This is from ACCURACY IN MEDIA, by Roger Aronoff:
On March 20, there was an "anti-war" demonstration in Lafayette Square Park, across the street from the White House. AIM went there to see what sort of activity was occurring, and as we show in this video, which was all shot at the scene of the demonstration, it was a mix of 9/11 Truthers, Code Pinkers, socialists, anarchists, and a large contingency of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel zealots.
The Washington Post covered it, but never mentioned the name Obama, though he was clearly a target of the protesters. The group that organized the protest, International ANSWER, claims there were 10,000 people there. Our estimate: 2 - 3 thousand tops, at least prior to the marching part of the demonstration. We didn't stick around for that part.
One thing for sure, no one burned an American flag at any Tea Party gatherings, but they sure did here. Did you see any reporting about the hate-speech and flag burning? I guess MSNBC was too busy that day.
Please, people, let's remember Tea Party gatherings and how they do not hate America, how they do not burn our flag. I hope you took the time to watch the video all the way through.....amazing stuff.
56 comments:
In your view, is it okay to burn an old, worn, tattered flag for disposal purposes?
Presumably it is which then begs the question of why one would then find it problematic in one instance but not another.
In the final analysis it comes down to intent. And to be certain, once you go down that slippery path, you embark down the road to an Orwellian thought police.
That video literally made me feel ill.
Made me feel sick too, and made me cry. It was an ordeal to watch it all the way through.
Soapy, I think it depends on what you say when burning the old, worn, tattered flag. God Bless America would have been nice!
Pris
Ideally yeah Pris but if not then what? Jail time? Death by lethal injection?
Do ya really wanna play the "I'm offended" card?
Did someone imply that WAS an 'old tattered flag?'
And Soapboxgod, you don't see the difference between burning the flag because they SAID they HATE THIS COUNTRY and burning a tired old flag in respect for its years of duty flying somewhere to remind us of our grand land? I'm a little surprised...
RWE, me, too.
Faith, I'm sorry we have to be exposed to this hatred.
And there are leftwingers who think the Tea Parties are this hateful....it's an unbelievably crackpot comparison, in my humble opinion.
Pris,see my note above......You heard what they DID say, didn't you. That difference says it ALL, right?
I believe there used to be a respectful protocol for disposing of old worn flags and it certainly wasn't an unceremonious casual burning.
This bothers me for several reasons.
So many of the protestors are obviously uninformed wannabes. Either old hippies longing for the good 'ol days, or young poser hippies who probably make no contribution to society other than these "protests".
The palistinian issue blows my mind. The two people on the bench were willfully blind to the reality of Hamas and the atrocities committed by that terrorist group. Who ARE these people?
Finally, the fact that this crap isn't circulated in our media. Why isn't it? Because it's expected behavior. It's taught in schools and universities. This is standard procedure, so why would it make the news.
Blech.
This venomous hatred is why I used to leave my poli-sci class trembling, Z.
There is no room for civil dialogue with some people.
http://www.flagkeepers.org/ProperDisposalCeremony.asp
That link is for proper American flag disposal.....the differences are HUGE. There is no such thing as respect for the flag for far leftwingers, then rightwingers get demeaned for carrying it or wearing it...go figure. I think that says a LOT.
Z, yes I watched the video. Of course the difference says it all.
Soapy, I don't believe being offended requires jail time for the offender, and yes, I'm offended, and I am playing the "offended card".
I'll settle for people like you just admitting you're anti-American and that you believe in censoring the conservative movement.
Pris
it was a mix of 9/11 Truthers, Code Pinkers, socialists, anarchists, and a large contingency of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel zealots.
People incapable of logical deduction and people with anti-Semitic worldviews gathered together under the banner of leftism.
Nothing new under the sun here.
Soapboxgod,
I'm Voltaire on this. I would never burn an American flag as a political expression of free speech unless it were made illegal to do so (and then I'd probably go to China to burn down an American flag factory....)
This is because I feel making it illegal to burn American flags as expression would transform that American flag into the symbol of a government that supresses free expression.
You have a wrong idea of freedom, beamish. There have always been protocols for respectful dealing with the flag which in themselves imply some level of law against disrespecting it I would think. Perhaps they're even written out, and if so they don't curtail your freedom in any meaningful sense of the word.
Who ARE these people? "
Maybe the same scum that worship Fidel...or his murdering thug from Bolivia...Che Guevera? Or maybe the same dopes who hug Hugo Chavez...Penn the ultimate dope and his friend...Glover? Or Harry Belafonte and Susan Saradon or her squeeze ( ex now ) Tommy boy Robinson....or..Ohhh how can I forget....the whale Michael Moore....and lately Tom Hanks? Code stinks Medeja Benjamin? Or what the hell was her name who camped out at Bush's Crawford ranch? The loser who gained fame as an ignorant tool of the...radical shits?
The latter POS's...make millions and live a life that's unimaginable in about 190 countries on the face of the earth! If they ( like they once promised to do when Kerry became a loser and their cause celebre ) would just move...leave if we're so bad...if we're such a horrible country...I wouldn't miss any of them. But I'd feel bad for whomever inherited them.
If I saw them walking on a sidewalk...I'd lose control of my car.
Major
Faith,
You have a wrong idea of freedom, beamish. There have always been protocols for respectful dealing with the flag which in themselves imply some level of law against disrespecting it I would think. Perhaps they're even written out, and if so they don't curtail your freedom in any meaningful sense of the word.
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution both enshrines my right to burn the American flag as a free exercise of expression and forbids Congress from establishing a flag-worshipping religion.
Until there is a law protecting the flag over my rights to expression and choice in what or who I religiously or ritualistically respect and worship, the American flag is a symbol of those freedoms and as such I could not bring myself to disrespect the flag as a matter of conscience on what the flag represents.
Make the flag supercede my rights to free expression and choice in religious allegiance with a law and the flag would no longer symbolize anything but a government that should be overthrown post haste.
Respect for the flag is custom, but not law or mandate.
so telling isn't it Z?..horror the times we are living in..keep praying hun!
Suppose I was in some horrible brain damaging, IQ reducing accident that rendered me incapable of rationality and as a symptom of that injury I began going door to door trying to encourage people to vote for Democrats.
In order to maximize Democrat voter registration in a drive at my house, I construct a large wooden cross in my backyard and set it on fire to show my solidarity with left-wing principles, protected by an army of fellow left-wing ACLU lawyers against any neighbors who might complain about Bill Clinton appearing to take donations from his gathered peers.
The burning cross on my property might be a nuisance against city ordinances, but it is not against the law to burn one's own cross on one's own property. Left burning on a black neighbor's property as a warning sign that their own voting Democrat or not at all is all that saves them from the government evicting them from their subsidized housing crosses the line of protected free expression and goes into what can be considered a death threat reminiscent of pre-Civil Rights Act Democrat activism and is prosecutable.
It's the same, perhaps more so, with American flag burning. Only a left-wing twit would actually do it, but as long as the flag belongs to him and isn't left burning in someone else's property, it's not against the law.
"I'm Voltaire on this."
Prendre votre Voltaire et le pousse sur votre âne prétentieux.
He's as relevant as two navels.
LOL!
Bien que je suis en désaccord avec tout ce que vous dites, je me battrai jusqu'à la mort votre droit de dire "vas te faire encule."
:P
Beam me upp!
Effronté mais frais. ...hats de mon ami !
Beamish:
From the Flag Code:
"No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America." Section 8
"The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing." Section 8j
When you burn the flag you disrespect those who respect it, in a violent way. That's certainly how it feels.
So...Why do they still reside here in the evil ol' USA?
Here's an excellent destination for them:
Visit Liberia!
Here's an excellent destination for them:
Visit Freedom Loving Liberia!
Major
Faith,
"The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing."
That's a rather frightening implication. "Legally" a flag is a "living thing," but a baby in the womb isn't?
What does one feed a flag? Purina Flag Chow?
My sentiments exactly Beamish. I certainly would never burn an American flag to make a point on the First Amendment but you can damn well bet that I wouldn't stifle anyone else's desire to do so.
I do see the difference Z but what you are failing to understand is my point on intent.
Let me ask you a question: Let us suppose one of your family members was murdered. Now would it make any difference whether they were murdered by an angry black man simply because they were white or simply because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? At the end of the day an individual has been murdered. The premise is the same on both of these instances but what I hear from you is the abandonment of objectivity. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. Is it the act itself or the intent that you wish to criminalize?
"That's certainly how it feels."
Emotions are not tools of cognition. Reason is the tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables an individual to perceive the facts of reality.
Soapbox, that doesn't strike me as a proper analogy for what you originally said....or what Beamish is saying.
The flag isn't just a piece of fabric with stars and stripes on it, people have died for what the flag represents and one doesn't say the types of things the people in the video said and then light this symbol of our country like that and have impunity.
I think that if people took my loved one and burned him in the town square because he'd been a soldier, screaming invectives until he died a painful death, it would hurt me far more than if he died a peaceful death and was beautifully eulogized.
There are lefties in this video saying "WE" brought prostitutes into Gitmo to rape "deeply religious men!?"
Shouldn't that read "deeply religious cooperative men"? **grin**
While you may find issue with the analogy Z, the fundamental premise is the same and that is one of intent or thought.
If it is okay to burn a flag for disposal purposes but not okay in your view to burn the flag out of anger or displeasure or just outright hatred for what is happening in this country, then you are not concerned with the physical act of burning the flag but instead with the thought process behind the act of burning the flag. On the one hand your are suggesting that the former ought to bear no consequence but the latter should.
And so it speaks directly to my analogy. Should diferent penalties be applied, not to the degree which they are at present but to the intent or motivation behind someone who commits murder??
In short, do you support hate crime legislation?
My sentiments exactly Beamish. I certainly would never burn an American flag to make a point on the First Amendment but you can damn well bet that I wouldn't stifle anyone else's desire to do so.
"I certainly would never bomb the Washington monument to register a complaint on the evils of America but I wouldn't stifle anyone else's desire to do so."
"I certainly would never spit in the face of the President but I wouldn't stifle anyone else's desire to do so."
"I certainly would never have an abortion but I wouldn't stifle anyone else's right to murder her child."
Hard to find the right analogy but this idea that you defend burning the flag that means so much to so many as a "right" or "freedom" is disgusting.
"I certainly would never bomb the Washington monument to register a complaint on the evils of America but I wouldn't stifle anyone else's desire to do so."
"I certainly would never spit in the face of the President but I wouldn't stifle anyone else's desire to do so."
"I certainly would never have an abortion but I wouldn't stifle anyone else's right to murder her child."
Really Faith?? I mean really??? And here Z was criticizing my analogies...
Let's take 'em one at a time huh.
Bombing the Washington monument would constitute the destruction of property not to mention quite possibly innocent civilians in the process. A flag, provided it has not been taken by force from its rightful owner, and the subsequent burning of it is hardly comparable.
Spitting, while certainly not likely to inflict any sort of noticable damage or harm to another individual, does nonetheless constitute to some degree a physical sort of tresspassing against another individual. As a staunch advocate of individual rights, I would never condone any action which is in any way, shape, or form, a physical act against another individual.
Lastly, you are quite right in that I would never have an abortion even were I a woman. But what I will tell you is that individuals have the right to processes and workings of their own body. Rights do not extend to potentials. There is no right to be born. Any supposed fetal birthright does not exist with the fetus mind you but instead with the mother who has a fundamental right to the workings of her own body.
Albeit such instances are rare but suppose a woman made it life's ambition to be an Olympic athlete. Suppose she did all of the things necessary for her lifelong ambition of becoming an Olympic champion. Now..let us suppose that she has qualified for the Olympics and 2 months before the Olympics are to begin she is raped and subsequently impregnated.
Are you going to tell me that even though this woman at no time consented to sexual intercourse or engaged in any sort of voluntary agreement to have intercourse now by force has an obligation to carry to full term this child?
And in so doing has her own life and liberty essentially sacrificed for the sake of another?
It's no right or freedom to murder your own child.
Right, sticks and stones will break my bones but words and burning a mere symbol of our country can't hurt anyone. It hurts terrifically. And abortion is murder.
Soapboxgod,
No woman gets an abortion to cut out a piece of her body.
Faith,
Flag burning is like cursing. It reflects badly on the one who does it, but it's still perfectly legal.
Great talking points but they don't answer the fundamental question which is whether or not an individual (in this case a woman) should be held responsible for a contract that they have not voluntarily agreed to?
Granted it's not sexy to think of intercourse as a contract but the reality is that it is in essence a contractual agreement between two individuals. Be it a wink and a nod or what have you, when you engage in the act of your own volition, you assume (as with ANY contract) a certain level of risk. In the case of intercourse, such risk could be an STD or obviously pregnancy.
If you and I agree by contract to have me re-roof your house, you assume that I will do the job on time and within budget yet you also assume a level of risk as well.
It's all too easy for pro-lifers to take a subjective view with regards to pregnancy and assert "well this is a life; a human being we're talking about".
While indeed this is true, it fails to answer the question of whether or not an individual should be held accountable for a contractual agreement (in this case intercourse) that they did not voluntarily enter in to.
It is said that contradictions do not exist. When it seem they do one is reminded to check their premises because one of them is false.
"If you and I agree by contract to have me re-roof your house, you assume that I will do the job on time and within budget yet you also assume a level of risk as well."
I meant to add as well that if I simply re-roof your house but you never entered into an agreement or contract with me, do I then have a right to receive payment for the work?
Presumably you will say no as well you should.
But how can you then make a logical argument that a woman who has not agreed or consented to sexual intercourse should then be made to bear the consequences of an agreement or contract that she did not consent to?
It is said that contradictions do not exist. When it seem they do one is reminded to check their premises because one of them is false.
Fair enough.
The false premises of the pro-abortion stance are:
- a baby in the womb is not a human being.
[when a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is usually charged with two murders]
- a baby in the womb is part of its mother's body
[biology disagrees. Babies can and often do have different blood types than the mother, for example]
- a baby in the womb is a parasitic organism
[then we all are...]
I don't know of any Pro-abortionists anymore than I know of any Pro-war individuals but nonetheless you are quite right. Such are contradictions that any Pro-choicer should respond to.
Unfortunately, I'm don't consider myself to be Pro-choice but rather Pro-Life so I'm not the right individual to respond to your inquiry.
Hardly like cursing. It's a trashing of something held dear by other citizens and it hurts them terribly to see it. It's like spitting in our faces.
"Hardly like cursing. It's a trashing of something held dear by other citizens and it hurts them terribly to see it. It's like spitting in our faces."
Well you know, the right to be offended is all rage now. Just ask Sarah Palin.
Soapy, maybe you can tell me when we didn't have a right to be offended. What do you mean "right now"?
Right now, it's lawsuits over being offended, which is ridiculous. All that leads to is hate speech laws, and political correctness. Which are deplorable and counter to the 1st amendment.
Society has a way of deciding what is acceptable for civil behavior. That does not need to be codified by law.
Our problem is, we have lowered our standards for decent, civil behavior. However, you cannot legislate morality or decency, it's all in what we'll tolerate or not, as a society.
The fact is, burning the flag is done, precisely because it's a defiant act, and because people like most of us here are offended and appalled.
And there is another, more important reason to be offended. We love our country, and when the flag goes up in flames, it insults every soldier, and his family, who gave his life for America to remain free.
Pris
Soapbox, you said "But how can you then make a logical argument that a woman who has not agreed or consented to sexual intercourse should then be made to bear the consequences of an agreement or contract that she did not consent to?"
So, you're arguing about rape, obviously. If it's about unborn babies being human beings before they're born, then we're still killing the child with an abortion no matter how it was conceived.
It's no less a child because of the rape. And, while it's a horrible nauseating thought to have to go through 9 months and a painful delivery, it seems to me that IF we're arguing LIFE, then we give LIFE and then, if necessary, give that life to a couple who wants to raise a child.
The fact is, burning the flag is done, precisely because it's a defiant act, and because people like most of us here are offended and appalled.
Only that it isn't a defiant act. It's actually rather passe. People all over the world burn American flags. In many of those non-American places that American flags are burned, it's illegal to burn that nation's flag and many freedoms we take for granted in America are heavily curtailed or non-existent.
When government is big enough to be concerned about flag burning because it incites people to be non-violently offended, government is ginormous.
Two things were killed off in the Nineteen-Sick-Sties:
1. Good Taste
2. Common sense.
If that had not happened, we wouldn't need to have discussions of this kind today.
A little-known adage worth contemplating:
LAWS ARE NEVER MADE TILL THEY ARE BROKEN.
~ FreeThinke
Beamish, put aside your philosophy about flag burning and the legalities and ethics of it, etc etc...
Does it please you to see a lefty (or anybody else?) say he hates this country and put a match to the red/white and blue? Seriously....are you completely unmoved?
Beamish, put aside your philosophy about flag burning and the legalities and ethics of it, etc etc...
Does it please you to see a lefty (or anybody else?) say he hates this country and put a match to the red/white and blue? Seriously....are you completely unmoved?
It doesn't please me to see leftist twits (forgive the redundancy) disrespecting a symbol of American identity and tradition. It's a very stupid act of immaturity and ignorance that ultimately expresses nothing but how irrationally superstitious the left can be.
If stupidity were illegal, there could be no leftism.
Stupidity is legal, though. It doen't make it less stupid nor less obvious to point out.
You won't catch me wasting any time with assuming a leftist is capable of intellectual discussion.
"It's no less a child because of the rape. And, while it's a horrible nauseating thought to have to go through 9 months and a painful delivery, it seems to me that IF we're arguing LIFE, then we give LIFE and then, if necessary, give that life to a couple who wants to raise a child."
Life is about much much more than simply passing through the birth canal. What of the life of the mother who's own life is placed on hold for 9 months? This is precisely why I used the Olympian example that I did. Your argument for Life negates Liberty.
To listen to "conservatives" who rail against government intrusion or the imposition of progressive/liberal agendas into their lives then display no compunction about the imposition of their limited view on the life issue being force fed upon the rest of the citizenry is hypocrisy at best.
Soapbox, you said "To listen to "conservatives" who rail against government intrusion or the imposition of progressive/liberal agendas into their lives then display no compunction about the imposition of their limited view on the life issue being force fed upon the rest of the citizenry is hypocrisy at best."
"Limited view" is YOUR opinion, of course. Odd that you called yourself pro-life somewhere recently.
Government intrusion is quite different than the taking of LIFE.
I believe that people being force-fed legal abortion is hypocrisy to the sensibilities of most Americans who are pro-life...Republicans and Democrats alike.
Life trumps government, in my opinion.
A woman's life goes on through a pregnancy....nothing's put on hold; they even have high schools with baby facilities for young mothers.
So, Soapy, you are saying that because a woman is raped or involved in incest we should execute the innocent baby, who has no part in the commission of either crime?
How is that just? How is that compassionate?
Mark, that's what I don't quite get.
A child is a child whether it's rape or not.
And, a woman can live on...through pregnancy and whatever she decides to do after the birth.
Post a Comment