirt said:

My opinions on the topic:

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:

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.

RaceBannon

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.

allpurpleallgold

Squirt said:

My opinions on the topic:

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:

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.

dnc

allpurpleallgold said:

Squirt said:

My opinions on the topic:

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:

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.

Squirt

allpurpleallgold said:

“protection from unnecessary desecration”

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.

oregonblitzkrieg

Squirt said:

allpurpleallgold said:

“protection from unnecessary desecration”

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.

MikeDamone

Virtue signalers gonna virtue signal.

ThomasFremont

MikeDamone said:

Virtue signalers gonna virtue signal.

Stop virtue signaling with your labels, man