Liberalnation HATES America, AND WANTS YOU TO KNOW IT!

[nevadamedic]

You didn't almost get banned, and the issue with the rules was communicating threats to other members, not the flag. You can make a general statement about what you would do without naming anyone specicifically and it does not violate the rules.

Long as she keeps it up and it's a issue, I'm there. I defended it for more years than she's been alive. I'm not going anywhere at this point.

According to two PM's I got from people who said they were close to you told me I was about to get banned.

I want her to take it down as well, I think everyone does, but the longer she is attacked and gets the attention she wants then she will keep it up, that's all ive been trying to get people to realize.

[OCA]

attention whoring

Is that anything like post whoring?

[Pale Rider]

I am totally against burning a flag, but it's not about that.

YES... IT IS!!!

And "YOU>>>>LIKE"... the puss bag that CONDONES it... what does that say about YOU nm?

[nevadamedic]

You "like" her? What on earth for? You should pick your "friends" more carefully nm.

Because she has always been nice to me, treated me with respect and stuck up for me when she didn't have to. I like almost everyone until they give me a reason not to.

I have never EVER questioned you about the people you like and why you like them as it is none of my business. What gives you the right to question me about my friends?

[nevadamedic]

YES... IT IS!!!

And "YOU>>>>LIKE"... the puss bag that CONDONES it... what does that say about YOU nm?

Just because someone makes a fucked up decision or does something like this that disgusts me, im not going to drop them as friends, friends don't do that.

[Gunny]

According to two PM's I got from people who said they were close to you told me I was about to get banned.

I want her to take it down as well, I think everyone does, but the longer she is attacked and gets the attention she wants then she will keep it up, that's all ive been trying to get people to realize.

Did you get one from me, avatar or Scooter saying you were about to get banned? We would be the only three that can make such a statement.

[Pale Rider]

Excuse me? Why in the fuck would you take it there? You had no right to say that at all. First of all I would and will never think about doing anything or be interested in someone is is less then three years younger then me, second of all she is not into guys and lastly I will stick up for a friend, even when they do something completly fucking stupid and Idiotic.

I also haven't been defending her, I have been saying that people are giving her what she wats, attention. I have said what she is doing is pissing me off and showing disrespect to other users here. I can't stand when someone does anything to our Flag. If you think that im not mad at her for it ask her about a couple of the conversations we have had. What ive been trying to get at is don't feed her attention whoring and she will stop, I can promise you that.

Just because I am not taking sides against her doesn't mean you have to attack me, Im not doing anything wrong.

Why would anyone want the kind of attention LN has gotten here? She knows that the vast majority of this board think she's a little ignorant, America hating, liberal, imbecile. But yet, you think this is "friend" material?

You need to search your soul nm. Who you THINK is your "friend", would throw your ass under the buss first chance she got.

[Mr. P]

Please show me where freedom of expression is covered. I think WAY too many people misinterpret what they read about "freedom of expression" as it solely discusses it in respect to religion.

I did that in post #152

[manu1959]

i like all the attempts at intimidation in this thread.... to bully people into agreeing with them....

it works so well....

[nevadamedic]

Why would anyone want the kind of attention LN has gotten here? She knows that the vast majority of this board think she's a little ignorant, America hating, liberal, imbecile. But yet, you think this is "friend" material?

You need to search your soul nm. Who you THINK is your "friend", would throw your ass under the buss first chance she got.

Obviously in her mind negative attention is better then no attention at all.

Well if she would throw me under the bus the first chance she could then that is her call and that is the type of person she is. However that is not the type of person I am, I have a lot more integrity then that and I will stand by someone until they do that to me. I genuinely care for other people no matter how fucked in the head they are. Even people who don't like me I still care for.

[Pale Rider]

i like all the attempts at intimidation in this thread.... to bully people into agreeing with them....

it works so well....

Don't bother with the inuendo... speak to us directly.

I have a problem with burning the American flag, and anyone else who would do it. If you don't, we don't agree, by a long shot. That can get ugly.

[nevadamedic]

i like all the attempts at intimidation in this thread.... to bully people into agreeing with them....

it works so well....

Noone will bully me into agreeing with them. I stand my ground period and if people don't like it they will have to deal with it.

[manu1959]

an old saying: i will rise my stick and the guilty will run

i didn't accuse any individual of anything ...... simply stated my observation .... seems that is not acceptable either

general opinion seems to be burning the american flag is wrong, nm said it was wrong ... i have said it was wrong.....yet it is legal .... thus the rub ....

and still there are implied and actual threats...

what i find really odd is that people let that get under their skin....

it is why people burn the flag....to piss you off

[Mr. P]

Don't bother with the inuendo... speak to us directly.

I have a problem with burning the American flag, and anyone else who would do it. If you don't, we don't agree, by a long shot. That can get ugly.

Pale, you know me fairly well I think. I also have a problem with someone burning the flag, BUT I don't have a problem with their right to do so.

[manu1959]

Pale, you know me fairly well I think. I also have a problem with someone burning the flag, BUT I don't have a problem with their right to do so.

well said.....and since they have a right to do so, unfortunatley, for some, that right should be respected and people should not try to intimidate them....and they should not try to intimidate those that point that out....

but i don't rise to bait......i just call em how i see em....

[Pale Rider]

an old saying: i will rise my stick and the guilty will run

i didn't accuse any individual of anything ...... simply stated my observation .... seems that is not acceptable either

general opinion seems to be burning the american flag is wrong, nm said it was wrong ... i have said it was wrong.....yet it is legal .... thus the rub ....

and still there are implied and actual threats...

what i find really odd is that people let that get under their skin....

it is why people burn the flag....to piss you off

I can name the issues I'm passionate about on one hand manu, and burning the American flag is one of them. I hate it, and if I see it being done, I'll be the guy you'll see on the six o'clock news bursting into the middle of the crowd doing it, punching, beating, kicking, stabbing, whomever I see is doing it. Take that to the bank. This is my country. I love it. That's my flag. I spent eight years in the military defending it, and am now a service connected disabled veteran with a Purple Heart from it. What on earth would give anyone the idea that I would quit defending my flag now?

And what are you exactly doing NOT capitalizing "America?" You making a statement doing that? Why did you do that?

[LiberalNation]

Oh yeah stab somebody and go to jail Pale, that's the spirit. Even your military wont approve of it and if you did it in the service you'd still be going to jail and kicked out.

[Pale Rider]

Pale, you know me fairly well I think. I also have a problem with someone burning the flag, BUT I don't have a problem with their right to do so.

As I stated MANY pages back, (you mustn't have read them all), the issue of this thread is NOT whether you have the right to burn an American flag or not. The issue in this thread is, DO YOU LIKE IT? Do you like seeing an American flag on fire? Do you think it's OK? If not, we agree. If you think it's all fine and dandy to burn American flags, than we disagree. Your "right" to do so is not the issue. Maybe another thread. Personally, I think it should be outlawed.

[Pale Rider]

Oh yeah stab somebody and go to jail Pale, that's the spirit. Even your military wont approve of it and if you did it in the service you'd still be going to jail and kicked out.

If there's more than one person that attacks me, it'll be self defense. Oh yes, I'll get off scott free.

[manu1959]

I can name the issues I'm passionate about on one hand manu, and burning the American flag is one of them. I hate it, and if I see it being done, I'll be the guy you'll see on the six o'clock news bursting into the middle of the crowd doing it, punching, beating, kicking, stabbing, whomever I see is doing it. Take that to the bank. This is my country. I love it. That's my flag. I spent eight years in the military defending it, and am now a service connected disabled veteran with a Purple Heart from it. What on earth would give anyone the idea that I would quit defending my flag now?

And what are you exactly doing NOT capitalizing "America?" You making a statement doing that? Why did you do that?

i don't capitalize anything ..... the people you have been attacking, with the exception of ln, have all said burning the flag is wrong .... unfortunately, it is legal to burn the flag ... in fact it is politcally correct ....

my point is, threating to beat the shit out of them probably won't convice them to stop ..... vield threats won't slow me down either ....

you have people questioning the decission of the current gov't .... my self included ..... some people become desperate and burn flags .... some people are just fuck wits and burn flags becasue it gets them off .... pretty fucking brave engaging in a legal activity ....

[Pale Rider]

i don't capitalize anything ..... the people you have been attacking, with the exception of ln, have all said burning the flag is wrong .... unfortunately, it is legal to burn the flag ... in fact it is politcally correct ....

my point is, threating to beat the shit out of them probably won't convice them to stop ..... vield threats won't slow me down either ....

you have people questioning the decission of the current gov't .... my self included ..... some people become desperate and burn flags .... some people are just fuck wits and burn flags because it gets them off .... pretty fucking brave engaging in a legal activity ....

No "veiled" threats coming from me. I either mean what I say, or I don't say it at all.

I would and will beat the shit out of anyone I see burning an American flag... period. Take that to the bank. My own safety is irrelevant. I'll fight until I either win or lose. But I "will" fight.

I'll also do my part in supporting legislation to amend the constitution to make it illegal.

[82Marine89]

Free speech is a constitutional right. Is flag burning covered under free speech well that's what the SC has said in the past. Is it in the constitution no, and going strictly by that is it a constitutional right, no but it is legal and a protected act in this country by law. I'm fine with that, I've never burned a flag but not going to say someone else can't. Their action of protest harms no one. It runs contrary to an idea a lot of Americans might hold but it doesn't hurt a thing. That's what free speech/expression is about.

Free speech is not a Constitutional right. All it says is the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your speech. I can tell you to shut the fuck up all day long. Any private business, to include websites, can dictate anything they want on their property. If the business doesn't like a phrase on your shirt and tells you to leave, you're gone. Free speech is not in the Constitution.

[82Marine89]

I want her to take it down as well, I think everyone does, but the longer she is attacked and gets the attention she wants then she will keep it up, that's all ive been trying to get people to realize.

Then why on page 1 did you defend it?

[manu1959]

Then why on page 1 did you defend it?

because she has the right to put it up until the owner of the site tells her to take it down.....or bans her....

[manu1959]

Free speech is not a Constitutional right. All it says is the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your speech. I can tell you to shut the fuck up all day long. Any private business, to include websites, can dictate anything they want on their property. If the business doesn't like a phrase on your shirt and tells you to leave, you're gone. Free speech is not in the Constitution.

sort of....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.

[Yurt]

Free speech is not a Constitutional right. All it says is the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your speech. I can tell you to shut the fuck up all day long. Any private business, to include websites, can dictate anything they want on their property. If the business doesn't like a phrase on your shirt and tells you to leave, you're gone. Free speech is not in the Constitution.

Are amendments part of the constitution?

[82Marine89]

Are amendments part of the constitution?

And your point is?

[nevadamedic]

i don't capitalize anything ..... the people you have been attacking, with the exception of ln, have all said burning the flag is wrong .... unfortunately, it is legal to burn the flag ... in fact it is politcally correct ....

my point is, threating to beat the shit out of them probably won't convice them to stop ..... vield threats won't slow me down either ....

you have people questioning the decission of the current gov't .... my self included ..... some people become desperate and burn flags .... some people are just fuck wits and burn flags becasue it gets them off .... pretty fucking brave engaging in a legal activity ....

Illegal's do it because they think the Wet Back flag should be our countries flag.

[nevadamedic]

Then why on page 1 did you defend it?

The hell I did.

[Abbey Marie]

Some thoughts:

1. No, the freedom to burn a flag (or anything remotely like it), much like the "right" to an abortion, is not in the Constitution. I believe it was the uber-liberal Warren court that interpreted the 1st amendment prohibition of laws restricting speech to include flag burning.

2. Congress has been overwhelmingly against the SC decision from the start:

"Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same in March 2000 when the vote fell four short of the required two-thirds majority. [1]. Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Flag Burning Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. In 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. In 2006, another attempt fell one vote short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

3. Having posted that, all of the above is irrelevant. This is a message board, a business owned by Jim, a "private community" of people, if you will. Not a court of law or a government agency. We do not need to live and die by what is protected speech. What is acceptable here, IMO, should have nothing to do with SC interpretations of the Constitution. It should do with (a) the board owner's ideas about how his board should be run; and if he so decides, (b) the standards of this community, such standards to be adjudged by the board owner.

In other words, as Pale said, the issue here isn't whether flag burning is protected; thanks to a small group of agenda-driven libs, it is. The issue is whether we want to see a representation of it shoved in our faces every day.

[82Marine89]

The hell I did.

Then explain this...


She's made it clear in several threads that she is only doing it because she knows it is pissing Pale off. It's just a damn picture, she said she doesn't endorse it. Granted it's the wring way to get attention, no need to make this big of a deal about it.

[nevadamedic]

Then explain this...

That's not saying I approve of it or endorse it.

[nevadamedic]

It's also not defending it.

[JohnDoe]

I can name the issues I'm passionate about on one hand manu, and burning the American flag is one of them. I hate it, and if I see it being done, I'll be the guy you'll see on the six o'clock news bursting into the middle of the crowd doing it, punching, beating, kicking, stabbing, whomever I see is doing it. Take that to the bank. This is my country. I love it. That's my flag. I spent eight years in the military defending it, and am now a service connected disabled veteran with a Purple Heart from it. What on earth would give anyone the idea that I would quit defending my flag now?

And what are you exactly doing NOT capitalizing "America?" You making a statement doing that? Why did you do that?


But Pale...You are really messed up on this....

YOU did not take an oath to defend the flag IF you were in the Military, at least not to my knowledge and I was reared by a Military Lifer and also I am married to a Vet....

you took an oath to defend the Constitution, NOT the Flag.

And that oath of defending the Constitution INCLUDES you DEFENDING Flag burning, which has been determined, as a First Amendment right.

So, YOU are breaking your vow that YOU took, when YOU entered the Military.

Please, reconsider your position, or you are breaking your vow, your sworn vow....that's pretty serious, in my book.

[actsnoblemartin]

I disagree completely.


There should be a third choice of... Hate it but understand it's a right to freedom of expression.

So what if it offends you or even myself. Get over it.

I will defend the right to freedom of expression even if I disagree with it.

[82Marine89]

But Pale...You are really messed up on this....

YOU did not take an oath to defend the flag IF you were in the Military, at least not to my knowledge and I was reared by a Military Lifer and also I am married to a Vet....

you took an oath to defend the Constitution, NOT the Flag.

And that oath of defending the Constitution INCLUDES you DEFENDING Flag burning, which has been determined, as a First Amendment right.

So, YOU are breaking your vow that YOU took, when YOU entered the Military.

Please, reconsider your position, or you are breaking your vow, your sworn vow....that's pretty serious, in my book.

I answered that on page 5.

[82Marine89]

It's also not defending it.

You said it was "just a picture" and there was "no need to make a big deal about it". It's just a picture of my flag being burned, so there is a need to make a big deal about it. Get bent you fucking cum guzzler.

[Sitarro]

I think it is quite a stretch to think that someone burning our nation's flag is doing it for any other reason than to piss people off. They aren't making a political statement, they are just being assholes with very little creativity.....been done before. How about the dipshits that spray painted the Capital steps? Was that free speech? There are limits to what qualifies as free speech.....watch "Scarface" on network TV and see how close to the original the dialogue is.

A white boy running into the Apollo theater yelling "nigger" probably will not come out the same way he went in and only a fool would think their Constitutional free speech rights would keep them safe. Anyone thinking that they are safe from getting their ass set on fire with the very same flag they have set on fire is just ignorant and naive. This is basically what we are dealing with hear. I have read enough from Miss LN to know that she is a very young, ignorant, naive little shit that doesn't have a clue about anything including sexual preference.

Hey LN, does the name Ann Heche ring a bell? Lesbianism doesn't cure a problem with a male authority figure from childhood.......Lesbians make some of the worst men on the planet.

And if you really want to set fire to something in protest, do what this clown did, set fire to yourself...... now that makes a statement everyone can understand.

[Pale Rider]

But Pale...You are really messed up on this....

YOU did not take an oath to defend the flag IF you were in the Military, at least not to my knowledge and I was reared by a Military Lifer and also I am married to a Vet....

you took an oath to defend the Constitution, NOT the Flag.

And that oath of defending the Constitution INCLUDES you DEFENDING Flag burning, which has been determined, as a First Amendment right.

So, YOU are breaking your vow that YOU took, when YOU entered the Military.

Please, reconsider your position, or you are breaking your vow, your sworn vow....that's pretty serious, in my book.

Bull - shit - sister.

I took an oath to defend "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," and the "symbol" of that great nation "is OUR FLAG."

Back in the early days of war in America they had men called "flag bearers." They carried not only their division flag, but the flag of the United States of America into battle. The men that followed the flag bearer vowed that if the flag bearer would fall, they would pick the flag up and carry it themselves until the last man. Can you understand that? "THE FLAG" was the most important thing to advance, until there was no man left standing.

I would do that. You obviously wouldn't. Hell, you don't even understand it.

[Pale Rider]

because she has the right to put it up until the owner of the site tells her to take it down.....or bans her....

This is the third time I've said this manu... "this isn't about whether it's her RIGHT, which it isn't anyway, it's about *DO YOU LIKE IT?*"

[Pale Rider]

Some thoughts:

1. No, the freedom to burn a flag (or anything remotely like it), much like the "right" to an abortion, is not in the Constitution. I believe it was the uber-liberal Warren court that interpreted the 1st amendment prohibition of laws restricting speech to include flag burning.

2. Congress has been overwhelmingly against the SC decision from the start:

"Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same in March 2000 when the vote fell four short of the required two-thirds majority. [1]. Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Flag Burning Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. In 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. In 2006, another attempt fell one vote short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

3. Having posted that, all of the above is irrelevant. This is a message board, a business owned by Jim, a "private community" of people, if you will. Not a court of law or a government agency. We do not need to live and die by what is protected speech. What is acceptable here, IMO, should have nothing to do with SC interpretations of the Constitution. It should do with (a) the board owner's ideas about how his board should be run; and if he so decides, (b) the standards of this community, such standards to be adjudged by the board owner.

In other words, as Pale said, the issue here isn't whether flag burning is protected; thanks to a small group of agenda-driven libs, it is. The issue is whether we want to see a representation of it shoved in our faces every day.

I hate it when this happens...


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Abbey again.

[nevadamedic]

You said it was "just a picture" and there was "no need to make a big deal about it". It's just a picture of my flag being burned, so there is a need to make a big deal about it. Get bent you fucking cum guzzler.

It is just a picture. If it was an actual flag being burned it would be a different story. I was trying to get people to realize she is only doing it for attention.

Alsi cum guzzler eh? I am flattered you share your fantasies with me, but I am not into that, sorry to dissapoint. Im sure you can find another guy to help you fulfill it.

[Pale Rider]

It is just a picture. If it was an actual flag being burned it would be a different story. I was trying to get people to realize she is only doing it for attention.

Alsi cum guzzler eh? I am flattered you share your fantasies with me, but I am not into that, sorry to dissapoint. Im sure you can find another guy to help you fulfill it.

What if it was "just a picture of your MOTHER getting her HEAD cut off?" Still just a picture? Uh huh... that one might disturb you aye?

Well "just a picture" of an American flag burning disturbs the shit out of me, because I put my life on the line for it for eight fucking years. I guess that's what you're missing about this whole thing. Evidently our flag just doesn't really mean much to you.

[Pale Rider]

You realize nm, that the majority of arguing in this thread has been YOU sticking up for LN. You'd rather side with a piece of shit little lezbo liberal, America hating BITCH that PROUDLY displays the desecration of the American flag, than with you're fellow conservative American patriots. Why is that?

I don't think Tom Tancredo would be very pleased with that info.

[JohnDoe]

Abbey, I disagree with you, and by your own post, it supports the FACT that flag burning is protected by the first amendment...it is ''saying'' something, which is ''up yours'' or ''f/u'' to the government....which is specifically covered and protected by the first amendment....THUS THE REASON, THERE IS A NEED TO AMEND the Constitution.

There would be no need to AMEND the Constitution to allow the gvt to ban flag burning, IF flag burning was not Constitutional, no?

[Pale Rider]

Abbey, I disagree with you, and by your own post, it supports the FACT that flag burning is protected by the first amendment...it is ''saying'' something, which is ''up yours'' or ''f/u'' to the government....which is specifically covered and protected by the first amendment....THUS THE REASON, THERE IS A NEED TO AMEND the Constitution.

There would be no need to AMEND the Constitution to allow the gvt to ban flag burning, IF flag burning was not Constitutional, no?

First of all, calmly, why don't you read the constitution, and then show us where it say's it's a protected "right" to burn an American flag.

And please don't tell me that "free speech" is what you're saying. Burning a flag is a "action." It can be done without uttering a word. That has NOTHING to do with "speech."

[actsnoblemartin]

Funny most right: love america
Most left: hate america


I don't approve of it

It is a sick way for the moonbat left to express their hate for America

[nevadamedic]

What if it was "just a picture of your MOTHER getting her HEAD cut off?" Still just a picture? Uh huh... that one might disturb you aye?

Well "just a picture" of an American flag burning disturbs the shit out of me, because I put my life on the line for it for eight fucking years. I guess that's what you're missing about this whole thing. Evidently our flag just doesn't really mean much to you.

It does mean a lot to me, and it does disturb me, but there is nothing I can do about it and there's no use picking a fight which will ultimatly prolong the amount of time that that picture is up there.

[nevadamedic]

You realize nm, that the majority of arguing in this thread has been YOU sticking up for LN. You'd rather side with a piece of shit little lezbo liberal, America hating BITCH that PROUDLY displays the desecration of the American flag, than with you're fellow conservative American patriots. Why is that?

I don't think Tom Tancredo would be very pleased with that info.

Im not defending her, I am just tired of people running in circles attacking. It is getting nowhere other then her keeping the picture up longer.

[JohnDoe]

Bull - shit - sister.

I took an oath to defend "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," and the "symbol" of that great nation "is OUR FLAG."

Back in the early days of war in America they had men called "flag bearers." They carried not only their division flag, but the flag of the United States of America into battle. The men that followed the flag bearer vowed that if the flag bearer would fall, they would pick the flag up and carry it themselves until the last man. Can you understand that? "THE FLAG" was the most important thing to advance, until there was no man left standing.

I would do that. You obviously wouldn't. Hell, you don't even understand it.

well, MAYBE brothah, you didn't serve in the Military for the united states of america as you say, because you don't even know what you took an oath to defend pale? how am i suppose to interpret that....8 years of you misunderstanding your own sworn oath? Or do you really believe you took an oath to defend our flag???

i don't KNOW WHY you do not know that you took an oath to defend the Constitution? PLEASE explain!!!


The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789. A change in about 1830 read: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." An act of 13 May 1884 reverted to a simpler formulation: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This version remained in effect until the 1959 adoption of the present wording.



Return to CMH Online
Last updated 27 July 2004

[Sitarro]

http://www.poofcat.com/july.html

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey, I disagree with you, and by your own post, it supports the FACT that flag burning is protected by the first amendment...it is ''saying'' something, which is ''up yours'' or ''f/u'' to the government....which is specifically covered and protected by the first amendment....THUS THE REASON, THERE IS A NEED TO AMEND the Constitution.

There would be no need to AMEND the Constitution to allow the gvt to ban flag burning, IF flag burning was not Constitutional, no?

I'm not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. I said, thanks to a few agenda-driven liberals on the SC, it is considered protected.

JD, it is really simple: the Constitution has X amount of words in it. The courts have been given the power to intepret (aka s-t-r-e-t-c-h) the meaning of those words as they see fit. If you can show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting flag burning, I'd like to see it. But I'll save you the trouble- it does not. It's called judicial interpretation, it's legal, it's more based on who happens to make up the court at any given time than the actual Constitution. And sometimes, like with this case, it sucks.

And that is why we now need an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. No FACTS involved, just 5 guys' chosen interpretation. Btw, if you study Con Law, you will see that many of these cases are backed into from the starting point of an agenda.

[Pale Rider]

well, MAYBE brothah, you didn't serve in the Military for the united states of america as you say, because you don't even know what you took an oath to defend pale? how am i suppose to interpret that....8 years of you misunderstanding your own sworn oath? Or do you really believe you took an oath to defend our flag???

i don't KNOW WHY you do not know that you took an oath to defend the Constitution? PLEASE explain!!!

Well... cherry... yes, I did spend eight years in the United States Air Force. I saw combat in Beirut, Lebanon in 1982. I was hit in the right lung with two small pieces of shrapnel from an RPG when it hit the ramp. I have posted many pictures of myself on here, both in civilian clothing and in uniform. I took the oath in October of 1979, and whether or not I remember it word for word makes absolutely no difference in the world to me when it comes to how I feel about some ASSHOLE that would burn the American flag.

[Pale Rider]

I knew that when I started this poll, that making it so that who voted and how would smoke out the true conservatives and patriots here. I stand by and will remember well those brave enough to vote. I will also remember those here that proclaim they're patriots, but when it came time to prove it, didn't have the nerve. Sad. Seven brave souls out of how many?

[red states rule]

Well... cherry... yes, I did spend eight years in the United States Air Force. I saw combat in Beirut, Lebanon in 1982. I was hit in the right lung with two small pieces of shrapnel from an RPG when it hit the ramp. I have posted many pictures of myself on here, both in civilian clothing and in uniform. I took the oath in October of 1979, and whether or not I remember it word for word makes absolutely no difference in the world to me when it comes to how I feel about some ASSHOLE that would burn the American flag.

and thank you for your service

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. I said, thanks to a few agenda-driven liberals on the SC, it is considered protected.

JD, it is really simple: the Constitution has X amount of words in it. The courts have been given the power to intepret (aka s-t-r-e-t-c-h) the meaning of those words as they see fit. If you can show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting flag burning, I'd like to see it. But I'll save you the trouble- it does not. It's called judicial interpretation, it's legal, it's more based on who happens to make up the court at any given time than the actual Constitution. And sometimes, like with this case, it sucks.

And that is why we now need an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. No FACTS involved, just 5 guys' chosen interpretation. Btw, if you study Con Law, you will see that many of these cases are backed into from the starting point of an agenda.

Thank you, Counselor! My wife studied Constitutional Law at both Virginia Tech and NYU and we've discussed this many times. I also belong to a few legal forums with some of the best attorneys throughout the US and it's also been discussed many times. I'm not sure why it takes an attorney to explain the difference between what's actually written in the constitution and what the courts interpret the words to mean, but you know a handful will still proclaim you wrong anyway.

So like I said, the burning of the US Flag is backed up by "judicial interpretation" by the SC which went against the law passed. But it still just not a "constitutional right" as many would love to believe.

[red states rule]

Thank you, Counselor! My wife studied Constitutional Law at both Virginia Tech and NYU and we've discussed this many times. I also belong to a few legal forums with some of the best attorneys throughout the US and it's also been discussed many times. I'm not sure why it takes an attorney to explain the difference between what's actually written in the constitution and what the courts interpret the words to mean, but you know a handful will still proclaim you wrong anyway.

So like I said, the burning of the US Flag is backed up by "judicial interpretation" by the SC which went against the law passed. But it still just not a "constitutional right" as many would love to believe.

It is a disgusting act - period

[jimnyc]

It is a disgusting act - period

No doubt! But sadly, even some would disagree with that. :(

[red states rule]

No doubt! But sadly, even some would disagree with that. :(

Yea, those that claim they love Amercia

Liberal logic?

[diuretic]

No, if you accept that humans have a right to freedom of expression then you have to accept that there will be some uses of that freedom that you disagree with. There are reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, it's not an absolute, but hurt feelings aren't a good reason to restrict someone's natural right to that freedom of expression.

[red states rule]

No, if you accept that humans have a right to freedom of expression then you have to accept that there will be some uses of that freedom that you disagree with. There are reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, it's not an absolute, but hurt feelings aren't a good reason to restrict someone's natural right to that freedom of expression.

There are other ways they can "express their disagreement"

Like moving to Canada

[diuretic]

They can do that but they're subject to Canada accepting them of course. But they're not forced to move to Canada, that's the point. They can express themselves within the law and be sure they won't be molested - whether by the state or any individual - for exercising a basic human right.

[red states rule]

They can do that but they're subject to Canada accepting them of course. But they're not forced to move to Canada, that's the point. They can express themselves within the law and be sure they won't be molested - whether by the state or any individual - for exercising a basic human right.

It is happening - but not fast enough

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5820

[JohnDoe]

I'm not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. I said, thanks to a few agenda-driven liberals on the SC, it is considered protected.

JD, it is really simple: the Constitution has X amount of words in it. The courts have been given the power to intepret (aka s-t-r-e-t-c-h) the meaning of those words as they see fit. If you can show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting flag burning, I'd like to see it. But I'll save you the trouble- it does not. It's called judicial interpretation, it's legal, it's more based on who happens to make up the court at any given time than the actual Constitution. And sometimes, like with this case, it sucks.

And that is why we now need an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. No FACTS involved, just 5 guys' chosen interpretation. Btw, if you study Con Law, you will see that many of these cases are backed into from the starting point of an agenda.


Good Morning Abbey!

Well, the Supreme court justices, ARE part of the constitution and are delegated the Power they have....they are the 3rd branch of our government. So, I don't really agree with this conservative movement to bash the Justices and their opinions continully that seems to be going on....and the newer movement of the Dems to bash them....I think it spits on our constitution and the importance of this 3rd branch of government.

Do I disagree with their conclusions and rulings occaisionally just as you do? Of course I do...but I recognize that what they rule on the Constitutionality or on the rule of law, I have to accept this. If there is a supreme court Justice that is not doing their job and blatently disregarding the Constitution, then impeachment is in order for this Justice and provided by the Constitution as a means to get rid of them.

Justices are there to interpret whether actions or laws are within the Constitution, THIS IS their job, provided by the Constitution?

What is not listed as a power for our government is delegated to the states or to the people.... and what is not listed as a right for the people is still the people's right and in NO WAY prevents the people from having that right.

The First Amendment does not list the specific scenarios of where it protects us....that would take a million pages to write all those things down....and still some would be missed, I would bet....but they cover general ideals....the right to speak out AGAINST YOUR GVT without any gvt interference, is a first amendment RIGHT for all people.

Giving your govt the FINGER in public is protected by the first amendment.....no one is speaking out loud with this gesture, but they are speaking NONE THE LESS.

So, I don't understand your sentiment that the Supreme Courts over the years has made the wrong decision, on saying that flag burning IS COVERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

Wouldn't you be flagrantly ignoring the Constitution and what it tells us, to imply the Supremes went off the deep end and were writing Law THEMSELVES, not interpreting it?

Maybe I am misunderstanding? Maybe this is another, new debate, altogether...on the supremes? :)

jd

[red states rule]

Good Morning Abbey!

Well, the Supreme court justices, ARE part of the constitution and are delegated the Power they have....they are the 3rd branch of our government. So, I don't really agree with this conservative movement to bash the Justices and their opinions continully that seems to be going on....and the newer movement of the Dems to bash them....I think it spits on our constitution and the importance of this 3rd branch of government.

Do I disagree with their conclusions and rulings occaisionally just as you do? Of course I do...but I recognize that what they rule on the Constitutionality or on the rule of law, I have to accept this. If there is a supreme court Justice that is not doing their job and blatently disregarding the Constitution, then impeachment is in order for this Justice and provided by the Constitution as a means to get rid of them.

Justices are there to interpret whether actions or laws are within the Constitution, THIS IS their job, provided by the Constitution?

What is not listed as a power for our government is delegated to the states or to the people.... and what is not listed as a right for the people is still the people's right and in NO WAY prevents the people from having that right.

The First Amendment does not list the specific scenarios of where it protects us....that would take a million pages to write all those things down....and still some would be missed, I would bet....but they cover general ideals....the right to speak out AGAINST YOUR GVT without any gvt interference, is a first amendment RIGHT for all people.

Giving your govt the FINGER in public is protected by the first amendment.....no one is speaking out loud with this gesture, but they are speaking NONE THE LESS.

So, I don't understand your sentiment that the Supreme Courts over the years has made the wrong decision, on saying that flag burning IS COVERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT????

Wouldn't you be flagrantly ignoring the Constitution and what it tells us, to imply the Supremes went off the deep end and were writing Law THEMSELVES, not interpreting it?

Maybe I am misunderstanding? Maybe this is another, new debate, altogether...on the supremes? :)

jd



Good morning

I will never understand why people who claim to love Amercia wil burn her flag

[JohnDoe]

I answered that on page 5.page 5? answer? hahaha....shoot, must have missed it, I will go look! :)

[JohnDoe]

Good morning

I will never understand why people who claim to love Amercia wil burn her flag

Good morning RSR!!!

I would NEVER do such a thing, it would be saying, f/u to America imo!!!! And believe me, I understand how Pale feels so strongly about this...!!!

But I will defend another's right to say such, because I believe that such right is a Constitutional right via the First Amendment, to be able to speak out against ones gvt without government interference.


And in truth rsr, I seriously doubt the person doing it is in the "love stage" with America, they are saying they are pissed with their country, may even hate what their gvt is doing, not in love with it....but this is still within their rights to do....

[red states rule]

Good morning RSR!!!

I would NEVER do such a thing, it would be saying, f/u to America imo!!!! And believe me, I understand how Pale feels so strongly about this...!!!

But I will defend another's right to say such, because I believe that such right is a Constitutional right via the First Amendment, to be able to speak out against ones gvt without government interference.


And in truth rsr, I seriously doubt the person doing it is in the "love stage" with America, they are saying they are pissed with their country, may even hate what their gvt is doing, not in love with it....but this is still within their rights to do....

Libs (not you of course) have no problem with someone expressing their anger by buring the US flag - but have a cow when a kid wears a Cross to school to show their love for God

[diuretic]

Libs (not you of course) have no problem with someone expressing their anger by buring the US flag - but have a cow when a kid wears a Cross to school to show their love for God

But those aren't analogous. I think wearing the cross to school is a violation of another principle isn't it? Personally I don't see a big problem with anyone wearing a cross/crucifix/yarmulka/headscarf or whatever to school or anywhere else for that matter. But apparently it's a problem in the US.

[red states rule]

But those aren't analogous. I think wearing the cross to school is a violation of another principle isn't it? Personally I don't see a big problem with anyone wearing a cross/crucifix/yarmulka/headscarf or whatever to school or anywhere else for that matter. But apparently it's a problem in the US.

It is a pronlem to the kook left, and sometimes to the ACLU

[JohnDoe]

It is a pronlem to the kook left, and sometimes to the ACLUThe First Amendment, protects the right to be able to wear a Cross or any religious symbol in the Public, on Public grounds, in the Public square.... The gvt can NOT interfere with this kind of expression..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....."

I do remember that there might have been a case where an employee of a private Company might have been told not to wear their cross at work which might have been brought up to litigation....?

[red states rule]

The First Amendment, protects the right to be able to wear a Cross or any religious symbol in the Public, on Public grounds, in the Public square.... The gvt can NOT interfere with this kind of expression..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....."

I do remember that there might have been a case where an employee of a private Company might have been told not to wear their cross at work which might have been brought up to litigation....?

Where I work you can't put up a small Christmas tree in your cube - you mihjt offend someone

[Nukeman]

The First Amendment, protects the right to be able to wear a Cross or any religious symbol in the Public, on Public grounds, in the Public square.... The gvt can NOT interfere with this kind of expression..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....."

I do remember that there might have been a case where an employee of a private Company might have been told not to wear their cross at work which might have been brought up to litigation....?Than please explain to me the prevelance in our PUBLIC school system prohibiting the EXERCISE, EXPRESION of the Christian faith at the Christmas programs, or the prohibiting of Christian based programs after school or even going so far as to tell children they cant write essays or give speaches on the Bible....

Seems to me they (the Government adn ACLU) do a pretty good job of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Of course this is just my personal observations thru the current media.....


Sorry to take this off topic Pale..... But I wnated to answer this....

[red states rule]

Than please explain to me the prevelance in our PUBLIC school system prohibiting the EXERCISE, EXPRESION of the Christian faith at the Christmas programs, or the prohibiting of Christian based programs after school or even going so far as to tell children they cant write essays or give speaches on the Bible....

Seems to me they (the Government adn ACLU) do a pretty good job of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Of course this is just my personal observations thru the current media.....


Sorry to take this off topic Pale..... But I wnated to answer this....

Because libs say so

[Trinity]

I expect this thread just guaranteed another month of looking at her avatar.....

Yep I believe you just hit the nail on the head!

[red states rule]

Yep I believe you just hit the nail on the head!

Unintended consequences

[LiberalNation]

Too early. School should start later but back on subject. How about an auction. I'll take down the avatar for x dollars. Start the bets.

On another note, just had to stand and say the pledge. Our loudspeaker and principle are a disgrace to our flag with the haulting speech and so so on. Not to mention the little flag in this room is hanging lopsided on the wall and all crinkled up.

[JohnDoe]

Than please explain to me the prevelance in our PUBLIC school system prohibiting the EXERCISE, EXPRESION of the Christian faith at the Christmas programs, or the prohibiting of Christian based programs after school or even going so far as to tell children they cant write essays or give speaches on the Bible....

Seems to me they (the Government adn ACLU) do a pretty good job of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Of course this is just my personal observations thru the current media.....


Sorry to take this off topic Pale..... But I wnated to answer this....I agree with you...and I can not explain it.

Other than, using gvt money to put on this Christmas Party would be prohibited perhaps, based on the First? Because the gvt can not support a religious establishment...one over another, again, perhaps? And if money is the issue, tax monies, then private funds can be used imo....and let the Party begin....

As far as Speeches, if a Public University, I believe the gvt has no power to prevent someone from presenting a speech that gives personal acknowledgement to God....They do not have the power to prevent such from occurring, according to the First, imo....and covered protection by the First, for free speech and for freedom of religion reasons.

The ACLU is wrong on this issue in many ways, imho.

[red states rule]

I agree with you...and I can not explain it.

Other than, using gvt money to put on this Christmas Party would be prohibited perhaps, based on the First? Because the gvt can not support a religious establishment...one over another, again, perhaps? And if money is the issue, tax monies, then private funds can be used imo....and let the Party begin....

As far as Speeches, if a Public University, I believe the gvt has no power to prevent someone from presenting a speech that gives personal acknowledgement to God....They do not have the power to prevent such from occurring, according to the First, imo....and covered protection by the First, for free speech and for freedom of religion reasons.

The ACLU is wrong on this issue in many ways, imho.



In a few months, the ACLU's (and the kook left's) War on Christmas will begin again

[82Marine89]

Flag Folding Ceremony

The flag folding ceremony represents the same religious principles on which our country was originally founded. The portion of the flag denoting honor is the canton of blue containing the stars representing the states our veterans served in uniform. The canton field of blue dresses from left to right and is inverted when draped as a pall on a casket of a veteran who has served our country in uniform.

In the Armed Forces of the United States, at the ceremony of retreat the flag is lowered, folded in a triangle fold and kept under watch throughout the night as a tribute to our nation's honored dead. The next morning it is brought out and, at the ceremony of reveille, run aloft as a symbol of our belief in the resurrection of the body.

(Wait for the Honor Guard or Flag Detail to unravel and fold the flag into a quarter fold--resume reading when Honor Guard is standing ready.)

1. The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.

2. The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.

3. The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.

4. The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.

5. The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, "Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong."

6. The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

7. The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.

8. The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother's Day.

9. The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.

10. The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.

11. The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

12. The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.

When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, "In God we Trust."

(Wait for the Honor Guard or Flag Detail to inspect the flag--after the inspection, resume reading.)

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington and the sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for us the rights, privileges, and freedoms we enjoy today.

LINK (http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/folds.htm)

[JohnDoe]

Flag Folding Ceremony

The flag folding ceremony represents the same religious principles on which our country was originally founded. The portion of the flag denoting honor is the canton of blue containing the stars representing the states our veterans served in uniform. The canton field of blue dresses from left to right and is inverted when draped as a pall on a casket of a veteran who has served our country in uniform.

In the Armed Forces of the United States, at the ceremony of retreat the flag is lowered, folded in a triangle fold and kept under watch throughout the night as a tribute to our nation's honored dead. The next morning it is brought out and, at the ceremony of reveille, run aloft as a symbol of our belief in the resurrection of the body.

(Wait for the Honor Guard or Flag Detail to unravel and fold the flag into a quarter fold--resume reading when Honor Guard is standing ready.)

1. The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.

2. The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.

3. The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.

4. The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.

5. The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, "Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong."

6. The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

7. The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.

8. The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother's Day.

9. The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.

10. The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.

11. The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

12. The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.

When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, "In God we Trust."

(Wait for the Honor Guard or Flag Detail to inspect the flag--after the inspection, resume reading.)

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington and the sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for us the rights, privileges, and freedoms we enjoy today.

LINK (http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/folds.htm)

Wow! As a layman, I did not know, what you just printed! Thank you for posting it!

It makes much more sense to me now, why those that served feel so strongly about the American Flag.

I don't think many Americans know this ceremony and its meaning either!

It adds a new meaning to Flag burning, that I was unaware of...

again, ty.

[Abbey Marie]

Good Morning Abbey!

Well, the Supreme court justices, ARE part of the constitution and are delegated the Power they have....they are the 3rd branch of our government. So, I don't really agree with this conservative movement to bash the Justices and their opinions continully that seems to be going on....and the newer movement of the Dems to bash them....I think it spits on our constitution and the importance of this 3rd branch of government.
...

jd

I must ask, since the President is also the head of a branch of our government, do you disagree with the continual attempts by Dems to bash him? Does that not spit on our Constitution and the importance of the Executive branch of our government, the leader of our country and armed services??

I am much more concerned about a simple majority of 5 political appointees overriding the expressed will of the people. At least the President is checked by Congress, and both branches are elected and can be voted out. The Supremes have a lot of power, are virtually unchecked, and are there for life.

Anyway, as I said earlier, while this is an interesting discussion, none of it is really the issue in this thread. This is a privately-owned message board, not a government agency, not a street protest. We can curtail speech all we want. The real question (and Pale's point) is, why do people want to allow such an offensive symbol on the board? I surely hope people don't think they are somehow "saving" free speech rights by championing LN's 2" flag avatar on a message board.

Directed at no one in particular, here is one representation of why the flag means so much:

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/10/images/flags_fathers_01_000.jpg

[Pale Rider]

No, if you accept that humans have a right to freedom of expression then you have to accept that there will be some uses of that freedom that you disagree with. There are reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, it's not an absolute, but hurt feelings aren't a good reason to restrict someone's natural right to that freedom of expression.

What if my favorite way to express myself was to PEE on you? Should I be allowed to do that? No, I shouldn't. It's disgusting and out of bounds. But however disgusting and out of bounds that is, it's still not as disgusting and out of bounds as burning your nations flag.

You see, "expression," like EVERYTHING ELSE IN LIFE, has it's limits. You liberals that have no moral compass seem almost incapable of understanding that.

[Pale Rider]

Giving your govt the FINGER in public is protected by the first amendment.....no one is speaking out loud with this gesture, but they are speaking NONE THE LESS.

I invite you to go out and find, ANY COP, ANYWHERE, and walk up to him/her, and give them the FINGER right in their FACE.

You can get back us AFTER you get out of jail.

[Pale Rider]

Too early. School should start later but back on subject. How about an auction. I'll take down the avatar for x dollars. Start the bets.
On another note, just had to stand and say the pledge. Our loudspeaker and principle are a disgrace to our flag with the haulting speech and so so on. Not to mention the little flag in this room is hanging lopsided on the wall and all crinkled up.

Notice how no one is responding to you? Know why? Because you make the majority of people here sick with your America hating bullshit and liberal shananigans.

And now, it's time for ME to put you on ignore as well. You make me sick.

[diuretic]

What if my favorite way to express myself was to PEE on you? Should I be allowed to do that? No, I shouldn't. It's disgusting and out of bounds. But however disgusting and out of bounds that is, it's still not as disgusting and out of bounds as burning your nations flag.

You see, "expression," like EVERYTHING ELSE IN LIFE, has it's limits. You liberals that have no moral compass seem almost incapable of understanding that.

Peeing on me is an assault and prima facie illegal. Burning a flag isn't analogous.

I already made the point that freedom of expression isn't an absolute. Setting the bounds requires a fine judgement.

[Pale Rider]

Peeing on me is an assault and prima facie illegal. Burning a flag isn't analogous.

I already made the point that freedom of expression isn't an absolute. Setting the bounds requires a fine judgement.

Peeing on you is in no way causing you harm... "I'm just EXPRESSING myself." You are in no way being assulted.

You're splitting hairs a little too fine in your favor down under. It doesn't work that way. If you want cart blanche expression, then I should be permitted to do that. Otherwise, you're making my point. If it's offensive, it shouldn't be allowed. Burning my flag is the ULTIMATE form of offensive, so why should allow it?

[PostmodernProphet]

What if my favorite way to express myself was to PEE on you?

seems to work if you are a crucifix......

[Pale Rider]

OK Hagbard Celine... we see that you voted that "you love her avatar, and want her to keep it up."

Mind explaining why it is you love to see the American flag burning, or are you just going to vote that way out of spite, and pussy out of trying to explain it?

[PostmodernProphet]

Peeing on you is in no way causing you harm... "I'm just EXPRESSING myself." You are in no way being assulted.

You're splitting hairs a little too fine in your favor down under. It doesn't work that way. If you want cart blanche expression, then I should be permitted to do that. Otherwise, you're making my point. If it's offensive, it shouldn't be allowed. Burning my flag is the ULTIMATE form of offensive, so why should allow it?

your analogy doesn't quite cut it....I am pretty sure if you set fire to someone HOLDING a flag, they are going to prosecute you.......

[JohnDoe]

I invite you to go out and find, ANY COP, ANYWHERE, and walk up to him/her, and give them the FINGER right in their FACE.

You can get back us AFTER you get out of jail.wwell, you can bet your bottom dollar, that if i flipped a cop the finger, (which i would never do but for the sake of the argument) and he so much as touched me to harm me, i will will go to the ends of the earth to make sure he is imprisoned for HIS CRIME, and if i had to spend my last dollar for true justice, to put him behind bars, i would....

sooooo, cops don't scare me, they are citizens just as i am, they have no more rights than i do, and when they are criminals via an assault, they are worse than the rest...because they would also be hypocrites.

[PostmodernProphet]

hey, LN...I will give you all kinds of ex-dollars if you take down your avatar......none of the current ones, of course......

[diuretic]

Peeing on you is in no way causing you harm... "I'm just EXPRESSING myself." You are in no way being assulted.

You're splitting hairs a little too fine in your favor down under. It doesn't work that way. If you want cart blanche expression, then I should be permitted to do that. Otherwise, you're making my point. If it's offensive, it shouldn't be allowed. Burning my flag is the ULTIMATE form of offensive, so why should allow it?

No, it's an assault at both criminal and civil law and as such it's not protected expression, that's hardly splitting hairs.

I didn't mention anything about carte blanche expression. I distinctly pointed out that freedom of expression isn't an absolute. If it was there would be no laws concerning, among other things, libel.

As for being offended - that's just one of those circumstances where, if someone's lawful exercise of their right to freedom of expression offends someone then that's too bad. The right to freely express oneself within the law defeats the right of someone else not to be offended. As the courts might say, you can always look away if you find it offensive, then not seeing it, you're no longer offended.

[Sitarro]

OK Hagbard Celine... we see that you voted that "you love her avatar, and want her to keep it up."

Mind explaining why it is you love to see the American flag burning, or are you just going to vote that way out of spite, and pussy out of trying to explain it?

She's sticking up for her fellow lesbian on the board...... it's cute but doubtful that it will help her score an underage girl(the dream of most lesbians).

[diuretic]

wwell, you can bet your bottom dollar, that if i flipped a cop the finger, (which i would never do but for the sake of the argument) and he so much as touched me to harm me, i will will go to the ends of the earth to make sure he is imprisoned for HIS CRIME, and if i had to spend my last dollar for true justice, to put him behind bars, i would....

sooooo, cops don't scare me, they are citizens just as i am, they have no more rights than i do, and when they are criminals via an assault, they are worse than the rest...because they would also be hypocrites.

If the behaviour amounted to a criminal offence (eg disorderly conduct) then you'd be arrested (although I have to ask myself why a cop would bother). But you're quite correct that cops have no more rights than any other citizen. In fact in many instances they have less. For example, the threshold for being offensive towards a cop is less in some jurisdictions than that for a non-cop. Cops are supposed to be thick-skinned.

[JohnDoe]

i can't even see her avatar, i have preferences set up so that i don't view the icons...

i am not debating what jim decides to do with her or her signature....this is a private business, not the gvt, it is up to him.

i have been debating flag burning, and whether it is constitutional, and the meaning of it....of those that burn it, and those that defend it.

[Pale Rider]

wwell, you can bet your bottom dollar, that if i flipped a cop the finger, (which i would never do but for the sake of the argument) and he so much as touched me to harm me, i will will go to the ends of the earth to make sure he is imprisoned for HIS CRIME, and if i had to spend my last dollar for true justice, to put him behind bars, i would....

sooooo, cops don't scare me, they are citizens just as i am, they have no more rights than i do, and when they are criminals via an assault, they are worse than the rest...because they would also be hypocrites.

Well if you think it's legal, then go for it. You're back peddling.

[Pale Rider]

No, it's an assault at both criminal and civil law and as such it's not protected expression, that's hardly splitting hairs.

I didn't mention anything about carte blanche expression. I distinctly pointed out that freedom of expression isn't an absolute. If it was there would be no laws concerning, among other things, libel.

As for being offended - that's just one of those circumstances where, if someone's lawful exercise of their right to freedom of expression offends someone then that's too bad. The right to freely express oneself within the law defeats the right of someone else not to be offended. As the courts might say, you can always look away if you find it offensive, then not seeing it, you're no longer offended.

No.. it's not "assault." Not here in America anyway. You keep trying to impose your aussie laws on us here. Ain't working.

What it boils down to is, there SHOULD be a law against burning the American flag.

[Pale Rider]

i can't even see her avatar, i have preferences set up so that i don't view the icons...

i am not debating what jim decides to do with her or her signature....this is a private business, not the gvt, it is up to him.

i have been debating flag burning, and whether it is constitutional, and the meaning of it....of those that burn it, and those that defend it.

And the constitutionality of burning the flag was never the purpose of this thread.

The object of this thread was to find out who likes to see the American flag burnt and who doesn't.

[Pale Rider]

She's sticking up for her fellow lesbian on the board...... it's cute but doubtful that it will help her score an underage girl(the dream of most lesbians).

Sitarro... Hagbard is a guy.

[Sitarro]

We have the most beautiful flag on the planet........ It deserves the utmost respect for what it represents. The brave men and women who sacrificed themselves for what it stands for, the millions that have seen it leading the charge to save their lives across the world, the flawless beauty of it's design, the greatness it has flown over.

Our flag is on the moon, the North Pole, Mt. Everest, on the side of the finest aircraft ever designed by man, flying above the mightiest ships, on the shoulders of our greatest heroes, on the coffins of our dead and flying above our Capital........ it shouldn't be used in a lame ass attempt of protest.


If you can look at it and not swell with pride in it's majesty and not form a tear in your eyes for the millions who fought under her...... you just aren't a real American....... it's just that simple. It Is NOT just a piece of cloth!:salute:

[Sitarro]

Sitarro... Hagbard is a guy.

Have you seen Celine's photo??:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: I'm giving him shit, I know he's a guy.

[JohnDoe]

And the constitutionality of burning the flag was never the purpose of this thread.

The object of this thread was to find out who likes to see the American flag burnt and who doesn't.


well DAMN, i just wasted about a hundred posts!!!! hahaha! Sorry!!!

But i did learn alot, so not all is wasted, i guess?

maybe i should vote now? lol

[diuretic]

No.. it's not "assault." Not here in America anyway. You keep trying to impose your aussie laws on us here. Ain't working.

What it boils down to is, there SHOULD be a law against burning the American flag.

Which state in the US would you like to ground your argument that peeing on someone isn't an assault at criminal law and an assault/battery at civil law? Get back to me on that one and I'll see if I'm up to the challenge.

It's fine that you believe there should be a law against it, not arguing that. But that law, if it was enacted, would still bump up against the previous decision of the US Sup Ct. Given the precedent it would likely be struck down as unconstitutional, breaching the First Amendment.

[JohnDoe]

Well if you think it's legal, then go for it. You're back peddling.


flipping the finger at a cop IS LEGAL, as far as i am aware, are you saying it is not pale?

[diuretic]

flipping the finger at a cop IS LEGAL, as far as i am aware, are you saying it is not pale?

I wouldn't try it if I were you because in some states it may be construed as disorderly behaviour/conduct, just depends on the circumstances. It might earn you a burst of oc spray too :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Which state in the US would you like to ground your argument that peeing on someone isn't an assault at criminal law and an assault/battery at civil law? Get back to me on that one and I'll see if I'm up to the challenge.

It's fine that you believe there should be a law against it, not arguing that. But that law, if it was enacted, would still bump up against the previous decision of the US Sup Ct. Given the precedent it would likely be struck down as unconstitutional, breaching the First Amendment.

it IS AN ASSAULT in the terms described....it is illegal, in all states, you are correct.

[dan]

I've seen people flip off cops before. Nothing happened to them, but that doesn't mean that it never will. Fact is, you piss off the wrong cop, he'll be able to find something to arrest you and/or kick your ass over.

[JohnDoe]

I wouldn't try it if I were you because in some states it may be construed as disorderly behaviour/conduct, just depends on the circumstances. It might earn you a burst of oc spray too :laugh2:i would never do it!!!!

however, a mere flip of the finger towards a cop, would not be disorderly behavior....i would be SHOCKED if it were....might even change my tune and do it, just to get something like that to the supreme court! :finger3:

:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

flipping the finger at a cop IS LEGAL, as far as i am aware, are you saying it is not pale?Legal but stupid. Kind of like giving a lot of lip when stopped for speeding. Reasonable behavior may get you off with a warning, unreasonable may cause more problems.

[diuretic]

Legal but stupid. Kind of like giving a lot of lip when stopped for speeding. Reasonable behavior may get you off with a warning, unreasonable may cause more problems.

Bingo! Lip will get you a full vehicle examination :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Legal but stupid. Kind of like giving a lot of lip when stopped for speeding. Reasonable behavior may get you off with a warning, unreasonable may cause more problems.

your logic is sound, i am not disagreeing!! lol.... oh boy!

[nevadamedic]

I invite you to go out and find, ANY COP, ANYWHERE, and walk up to him/her, and give them the FINGER right in their FACE.

You can get back us AFTER you get out of jail.

I can confirm that one. When my frother was a State Trooper he wen't up to a car he pulled over asked for License, Insurance and Registration, the driver flipped him the bird and said fuck you pig. Needless to say they guy was on the ground cuffed in a matter of seconds. My brother said the guy accidently tripped a couple times on the way back to the Partol Car. :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

OK Hagbard Celine... we see that you voted that "you love her avatar, and want her to keep it up."

Mind explaining why it is you love to see the American flag burning, or are you just going to vote that way out of spite, and pussy out of trying to explain it?

Well he just found out her age in another thread and is obviously interested by what he was saying about turning her straight.

[diuretic]

I can confirm that one. When my frother was a State Trooper he wen't up to a car he pulled over asked for License, Insurance and Registration, the driver flipped him the bird and said fuck you pig. Needless to say they guy was on the ground cuffed in a matter of seconds. My brother said the guy accidently tripped a couple times on the way back to the Partol Car. :laugh2:

"Failed to comply with a reasonable direction". People who get smart in cars don't realise they're on very shaky ground. :coffee:

[nevadamedic]

flipping the finger at a cop IS LEGAL, as far as i am aware, are you saying it is not pale?

No it's not, it will get you an obstruction charge and an ass kicking, then they say it's resisting arrest.

[nevadamedic]

"Failed to comply with a reasonable direction". People who get smart in cars don't realise they're on very shaky ground. :coffee:

Actually if they really wanted to they can get you for obstructing on officer.

[diuretic]

No it's not, it will get you an obstruction charge and an ass kicking, then they say it's resisting arrest.

Could be difficult. For an obstruction (we call it "hinder") there may need to be proof of a specific duty.

[nevadamedic]

Sitarro... Hagbard is a guy.

Pale, here is Hag's own words on Trinitys Feeding the Fire thread.....
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5920

Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
17 huh? Are there any pics of LN?

Originally Posted by nevadamedic
Yup, but your barking up the wrong tree. She isn't into guys.

Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
Hey, according to you guyz, it's a choice, so I'd probably be able to convince her otherwise.

The guy is a pedophile, isnt he like 25? That is just sick on many levels.

[nevadamedic]

Could be difficult. For an obstruction (we call it "hinder") there may need to be proof of a specific duty.

Keeping a Police Officer from doing his duties is considered obstruction. What do you think happens when someone distracts him/her by giving him/her the one finger salute? Especially if he has to stop to have a little talk with them.

[OCA]

Pale, here is Hag's own words on Trinitys Feeding the Fire thread.....
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5920

Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
17 huh? Are there any pics of LN?

Originally Posted by nevadamedic
Yup, but your barking up the wrong tree. She isn't into guys.

Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
Hey, according to you guyz, it's a choice, so I'd probably be able to convince her otherwise.

The guy is a pedophile, isnt he like 25? That is just sick on many levels.

I was thinking the same thing about you when you called her "a friend".....sick fuck.

[diuretic]

Keeping a Police Officer from doing his duties is considered obstruction. What do you think happens when someone distracts him/her by giving him/her the one finger salute? Especially if he has to stop to have a little talk with them.

If you could get that to stick as an obstruction charge then you live in a police state. Get out now while you still can :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

Pale, here is Hag's own words on Trinitys Feeding the Fire thread.....
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5920

Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
17 huh? Are there any pics of LN?

Originally Posted by nevadamedic
Yup, but your barking up the wrong tree. She isn't into guys.

Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
Hey, according to you guyz, it's a choice, so I'd probably be able to convince her otherwise.

The guy is a pedophile, isnt he like 25? That is just sick on many levels.
I'll soon be 18 and am already legal in my state, so no that's not a pedophile. Turning strait that's interesting. I was actually interested in a guy over the summer but back to school I have again changed back to my orginal opinion. Too bad the girl I'd love to date already has a girlfriend and is off limits.

[theHawk]

I've always been curious to know how or why burning the flag is considered "Freedom of Expression." If you have something to say about our flag or country, nothing is stopping you from saying it or writing it. Being prevented from burning the flag doesn't prevent you from sending any type of message you want. It seems to me that its just a ploy used by people who are too dumb to articulate their message. Besides, isn't it a public danger to light fires and burn objects in public? If we can burn flags I'd like to burn a billboard with Hitlery's picture on it, but I can't. Isn't my "Freedom of expression" being infringed upon?

[JohnDoe]

I must ask, since the President is also the head of a branch of our government, do you disagree with the continual attempts by Dems to bash him? Does that not spit on our Constitution and the importance of the Executive branch of our government, the leader of our country and armed services??

I hate it, and I hated it when it happened to Clinton too. I can understand it with the position of President, when the President himself and his vice President continually use their positions to bash Democrats, and take political stances that supports his party only....while neglecting the rest of America.

I am much more concerned about a simple majority of 5 political appointees overriding the expressed will of the people.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy by the majority for a reason, from what I understand, no? And one reason for this is to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority, I thought? And what does it matter what the majority wants IF what the majority wants is unconstitutional?

At least the President is checked by Congress, and both branches are elected and can be voted out. The Supremes have a lot of power, are virtually unchecked, and are there for life.

Yes, they are there for life and this is why I support the filibuster of Judges, and cloture taking 60 votes, to bring it to a vote on the floor of the Senate. I support thorough scrutiny of future Judicial appointments, and expect it from the Senate, as one of the Constitutional duties above most else. Their Advice and Consent should not be a breezy pushover type thing!





Anyway, I think Judges and our Judicial system should not be political, in any sense of the word!

And the way the Republicans have criticized them over the last 10 years, making citizens believe they are only partisan tools, instead of independent thinking, fair, judges is a disgrace in my opinion, and took away from our entire Justice system, and the way they bash trial lawyers too or select and fire prosecutors... it is all a real mess imo.

And now, because of the republican politicalization of Justices, the Dems are returning it with criticising the Roberts alito supremes as though their decisions are purely political and quite frankly it diminishies the likelyhood that those of us that live here feel that our Justice system is as Just as it should be...

It looks pretty bad, and Judges are suppose to be impartial, and the truth of the matter is that they are independent, but no body thinks so anymore and I believe this extends from the politicization of these Judicial positions by our political leaders...

[diuretic]

I've always been curious to know how or why burning the flag is considered "Freedom of Expression." If you have something to say about our flag or country, nothing is stopping you from saying it or writing it. Being prevented from burning the flag doesn't prevent you from sending any type of message you want. It seems to me that its just a ploy used by people who are too dumb to articulate their message. Besides, isn't it a public danger to light fires and burn objects in public? If we can burn flags I'd like to burn a billboard with Hitlery's picture on it, but I can't. Isn't my "Freedom of expression" being infringed upon?

Nothing to stop you getting a picture of anyone and burning it. But if you burn someone else's property you're committing a crime. So, no, your freedom of expression isn't being infringed upon, you can go and buy your own flag and burn it with impunity.

[Guernicaa]

I love her avatar. :salute:

[OCA]

I love her avatar. :salute:


You would, you are also anti-American and another lost young mind.

[Sitarro]

I love her avatar. :salute:

Again, another cliche'...... pathetic kid.

[Yurt]

I love her avatar. :salute:

Please report here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5905)

[Guernicaa]

I'll soon be 18 and am already legal in my state, so no that's not a pedophile. Turning strait that's interesting. I was actually interested in a guy over the summer but back to school I have again changed back to my orginal opinion. Too bad the girl I'd love to date already has a girlfriend and is off limits.
Is she off limits because she has a girlfriend or because of some other reason??

[LiberalNation]

Cuz she already has a girlfriend and I'm not gona start a fight or mess up friendships. Wouldn't be worth it.

[Guernicaa]

Please report here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=5905)
I've read through it before, and frankly I wasn't convinced.

Because of the broad range of meanings that the flag takes on, I don't think you have to hate every single meaning when you burn it.

For instance hating what how the fucker currently in the white house has completely ruined this country and other parts of the world is an example of why one might burn the flag. It's a representation of the current US government because one of the things the flag represents in the US government.

If all the protestors were wearing shirts that said "We hate our rights" while burning the flag, then I believe you would have an argument. But if they're burning it and wearing shirts that say "Stop the war" then the message is solely directed at the government.

[Guernicaa]

Cuz she already has a girlfriend and I'm not gona start a fight or mess up friendships. Wouldn't be worth it.
Yeah its best not to start drama just to be with someone.

Unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY like the person.

[jackass]

First of all, calmly, why don't you read the constitution, and then show us where it say's it's a protected "right" to burn an American flag.

And please don't tell me that "free speech" is what you're saying. Burning a flag is a "action." It can be done without uttering a word. That has NOTHING to do with "speech."

Ok agreed, but JohnDoe brings up a good point. If it isnt protected by the Constitution then why do we need an amendment to ban it?

[OCA]

Yeah its best not to start drama just to be with someone.

Unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY like the person.


What is in reality degenerate lust is commonly mistaken for queer love.

[82Marine89]

To Those Who Want To Burn the Flag

Just ask permission.

Does the first Amendment gives us the right to desecrate the American flag?
Or is the flag a sacred symbol of our nation, deserving protection by law?

Tough call?

"The Solution"

For those who want to light Old Glory on fire, stomp all over it, or spit on it to
make some sort of "statement,"

I say let them do it.

But under one condition: they MUST get permission from three sponsors.

First, you need permission of a war veteran. Perhaps a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima? The American flag was raised over Mount Surabachi upon the bodies of thousands of dead buddies. Each night spent on Iwo meant half of everyone you knew would be dead tomorrow, a coin flip away from a bloody end upon a patch of sand your mother couldn't find on a map.

Or maybe ask a Vietnam vet who spent years tortured in a small, filthy cell unfit for a dog. Or a Korean War soldier who helped rescue half a nation from Communism, or a Desert Storm warrior who repulsed a bloody dictator from raping and pillaging an innocent country. That flag represented your mother and father, your sister and brother, your friends, neighbors, and everyone at home. I wonder what they would say if someone asked them permission to burn the American flag?

Next, you need a signature from an immigrant. Their brothers and sisters may still languish in their native land, often under tyranny, poverty and misery. Or maybe they died on the way here, never to touch our shores. Some have seen friends and family get tortured and murdered by their own government for daring to do things we take for granted every day. For those who risked everything simply for the chance to become an American ... what kind of feelings do they have for flag when they Pledge Allegiance the first time? Go to a naturalization ceremony and see for yourself, the tears of pride, the thanks, the love and respect of this nation, as they finally the American flag as their own. Ask one of them if it would be OK to tear up the flag.

Last, you should get the signature of a mother. Not just any mother. You need a mother of someone who gave their life for America. It doesn't even have to be from a war. It could be a cop. Or a fireman. Maybe a Secret Service or NSA agent. Then again, it could be a common foot soldier as well. When that son or daughter is laid to rest, their family is given one gift by the American people; an American flag. Go on. I dare you. Ask that mother to spit on her flag.

I wonder what the founding fathers thought of the American flag as they drafted the Declaration of Independence? They knew this act would drag young America into war England, the greatest power on earth. They also knew failure meant more than just a disappointment. It meant a noose snugly stretched around their necks. But they needed a symbol, something to inspire the new nation. Something to represent the seriousness, the purpose and conviction that we held our new idea of individual freedom. Something worth living for. Something worth dying for. I wonder how they'd feel if someone asked them permission to toss their flag in a mud puddle?

Away from family, away from the precious shores of home, in the face of overwhelming odds and often in the face of death, the American flag inspires those who believe in the American dream, the American promise, the American vision...

Americans who don't appreciate the flag don't appreciate this nation. And those who appreciate this nation appreciate the American flag. Those who fought, fought for that flag. Those who died, died for that flag. And those who love America love that flag. And defend it.

So if you want to desecrate the American flag, before you spit on it or before you burn it ...

I have a simple request. Just ask permission.

Not from the Constitution. Not from some obscure law. Not from the politicians or the pundits. Instead, ask those who defended our nation so that we may be free today.

Ask those who struggled to reach our shores so that they may join us in the American dream. And ask those who clutch a flag in place of their sacrificed sons and daughters, given to this nation so that others may be free.

For we cannot ask permission from those who died wishing they could, just once ...

or once again ...

see, touch or kiss the flag that stands for our nation, the United States of America ...

~Author unknown

:salute:

[jimnyc]

Ok agreed, but JohnDoe brings up a good point. If it isnt protected by the Constitution then why do we need an amendment to ban it?

That's an easy one! So that judges won't have the ability to misinterpret the first amendment rights.

The very fact that it's NOT protected by the Constitution is why an amendment is being considered, to give it the rightful protection it deserves.

[82Marine89]

Flag Folding Ceremony

The flag folding ceremony represents the same religious principles on which our country was originally founded. The portion of the flag denoting honor is the canton of blue containing the stars representing the states our veterans served in uniform. The canton field of blue dresses from left to right and is inverted when draped as a pall on a casket of a veteran who has served our country in uniform.

In the Armed Forces of the United States, at the ceremony of retreat the flag is lowered, folded in a triangle fold and kept under watch throughout the night as a tribute to our nation's honored dead. The next morning it is brought out and, at the ceremony of reveille, run aloft as a symbol of our belief in the resurrection of the body.

(Wait for the Honor Guard or Flag Detail to unravel and fold the flag into a quarter fold--resume reading when Honor Guard is standing ready.)

1. The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.

2. The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.

3. The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.

4. The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.

5. The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, "Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong."

6. The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

7. The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.

8. The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother's Day.

9. The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.

10. The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.

11. The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

12. The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.

When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, "In God we Trust."

(Wait for the Honor Guard or Flag Detail to inspect the flag--after the inspection, resume reading.)

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington and the sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for us the rights, privileges, and freedoms we enjoy today.

LINK (http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/folds.htm)


Wow! As a layman, I did not know, what you just printed! Thank you for posting it!

It makes much more sense to me now, why those that served feel so strongly about the American Flag.

I don't think many Americans know this ceremony and its meaning either!

It adds a new meaning to Flag burning, that I was unaware of...

again, ty.

You are very welcome.

[Gaffer]

The only thing that is happening because of this thread is Liberal is getting all the attention that she wants. Maybe just Maybe if people just ignored her immature cries for attention she wouldnt do it.

Very much agree. I have had her on ignore almost the entire time she has been on this board. And she will stay on ignore as long as she is on here. I don't give her any attention. I even gloss over when other people quote her. If everyone would do the same she would get bored and leave entirely, but that won't happen because too many people like to argue with her.

Like gaby and psicko she's only here to agitate.

[Yurt]

And your point is?

Thought I made it clear. Are amendments part of the constitution? My point is, do you believe that amendments are part of the constitution.

[82Marine89]

Thought I made it clear. Are amendments part of the constitution? My point is, do you believe that amendments are part of the constitution.

They are just that, an amendment to the Constitution.

[LiberalNation]

They're add ons to the orginal constitution and are now part of the constitution itself.

[JohnDoe]

Thought I made it clear. Are amendments part of the constitution? My point is, do you believe that amendments are part of the constitution.yes, the bill of rights is part of the constitution, all amendments to the Constitution along with the preamble and the articles are the Constitution! :)

[Pale Rider]

Which state in the US would you like to ground your argument that peeing on someone isn't an assault at criminal law and an assault/battery at civil law? Get back to me on that one and I'll see if I'm up to the challenge.

I live in Nevada. Let's start here. Say when...

[Pale Rider]

flipping the finger at a cop IS LEGAL, as far as i am aware, are you saying it is not pale?

I'm saying if you say it's legal, go try it. See if you don't land in jail.

[Pale Rider]

it IS AN ASSAULT in the terms described....it is illegal, in all states, you are correct.

So me pissing on your leg is WORSE than some jackoff BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG?!

See what I'm sayin'? That's fucked up.

[Pale Rider]

Well he just found out her age in another thread and is obviously interested by what he was saying about turning her straight.

So Hag is saying he likes to see the American flag being burnt so as to gain favor with a little liberal lezbo moron?

What next?

[JohnDoe]

So me pissing on your leg is WORSE than some jackoff BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG?!

See what I'm sayin'? That's fucked up.


hahahahaha! lol!

Pale, I just really love seeing your passion regarding this...it makes me smile!!! :)

[Pale Rider]

I love her avatar. :salute:

And you are on the same level of America hating filth as she is. You're a waste of human flesh.

[Pale Rider]

Ok agreed, but JohnDoe brings up a good point. If it isnt protected by the Constitution then why do we need an amendment to ban it?

I think post #387 answers that question quite well.

Thanks 82Marine... :salute:

[Pale Rider]

To Those Who Want To Burn the Flag

Just ask permission.

Does the first Amendment gives us the right to desecrate the American flag?
Or is the flag a sacred symbol of our nation, deserving protection by law?

Tough call?

"The Solution"

For those who want to light Old Glory on fire, stomp all over it, or spit on it to
make some sort of "statement,"

I say let them do it.

But under one condition: they MUST get permission from three sponsors.

First, you need permission of a war veteran. Perhaps a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima? The American flag was raised over Mount Surabachi upon the bodies of thousands of dead buddies. Each night spent on Iwo meant half of everyone you knew would be dead tomorrow, a coin flip away from a bloody end upon a patch of sand your mother couldn't find on a map.

Or maybe ask a Vietnam vet who spent years tortured in a small, filthy cell unfit for a dog. Or a Korean War soldier who helped rescue half a nation from Communism, or a Desert Storm warrior who repulsed a bloody dictator from raping and pillaging an innocent country. That flag represented your mother and father, your sister and brother, your friends, neighbors, and everyone at home. I wonder what they would say if someone asked them permission to burn the American flag?

Next, you need a signature from an immigrant. Their brothers and sisters may still languish in their native land, often under tyranny, poverty and misery. Or maybe they died on the way here, never to touch our shores. Some have seen friends and family get tortured and murdered by their own government for daring to do things we take for granted every day. For those who risked everything simply for the chance to become an American ... what kind of feelings do they have for flag when they Pledge Allegiance the first time? Go to a naturalization ceremony and see for yourself, the tears of pride, the thanks, the love and respect of this nation, as they finally the American flag as their own. Ask one of them if it would be OK to tear up the flag.

Last, you should get the signature of a mother. Not just any mother. You need a mother of someone who gave their life for America. It doesn't even have to be from a war. It could be a cop. Or a fireman. Maybe a Secret Service or NSA agent. Then again, it could be a common foot soldier as well. When that son or daughter is laid to rest, their family is given one gift by the American people; an American flag. Go on. I dare you. Ask that mother to spit on her flag.

I wonder what the founding fathers thought of the American flag as they drafted the Declaration of Independence? They knew this act would drag young America into war England, the greatest power on earth. They also knew failure meant more than just a disappointment. It meant a noose snugly stretched around their necks. But they needed a symbol, something to inspire the new nation. Something to represent the seriousness, the purpose and conviction that we held our new idea of individual freedom. Something worth living for. Something worth dying for. I wonder how they'd feel if someone asked them permission to toss their flag in a mud puddle?

Away from family, away from the precious shores of home, in the face of overwhelming odds and often in the face of death, the American flag inspires those who believe in the American dream, the American promise, the American vision...

Americans who don't appreciate the flag don't appreciate this nation. And those who appreciate this nation appreciate the American flag. Those who fought, fought for that flag. Those who died, died for that flag. And those who love America love that flag. And defend it.

So if you want to desecrate the American flag, before you spit on it or before you burn it ...

I have a simple request. Just ask permission.

Not from the Constitution. Not from some obscure law. Not from the politicians or the pundits. Instead, ask those who defended our nation so that we may be free today.

Ask those who struggled to reach our shores so that they may join us in the American dream. And ask those who clutch a flag in place of their sacrificed sons and daughters, given to this nation so that others may be free.

For we cannot ask permission from those who died wishing they could, just once ...

or once again ...

see, touch or kiss the flag that stands for our nation, the United States of America ...

~Author unknown

:salute:

OUT - FUCKING - STANDING BROTHER... OUT - FUCKING - STANDING.

I wonder if any of that will sink into the empty heads of those that think burning an American flag is OK?

[Pale Rider]

hahahahaha! lol!

Pale, I just really love seeing your passion regarding this...it makes me smile!!! :)

I guess you can't understand it. Maybe it's just us veterans that have been SHOT AT that truly get it.

In any case, glad I'm able to humor you.

[diuretic]

Ok agreed, but JohnDoe brings up a good point. If it isnt protected by the Constitution then why do we need an amendment to ban it?

It's unconstitutional under the law as it now exists, to enact legislation to prohibit the burning of a flag. The "action"/"speech" dichotomy is false. "Speech" is "action" in any reasonable reading. But in any case the law's quite clear on this.

[diuretic]

I live in Nevada. Let's start here. Say when...

Okay, I'll need to look at the Nevada statutes though.

[JohnDoe]

I guess you can't understand it. Maybe it's just us veterans that have been SHOT AT that truly get it.

In any case, glad I'm able to humor you.
I honestly am trying!

And after 82 marine posted the Flag Ceremony thingy, I am seriously considering accepting an amendment to the Constitution to allow it, or in the very least, if it were passed I would whole heartedly accept it as Law, with the understanding the importance of the Flag to our Veterens and in respect for that! Which is good enough for me!

Now, if we could only get the same protection for the Crucifix out of respect for those of us that feel as strongly about that as you do with the flag.... :(

But then, that could lead to someone else wanting respect for what they reverend and so on and so forth.... :(

Completely wiping out our free thought and speech rights....altogether! Damn, now I might have to change my mind back and go against the amendment....cuz thought and speech police would not be good either!

Did I mention I was a girl and have the perogative to change my mind? :D

And you guys thought Kerry was a flip flopper? hahahahaha!

jd

[diuretic]

Okay it looks like Nevada follows the English common law on the issue of assault.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec471


NRS 200.471 Assault: Definitions; penalties.

1. As used in this section:

(a) “Assault” means intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

That's in line with English common law. In fact it's a bit more sophisticated. The term used in English common law is "attempt or offer to apply direct or indirect force", I like this iteration better.

At English common law the concept of "assault" at least as far as it being indictable, wrapped up the concept of "battery" inside it. The indictment at common law reads, "A" assaulted "B", there's no mention of battery because the actual application or force isn't required, merely the threat. But every battery includes an assault so specifying battery in the indictment is redundant. Again at English common law in the civil jurisdiction "assault" is one form of tort (trespass to the person) and "battery" is another form of tort (also trespass to the person).

But in Nevada law there is a distinction.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec481


NRS 200.481 Battery: Definitions; penalties.

1. As used in this section:

(a) “Battery” means any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

And that follows the English common law definition as well, except that in Nevada criminal law "battery" is separately defined.

So, from that - pissing on me is both assault and battery at criminal and civil law in Nevada.

[Pale Rider]

It's unconstitutional under the law as it now exists, to enact legislation to prohibit the burning of a flag. The "action"/"speech" dichotomy is false. "Speech" is "action" in any reasonable reading. But in any case the law's quite clear on this.

In no shape, way, or form, is speech the same as action.

I can prove it to you in one instance. If I "say" I'm going to piss on your leg, your leg won't get piss on it. If I "do" piss on your leg without uttering a word, your leg will get piss on it. CLEARLY, one is COMPLETELY different than the other.

Even the dictionary has TOTALLY different definitions of both...


speech /spitʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[speech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
2. the act of speaking: He expresses himself better in speech than in writing.
3. something that is spoken; an utterance, remark, or declaration: We waited for some speech that would indicate her true feelings.
4. a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose: a fiery speech.
5. any single utterance of an actor in the course of a play, motion picture, etc.
6. the form of utterance characteristic of a particular people or region; a language or dialect.
7. manner of speaking, as of a person: Your slovenly speech is holding back your career.
8. a field of study devoted to the theory and practice of oral communication.
9. Archaic. rumor.


ac·tion /ˈækʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the process or state of acting or of being active: The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.
3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity: a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct: He is responsible for his actions.
5. energetic activity: a man of action.
6. an exertion of power or force: the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7. effect or influence: the action of morphine.
8. Physiology. a change in organs, tissues, or cells leading to performance of a function, as in muscular contraction.
9. way or manner of moving: the action of a machine or of a horse.
10. the mechanism by which something is operated, as that of a gun or a piano.
11. a military encounter or engagement; battle, skirmish, or the like.
12. actual engagement in fighting an enemy; military or naval combat: He saw action in Vietnam.
13. Literature. the main subject or story, as distinguished from an incidental episode.
14. Theater. a. an event or series of events that form part of a dramatic plot: the action of a scene.
b. one of the three unities. Compare unity (def. 8).

15. the gestures or deportment of an actor or speaker.
16. Fine Arts. the appearance of animation, movement, or emotion given to figures by their attitude, position, or expression.
17. Law. a. a proceeding instituted by one party against another.
b. the right of bringing it.

18. Slang. a. interesting or exciting activity, often of an illicit nature: He gave us some tips on where the action was.
b. gambling or the excitement of gambling: The casino usually offers plenty of action.
c. money bet in gambling, esp. illegally.

19. Ecclesiastical. a. a religious ceremony, esp. a Eucharistic service.
b. the canon of the Mass.
c. those parts of a service of worship in which the congregation participates.

–adjective 20. characterized by brisk or dynamic action: an action car; an action melodrama.
—Idioms21. in action, a. performing or taking part in a characteristic act: The school baseball team is in action tonight.
b. working; functioning: His rescuing the child was bravery in action.

22. out of action, removed from action, as by sudden disability: The star halfback is out of action with a bad knee.
23. piece of the action, Informal. a share of the proceeds or profits: Cut me in for a piece of the action.
24. take action, a. to start doing something: As soon as we get his decision, we'll take action.
b. to start a legal procedure.

[Pale Rider]

I honestly am trying!

And after 82 marine posted the Flag Ceremony thingy, I am seriously considering accepting an amendment to the Constitution to allow it, or in the very least, if it were passed I would whole heartedly accept it as Law, with the understanding the importance of the Flag to our Veterens and in respect for that! Which is good enough for me!

Now, if we could only get the same protection for the Crucifix out of respect for those of us that feel as strongly about that as you do with the flag.... :(

But then, that could lead to someone else wanting respect for what they reverend and so on and so forth.... :(

Completely wiping out our free thought and speech rights....altogether! Damn, now I might have to change my mind back and go against the amendment....cuz thought and speech police would not be good either!

Did I mention I was a girl and have the perogative to change my mind? :D

And you guys thought Kerry was a flip flopper? hahahahaha!

jd

I thank you for trying to understand, and I think you do. It's your country too ya know. It's your flag. When it gets burned, the perp is disrespecting you every bit as much as they're disrespecting me.

And I highly doubt outlawing would lead to thought police and elimination of speech rights. It's our flag. It's not some random thought or thing. It needs to be protected, from pieces of shit like that little faggot liberal whore LN, who think burning it is funny, or cute, or do it just to get attention. Sorry.... that's just the way I feel, and I seldom hold back.

[diuretic]

In no shape, way, or form, is speech the same as action.

I can prove it to you in one instance. If I "say" I'm going to piss on your leg, your leg won't get piss on it. If I "do" piss on your leg without uttering a word, your leg will get piss on it. CLEARLY, one is COMPLETELY different than the other.

Even the dictionary has TOTALLY different definitions of both...


Toss the dictionary to one side, this is legal stuff we're talking about and mere definitions don't cut it.

What is speech? How is speech made? It requires physical effort, that's an action. See how it works?

Since speech is an action then it can be considered expression. An "expression" of something is even more abstract than speech, which is the result of mental and physical activity. Don't get confused with "thought" which is a solely mental activity.


I'm sure the Founding Fathers just didn't mean to restrict the government's authority to stop people talking, talking is one form of expression, therefore the Founding Fathers obviously meant that government should be restricted from unreasonably interfering with the natural right of individuals to express themselves.


If I "say" I'm going to piss on your leg, your leg won't get piss on it. If I "do" piss on your leg without uttering a word, your leg will get piss on it. CLEARLY, one is COMPLETELY different than the other.

"I'm going to piss on your leg". A simple statement of intent. Not an assault.

If you then piss on my leg without a word then it's a battery and every battery includes an assault, ergo you have assaulted me both at common law and according to Nevada statutes.

[Pale Rider]

"I'm going to piss on your leg". A simple statement of intent. Not an assault.

If you then piss on my leg without a word then it's a battery and every battery includes an assault, ergo you have assaulted me both at common law and according to Nevada statutes.

You just proved me right and you wrong. There's a complete difference between speaking and acting. There is nothing illegal about me saying I'm going to piss on your leg. I can tell every person I see that, and all I'll be guilty of is sounding like an idiot, and offending people.

However, if I DO piss on someones leg, there is no more ASSULT than if I was to just SAY that's what I was going to do. In order for there to be an assault, the victim has to have physical proof of an assault, i.e., bruises, cuts, marks. The only law I'd break pissing on someones leg would be indecent exposure, according to Nevada law.

[Pale Rider]

Okay it looks like Nevada follows the English common law on the issue of assault.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec471



That's in line with English common law. In fact it's a bit more sophisticated. The term used in English common law is "attempt or offer to apply direct or indirect force", I like this iteration better.

At English common law the concept of "assault" at least as far as it being indictable, wrapped up the concept of "battery" inside it. The indictment at common law reads, "A" assaulted "B", there's no mention of battery because the actual application or force isn't required, merely the threat. But every battery includes an assault so specifying battery in the indictment is redundant. Again at English common law in the civil jurisdiction "assault" is one form of tort (trespass to the person) and "battery" is another form of tort (also trespass to the person).

But in Nevada law there is a distinction.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec481



And that follows the English common law definition as well, except that in Nevada criminal law "battery" is separately defined.

So, from that - pissing on me is both assault and battery at criminal and civil law in Nevada.

We don't follow english law in America. We kicked the damn english out of here over two hundred years ago.

And if you want to charge someone with assault or battery in Nevada, you better have some marks on you to prove you've been assaulted, otherwise the cops won't even bother. You're a cry baby, and just trying to clutter up the legal system with bullshit cases. You may be able to file a civil suit against someone for pissing on your leg and getting piss on your pants, and maybe get some money to pay for cleaning, but you WON'T be able to file criminal assault or battery. Not in this state.

This is Nevada pal. Not joey town. Things are different here, and you don't seem to have a clue.

[Pale Rider]

So now I'm told LN has an upside down American flag avatar. Is that supposed to make us all feel better? So she takes the bag of shit off our door step, and leaves a bag of piss in it's place, and we're all supposed to feel better now?

This stupid little America hating whore just doesn't learn.

[LiberalNation]

It wasn't about making ya'll feel "better".

[nevadamedic]

It wasn't about making ya'll feel "better".

He has you on ignore so he can't see what you say.

[LiberalNation]

Soooo.......

[nevadamedic]

Soooo.......

Soooooo, don't get mouthy with me kid or ill put you in the corner again! :laugh2:

[diuretic]

You just proved me right and you wrong. There's a complete difference between speaking and acting. There is nothing illegal about me saying I'm going to piss on your leg. I can tell every person I see that, and all I'll be guilty of is sounding like an idiot, and offending people.

However, if I DO piss on someones leg, there is no more ASSULT than if I was to just SAY that's what I was going to do. In order for there to be an assault, the victim has to have physical proof of an assault, i.e., bruises, cuts, marks. The only law I'd break pissing on someones leg would be indecent exposure, according to Nevada law.

You're not paying attention. "Speech" is "action". How can you speak without action? Speaking is a physical activity, as of right now I'm pretty sure we don't communicate using thought. So speech is a physical act. It's a physical expression of thought. It's not a long bow to draw for a court to accept that any expression of thought - writing, painting, sculpture, music, song and so on - is analogous to "speech". The Founding Fathers would have not wanted the Constitution to allow government unreasonable restrictions on writing, publishing, art etc. and previous Supreme Courts have understood that and that's why the law in the US restricts governments from enacting statutes which prohibit the burning of the national flag of the US and that of other nations I would think.

You're wrong on the law as well. If you piss on someone's leg you have assaulted them. You have applied force to them. In Nevada, from my reading of the statute, it's both an assault and a battery.

On assault.

You don't need to hit someone with a hammer to assault them. If I walk up to you and place my hand on your shoulder I am - technically - assaulting you. You know how someone accidentally bumps into another person and says, "excuse me" or "sorry" or some other word or phrase, that's an acknowledgement that here has not just been an assault but also a battery (at civil law) and the apology removes any taint of tort, "excuse me I didn't mean to bump into you."

[Pale Rider]

You're not paying attention. "Speech" is "action".
Listen to me... NO - IT'S - NOT.


How can you speak without action?
If I "say" I'm going to punch you in the face, that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from DOING IT!!!

Holy fucking shit man... how fucking dense are you? :bang3:

Haven't you ever heard the old saying, "ALL TALK AND NO ACTION?"
That saying wouldn't even be in existance unless TALKING and ACTION were TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

[diuretic]

Listen to me... NO - IT'S - NOT.


If I "say" I'm going to punch you in the face, that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from DOING IT!!!

Holy fucking shit man... how fucking dense are you? :bang3:

Haven't you ever heard the old saying, "ALL TALK AND NO ACTION?"
That saying wouldn't even be in existance unless TALKING and ACTION were TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

I think you've now confounded yourself :laugh2:

You need to go back and read everything. You really are looking like a complete dill :D

[Mr. P]

Anyone recall the woman that spat on the solider in Syracuse NY?

She was arrested and charged with assault.

[Hagbard Celine]

So now I'm told LN has an upside down American flag avatar. Is that supposed to make us all feel better? So she takes the bag of shit off our door step, and leaves a bag of piss in it's place, and we're all supposed to feel better now?

This stupid little America hating whore just doesn't learn.

It's time somebody got to the real issue here: I still wanna see some bikini pics. Is LN the hippie nymph I picture her as or is she a fatty fat fat? We'll never know as long as she hides behind her politically inflaming avatar :dunno:

[LiberalNation]

I posted a pic of myself awile back. Not bikinie tho, I was wearing baggy clothes and no makeup. Lets see, I'm not fat (bout 115) but not really hot/cute/whatever. Pretty normal I'd say.

[diuretic]

Anyone recall the woman that spat on the solider in Syracuse NY?

She was arrested and charged with assault.

And rightly bloody so.

[dan]

And rightly bloody so.

Agreed.

[red states rule]

or this from the anti war peace niks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dir1tkQftww

[Pale Rider]

I posted a pic of myself awile back. Not bikinie tho, I was wearing baggy clothes and no makeup. Lets see, I'm not fat (bout 115) but not really hot/cute/whatever. Pretty normal I'd say.

She's a scrawny little, ugly, pimple faced, hippie, couchie lapper lezbo, that dresses like shit Hag. She could stand on the beach and the tide wouldn't come in. No wonder she turned to girls. No guy will have anything to do with her. I guess that could be part of the reason she likes to piss everybody else off so much. She's mad at life for making her such a skank, and she doesnt want to see anybody else happy either.

I knew that was why you voted that "you like to see the Ameican flag burning." You have some cockamamey idea that you're going to hit on a skanky little, ugly, lesbian... :laugh:

[LiberalNation]

LOL I wouldn't call 5"8 scrawny or little for a female. Think you might need to take another look at those pics Pale someone may think your blind or somethin. As for dresses like shit, true enough but only for lack of trying.

[nevadamedic]

LOL I wouldn't call 5"8 scrawny or little for a female. Think you might need to take another look at those pics Pale someone may think your blind or somethin. As for dresses like shit, true enough but only for lack of trying.

Wow your popular. :) 428 posts on a thread about you!

[LiberalNation]

:thanks::rock:

[truthmatters]

If lesbians are the childern of the Devil does taht make Cheney the Devil????

[LiberalNation]

lol, good one.

[Pale Rider]

If lesbians are the childern, (CHILDREN), of the Devil does taht, (THAT), make Cheney the Devil????

First of all, ingrate, learn how to spell.

Second, the devil commands homos, in turn, they are his children.

Next stupid, illiterate, question...

[Missileman]

First of all, ingrate, learn how to spell.

Second, the devil commands homos, in turn, they are his children.

Next stupid, illiterate, question...

You do more harm to Christianity than any activist atheist could ever hope to. Keep up the good(?) work.

[Gunny]

You do more harm to Christianity than any activist atheist could ever hope to. Keep up the good(?) work.

In drops the peanut gallery to take a typical cheap shot at Christianity. One whole forum to rant about your lack of faith isn't enough?

[Missileman]

In drops the peanut gallery to take a typical cheap shot at Christianity. One whole forum to rant about your lack of faith isn't enough?

My comment was not a shot at Christianity at all. It was a shot at a self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical-blowhard.

[LiberalNation]

:laugh2::clap:

[Gunny]

My comment was not a shot at Christianity at all. It was a shot at a self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical-blowhard.

Only because he believes in something you don't. Why don't you go police up the self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical blowhard God-haters FIRST, then get back to worrying about Christians?

You could start in the mirror, as a matter of fact.

[Missileman]

Only because he believes in something you don't.
Correctamundo! He believes in double standards and hypocrisy...I don't.


Why don't you go police up the self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical blowhard God-haters FIRST, then get back to worrying about Christians?

You could start in the mirror, as a matter of fact.

You don't see me posting time and again about how some group is comprised of godless, immoral heathens or some other group is made up of the devil's children. Do you suppose that if "homos are commanded by the devil" that a believer might have been commanded by Jesus to take his kid to a whorehouse? PR's as credible in regards to morality as Hitlery is credible in stock-trading ethics.

[Gunny]

Correctamundo! He believes in double standards and hypocrisy...I don't.



You don't see me posting time and again about how some group is comprised of godless, immoral heathens or some other group is made up of the devil's children. Do you suppose that if "homos are commanded by the devil" that a believer might have been commanded by Jesus to take his kid to a whorehouse? PR's as credible in regards to morality as Hitlery is credible in stock-trading ethics.

Fortunately, Pale's credibility doesn't rest solely on your God-hating opinion. Accusing Chirstians of double standards and hypocrisy is just a blanket, one-size-fits all, unsubstantiated accusation for you.

As far as you questioning somebody's morality ... what would you know?

[JohnDoe]

She's a scrawny little, ugly, pimple faced, hippie, couchie lapper lezbo, that dresses like shit Hag. She could stand on the beach and the tide wouldn't come in. No wonder she turned to girls. No guy will have anything to do with her. I guess that could be part of the reason she likes to piss everybody else off so much. She's mad at life for making her such a skank, and she doesnt want to see anybody else happy either.

I knew that was why you voted that "you like to see the Ameican flag burning." You have some cockamamey idea that you're going to hit on a skanky little, ugly, lesbian... :laugh:


Pale!!!!

Shame on you!

THAT,

Was uncalled for, in every manner.

You, just represented the Devil (evil) and in no way represented any form of being a so called Christian, or Godlike (good).

As a Christian, I can't believe you let yourself scoop so low? And it would be WRONG for me not to set you straight and tell you such!!!

YOU, my new friend, (so I thought), and my fellow Christian, OWE LN an apology for your intentional words that were MEANT to be hurtful.

jd

[Gunny]

Pale!!!!

Shame on you!

THAT,

Was uncalled for, in every manner.

You, just represented the Devil (evil) and in no way represented any form of being a so called Christian, or Godlike (good).

As a Christian, I can't believe you let yourself scoop so low? And it would be WRONG for me not to set you straight and tell you such!!!

YOU, my new friend, (so I thought), and my fellow Christian, OWE LN an apology for your intentional words that were MEANT to be hurtful.

jd

You just have no appreciate for prose. I found it to be very eloquent and entertaining. Too bad I repped him already on another post because this one was definitely the most worthy.

[jimnyc]

YOU, my new friend, (so I thought), and my fellow Christian, OWE LN an apology for your intentional words that were MEANT to be hurtful.

jd

Did you stop for a moment and at least consider how some may feel about the 2nd go round of the burning flag? Do you not think it's possible for quite a few veterans to feel 'hurt' by someone displaying the flag in such a manner? You stand so vehemently behind the "right" to burn a flag, but don't seem to want to afford Pale the right to speak his mind about the situation. Why haven't you asked LN to apologize for offending so many? Why the double standard?

[red states rule]

Did you stop for a moment and at least consider how some may feel about the 2nd go round of the burning flag? Do you not think it's possible for quite a few veterans to feel 'hurt' by someone displaying the flag in such a manner? You stand so vehemently behind the "right" to burn a flag, but don't seem to want to afford Pale the right to speak his mind about the situation. Why haven't you asked LN to apologize for offending so many? Why the double standard?

Without double standards, liberals would have no standards at all

[diuretic]

Did you stop for a moment and at least consider how some may feel about the 2nd go round of the burning flag? Do you not think it's possible for quite a few veterans to feel 'hurt' by someone displaying the flag in such a manner? You stand so vehemently behind the "right" to burn a flag, but don't seem to want to afford Pale the right to speak his mind about the situation. Why haven't you asked LN to apologize for offending so many? Why the double standard?

Hurt feelings are not justification for restriction on freedom of expression.

People should toughen up. If it starts there, where does it stop?

[red states rule]

Hurt feelings are not justification for restriction on freedom of expression.

People should toughen up. If it starts there, where does it stop?

Maybe it will stop people from burning the US flag

[jimnyc]

Hurt feelings are not justification for restriction on freedom of expression.

People should toughen up. If it starts there, where does it stop?

Then why should Pale be told to apologize for making comments JD deemed "hurtful"? Can't have it both ways in this instance. Advocating the rights of one based on "freedom of speech" and condemning another for their "speech" seems rather odd and hypocritical to me.

[diuretic]

Then why should Pale be told to apologize for making comments JD deemed "hurtful"? Can't have it both ways in this instance. Advocating the rights of one based on "freedom of speech" and condemning another for their "speech" seems rather odd and hypocritical to me.

That's for you to decide.

[diuretic]

She's a scrawny little, ugly, pimple faced, hippie, couchie lapper lezbo, that dresses like shit Hag. She could stand on the beach and the tide wouldn't come in. No wonder she turned to girls. No guy will have anything to do with her. I guess that could be part of the reason she likes to piss everybody else off so much. She's mad at life for making her such a skank, and she doesnt want to see anybody else happy either.

I knew that was why you voted that "you like to see the Ameican flag burning." You have some cockamamey idea that you're going to hit on a skanky little, ugly, lesbian..

You lust for her? But she is thin, what say you of a more robust type? Not to your like? And she is small, your armpits she would see were you to stand 'longside of her. Is that your wish sirrah? Not comely either I'll warrant, but then plain is pleasure for some. If that's your wish so be it.

And your wish must be for ravaged skin. In truth we have, well most, endured the time of change from girl to woman and boy to man, when fair skin gave way to roseate hue. Some were bless'd and from that torture they were spar'd to look down on us who were ne'er so beauteous.

She is a troubador, a wanderer through the towns and fields, singing her songs for those that will listen and perhaps toss a coin or two her way. 'Tis said she is fond of her own in much the same manner as our good King James is fond of his. But sure, we are silent on our good King's likes and ready to skewer those of lesser blood.

A wearer of motley no less. 'Tis said she can succeed where old Canute could not, in holding back the tides. Such power must surely be from Hecate herself.

And Hecate has blessed her, in that dark way, with a countenance and manner that endears her to her own, they flock to her feet and lay with her and take their Sapphic pleasures to the chagrin of the swaines who frown and mutter darkly that she is able to seduce the comely lasses where they, of sweaty palms and clumsy lunges, cannot. One look at them, slack-jawed, red of neck, vacant of eye, 'tis not hard to reason why.

But is she hostile to her fate? None of it. God has granted her a gift, she says, to be herself, to accept what is and not to swim against herself lest she drown in the whirlpool of self-doubt. He, our Heavenly Father, smiles upon her as she casts off the harsh words of others with a crooked smile. No snarling gape from her to her critics. She pities them that fail to see the wonders of God-granted liberty.

[Missileman]

Fortunately, Pale's credibility doesn't rest solely on your God-hating opinion. Accusing Chirstians of double standards and hypocrisy is just a blanket, one-size-fits all, unsubstantiated accusation for you.

As far as you questioning somebody's morality ... what would you know?

Actually, I have substantiated it, not that it will stop you from circling the wagons.

[red states rule]

Actually, I have substantiated it, not that it will stop you from circling the wagons.

:clap:

[JohnDoe]

Did you stop for a moment and at least consider how some may feel about the 2nd go round of the burning flag? Do you not think it's possible for quite a few veterans to feel 'hurt' by someone displaying the flag in such a manner? You stand so vehemently behind the "right" to burn a flag, but don't seem to want to afford Pale the right to speak his mind about the situation. Why haven't you asked LN to apologize for offending so many? Why the double standard?

YES, I did, did you?

Pale, was out of line to treat her in the PERSONAL, demeaning, derogatory, and belittleing manner that he did.

She had an icon of a flag burning, and I have come to terms with this being very offensive to Pale and other soldiers out there....which is something that seemed silly to me at first, I admit. But after I read the Flag Folding Ceremony that 82 Marine put forth, I realized that even though it was an inanimate object, it could have GREAT meaning to those fighting for us in the Military.

Not once in this thread did I see LN attack Pale on a personal basis....she did not attack his 2 inch penus, teeth falling out or brown smears from his hemaroids....she did not attack him, she stood up for what she believes was a right, a Constitutional Right.

Pale, who makes it known from the roof tops that he is better than the rest because he is a Christian and those that aren't, are doomed, judged to hell by him, just behaved like an immature, Satan Follower, as far as I am concerned, and in no way do I want Christians on this board or any board to even THINK that his behavior is CHRISTIANLIKE BEHAVIOR, because IT IS AND WAS, NOT. PERIOD.

I am not requesting he be shut up...he can behave like the leader he follows, the Devil, all he wants.

I do believe in free speech, I don't, and will never stand for someone that treats a girl, the way he just did, while proclaiming to be a Christian and Christ like.....bullcrap on that....

you want to call that sensitive? I call it Christianlike, or gentlemenly, or just plain Decent.

jd

[jimnyc]

That's for you to decide.

Oh no! Don't put it on my shoulders! LOL

They are 2 independent parties, I was simply throwing in my unasked 2 cents! As for the board, we're allowing both parties the right to their views, whether others agree with their positions or not.

Jim has both a personal stance and administrative stance. It's obvious I don't allow my personal stance to dictate how I run things, otherwise I'd probably be on this board alone, since I pretty much hate everyone in this world. Maybe leave a few 'well endowed' women behind for me to chat with when I get bored. :)

[jimnyc]

YES, I did, did you?

Pale, was out of line to treat her in the PERSONAL, demeaning, derogatory, and belittleing manner that he did.
you want to call that sensitive? I call it Christianlike, or gentlemenly, or just plain Decent.

jd

I don't recall saying anything about sensitivity at all. The bottom line is that you defend someone's desire to use a burning flag as an avatar, and in the next breath you want someone to apologize for saying something offensive. Funny how your position changes depending on what angers you. You would think that someone who BELIEVES burning a flag is a constitutional right should know that freedom of speech IS written in the constitution.

[JohnDoe]

I don't recall saying anything about sensitivity at all. The bottom line is that you defend someone's desire to use a burning flag as an avatar, and in the next breath you want someone to apologize for saying something offensive. Funny how your position changes depending on what angers you. You would think that someone who BELIEVES burning a flag is a constitutional right should know that freedom of speech IS written in the constitution.

His behavior was uncalled for by ANYONE THAT CLAIMS to be a Christian, period Jim.

There IS NO excuse for it...GOT IT?

NOW, he can continue with his Satan like behavior all he wants, I don't give a crap about that....he wil deal with his own maker some day...

But I WILL NOT sit back and let strangers on this board that may not have come to Christ YET, think that his behavior and actions were those of someone that acts as Christ, Christlike, or Christian....

I believe as a Christian, he should have not gone "personal" the way he did...and as a human being no one should "go personal" the way he just did on to LN, ARGUE THE ARGUMENT, if you can't and need it to lead to insulting personal crap meant to be mean and hurtful in a personal manner, then it is time for you to step back, cool down, and leave for a bit.

He was being a nincumpoop!

jd

[jimnyc]

His behavior was uncalled for by ANYONE THAT CLAIMS to be a Christian, period Jim.

There IS NO excuse for it...GOT IT?

NOW, he can continue with his Satan like behavior all he wants, I don't give a crap about that....he wil deal with his own maker some day...

But I WILL NOT sit back and let strangers on this board that may not have come to Christ YET, think that his behavior and actions were those of someone that acts as Christ, Christlike, or Christian....

I believe as a Christian, he should have not gone "personal" the way he did...and as a human being no one should "go personal" the way he just did on to LN, ARGUE THE ARGUMENT, if you can't and need it to lead to insulting personal crap meant to be mean and hurtful in a personal manner, then it is time for you to step back, cool down, and leave for a bit.

He was being a nincumpoop!

jd

And yet many of us think using a flag burning as an avatar is uncalled for. Many of us think their is no excuse for that, GOT THAT?

And I won't sit back and watch your hypocritical stance go unnoticed.

Do you see any of us demanding an apology from LN for using that avatar?

You weren't offended by what she did, hence no posts stating you were, or that she should apologize for offending so many. Yet you read Pale's post, get offended, and want the whole world to see, and expect him to apologize.

The whole world sees alright, they see that YOU are being hypocritical.

[JohnDoe]

I don't recall saying anything about sensitivity at all. The bottom line is that you defend someone's desire to use a burning flag as an avatar, and in the next breath you want someone to apologize for saying something offensive. Funny how your position changes depending on what angers you. You would think that someone who BELIEVES burning a flag is a constitutional right should know that freedom of speech IS written in the constitution.Everyone, including Pale, has free will and the right to also say, what they want. That does not stop me from having my free speech to say what he just did, was out of line, for a Christian.

enough said.

jd

[jimnyc]

Everyone, including Pale, has free will and the right to also say, what they want. That does not stop me from having my free speech to say what he just did, was out of line, for a Christian.

enough said.

jd

Nor does it stop me from showing how you are being hypocritical. But you're right, feel free to shout from the rooftops about your disagreement with Pale's post. Come back and give us updates as to who is listening.

[JohnDoe]

Nor does it stop me from showing how you are being hypocritical. But you're right, feel free to shout from the rooftops about your disagreement with Pale's post. Come back and give us updates as to who is listening.

She did not mention his 2 inch penus, being toothless etc towards him, if she had, I would have said something to her for attacking the 'person' and not the argument.

I am in no way being hypocritical, but if it makes YOU feel better Jim, go ahead and think so...!

jd

[jimnyc]

She did not mention his 2 inch penus, being toothless etc towards him, if she had, I would have said something to her for attacking the 'person' and not the argument.

I am in no way being hypocritical, but if it makes YOU feel better Jim, go ahead and think so...!

jd

Pale, and I'm sure other veterans as well, almost see the flag as one of their own men. They form a bond with this flag when they enter a conflict knowing they are defending everything this flag stands for.

You seem to be determined to think you are the only one who decides what is personally offensive and what isn't. While you think a direct attack at LN was personally offensive, many of us feel that depicting and American Flag burning is personally offensive. Just because YOU don't find it personally offensive doesn't mean others lose their right to believe so.

Yet you'll sit back and toss around judgments based on what YOU feel is personally offensive, completely disregarding the FACT that many have stated it was personally offensive to them.

You're being hypocritical and your refusal to acknowledge as much does nothing to disprove what has been clearly written in front of our eyes.

[JohnDoe]

Pale, and I'm sure other veterans as well, almost see the flag as one of their own men. They form a bond with this flag when they enter a conflict knowing they are defending everything this flag stands for.

You seem to be determined to think you are the only one who decides what is personally offensive and what isn't. While you think a direct attack at LN was personally offensive, many of us feel that depicting and American Flag burning is personally offensive. Just because YOU don't find it personally offensive doesn't mean others lose their right to believe so.

Yet you'll sit back and toss around judgments based on what YOU feel is personally offensive, completely disregarding the FACT that many have stated it was personally offensive to them.

You're being hypocritical and your refusal to acknowledge as much does nothing to disprove what has been clearly written in front of our eyes.

Come on Jim, stop lying.

Liars are just that, liars.

I have already told you... that through this lengthy thread, I came to terms with HOW important the Flag was to those that have served in the military due to 82 marine's post, and that if an amendment to allow making flag burning illegal were to come to pass, that I would support it.

You are barking up the wrong tree Jim.

[Mr. P]

Nor does it stop me from showing how you are being hypocritical. But you're right, feel free to shout from the rooftops about your disagreement with Pale's post. Come back and give us updates as to who is listening.

Unfortunately, I don't think the folks that should listen will.

There is nothing hypocritical about what JD said. It has nothing to do with free speech or being offended but everything to do with being a representative of Christianity. Vial personal attacks are NOT a good representation, in fact, as I've said before about our thumpers, it only does harm to the faith.

[jimnyc]

Come on Jim, stop lying.

Liars are just that, liars.

What have I lied about, BITCH? Now how about you backup that statement and show where I lied? I've lied about nothing. Should I demand an apology from you? I think a retraction would do just fine.

Don't start making shit up about me because you look like an idiot with your own statements. Talk about barking up the wrong tree. What a dumbass.

[jimnyc]

Unfortunately, I don't think the folks that should listen will.

There is nothing hypocritical about what JD said. It has nothing to do with free speech or being offended but everything to do with being a representative of Christianity. Vial personal attacks are NOT a good representation, in fact, as I've said before about our thumpers, it only does harm to the faith.

Don't demand an apology for something you find offensive, while at the same time supporting those who do offensive things to others. It's really that simple, and needs no religion to support it. It's hypocritical to the very definition.

[JohnDoe]

What have I lied about, BITCH? Now how about you backup that statement and show where I lied? I've lied about nothing. Should I demand an apology from you? I think a retraction would do just fine.

Don't start making shit up about me because you look like an idiot with your own statements. Talk about barking up the wrong tree. What a dumbass.

You asked for support of my statement about you lying, here is just one of your lies that I have corrected YOU on several times but you continue to act as though I have not.


Yet you'll sit back and toss around judgments based on what YOU feel is personally offensive, completely disregarding the FACT that many have stated it was personally offensive to them.


The BOLD part, is an outright lie....period. And you have said it, in various ways, several times....so a repeated lie, even after I showed you, otherwise.

But hey, do as you wish, be as you wish, I am not the one that determines your fate....

But as Mr P noted, I corrected Pale, as a fellow Christian.... NOT as a [political foe, but YOU have tried to make more of it, than what it was worth.

jd

Oh, and thanks for the BITCH comment............gees, grow up, and try to be decent, will ya? For humanity's sake!!!

jd

[Mr. P]

Don't demand an apology for something you find offensive, while at the same time supporting those who do offensive things to others. It's really that simple, and needs no religion to support it. It's hypocritical to the very definition.


As a Christian, I can't believe you let yourself scoop so low? And it would be WRONG for me not to set you straight and tell you such!!!

YOU, my new friend, (so I thought), and my fellow Christian, OWE LN an apology for your intentional words that were MEANT to be hurtful.

Her context is religious. She is NOT being hypocritical. Step back and read it all objectively, you're mixing apples with oranges. IMO.

[jimnyc]

You asked for support of my statement about you lying, here is just one of your lies that I have corrected YOU on several times but you continue to act as though I have not.



The BOLD part, is an outright lie....period. And you have said it, in various ways, several times....so a repeated lie, even after I showed you, otherwise.

But hey, do as you wish, be as you wish, I am not the one that determines your fate....

But as Mr P noted, I corrected Pale, as a fellow Christian.... NOT as a [political foe, but YOU have tried to make more of it, than what it was worth.

jd

Oh, and thanks for the BITCH comment............gees, grow up, and try to be decent, will ya? For humanity's sake!!!

jd

And that's my opinion, that you completely disregarded the fact that what is being "said" to them is personally offensive, and don't feel an apology is warranted. But once you read something YOU found offensive, then you feel an apology is warranted. That's hardly a lie, honey. My opinions need not jive with yours to be considered "truth".

And fuck both you and humanity. I don't need you dictating a damn thing to me.

[jimnyc]

Her context is religious. She is NOT being hypocritical. Step back and read it all objectively, you're mixing apples with oranges. IMO.

Allow me to point out the facts for you:

1- LN used an avatar that others had already stated they found offensive.
2- JD supported her "right" to use it, and has not demanded an apology
3- Pale wrote what he wrote, and never stated it was anything about religion
4- JD was offended by the comments and thinks Pale should apologize

Neither Pale or myself brought religion into this.

Are you implying that if I echo Pale's comments it would be ok, since I'm not quite as religious as others?

So leave out the religion and you have someone condemning what they find offensive while at the same time standing in support of something that offends others. Unless you want to negate Pale's right to state something perceived by others to be offensive simply because he is Catholic.

[JohnDoe]

And that's my opinion, that you completely disregarded the fact that what is being "said" to them is personally offensive, and don't feel an apology is warranted. But once you read something YOU found offensive, then you feel an apology is warranted. That's hardly a lie, honey. My opinions need not jive with yours to be considered "truth".

And fuck both you and humanity. I don't need you dictating a damn thing to me.

As YOU wish.

I did not disregard what Pale and Marine and others were saying, I listened to them, and came to terms with their feelings regarding flag burning, quite the OPPOSITE of what you state....but so be it, continue to lie if you wish....as you said, you don't need me to dictate a thing to YOU....

you are male, you are invincible! hahahaha! :D LN and I, are just BITCHES to you....ahhhhh, how enlightening it all is becoming...

you hate women don't you, your wife...you hate her, your mom? Just a guess....from a newbie....and the way you responded by calling me a BITCH and the way you support the demeaning comments of Pale's towards Ln another female, only STILL a CHILD....

I get it now.... ;)

jd

PS. Now, how did that feel?

[jimnyc]

As YOU wish.

I did not disregard what Pale and Marine and others were saying, I listened to them, and came to terms with their feelings regarding flag burning, quite the OPPOSITE of what you state....but so be it, continue to lie if you wish....as you said, you don't need me to dictate a thing to YOU....

you are male, you are invincible! hahahaha! :D LN and I, are just BITCHES to you....ahhhhh, how enlightening it all is becoming...

you hate women don't you, your wife...you hate her, your mom? Just a guess....from a newbie....and the way you responded by calling me a BITCH and the way you support the demeaning comments of Pale's towards Ln another female, only STILL a CHILD....

I get it now.... ;)

jd

PS. Now, how did that feel?

Then why are you not of the belief that LN owes an apology to those she offended? Is it simply because Pale is Catholic and you expect different from a Catholic? Would you feel differently if it was a non-Catholic making those statements? Would that person still owe an apology? What if a non-Catholic made those statements, and was personally offended by what LN used as an avatar?

[jimnyc]

you hate women don't you, your wife...you hate her, your mom? Just a guess....from a newbie....and the way you responded by calling me a BITCH and the way you support the demeaning comments of Pale's towards Ln another female, only STILL a CHILD....

I get it now.... ;)

jd

PS. Now, how did that feel?

Ask my Mom yourself if she feels that way, she posts here! Ask the rest of the women who post here while you're at it. See if they feel hated by me, or treated differently because they're women.

You don't get it, you get only what you want, and it's obviously not much.

[JohnDoe]

Then why are you not of the belief that LN owes an apology to those she offended? Is it simply because Pale is Catholic and you expect different from a Catholic? Would you feel differently if it was a non-Catholic making those statements? Would that person still owe an apology? What if a non-Catholic made those statements, and was personally offended by what LN used as an avatar?

Because flag burning, is a debatable topic.

There are two legitimate concerns regarding it and the Constitution. This is a topic of political discussion and debate that a Political message board SHOULD be having Jim.

I expect the discussion on this to get heated, with valid concerns from both sides REGARDING the ISSUE....

There should be no apologies, for people on EITHER SIDE when it is regarding the defense on one's position on this issue imo.

The apology was due, imo, by him, for attacking LN regarding her personal appearance, for goodness sakes! THAT has nothing at all to do with the Debate, regarding the legality of flag burning, and was ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR by ANYONE, let alone, someone who proclaims to be Catholic or a Christian imo, and I had to respond, as a fellow Catholic.

JD

[jimnyc]

Because flag burning, is a debatable topic.

Exactly my point.

This subject doesn't offend you as it does others. You see it simply as an educational tool on the constitution while others are personally offended by the depiction. Maybe some of us are offended no differently by the depiction, than you are of Pale's comments. But you only condemn him because you feel differently about the flag burning subject. And since you weren't offended as much as others were about the flag, you don't think an apology is necessary.

[Mr. P]

Pale!!!!

Shame on you!

THAT,

Was uncalled for, in every manner.

You, just represented the Devil (evil) and in no way represented any form of being a so called Christian, or Godlike (good).

As a Christian, I can't believe you let yourself scoop so low? And it would be WRONG for me not to set you straight and tell you such!!!

YOU, my new friend, (so I thought), and my fellow Christian, OWE LN an apology for your intentional words that were MEANT to be hurtful.

jd


Exactly my point.

This subject doesn't offend you as it does others. You see it simply as an educational tool on the constitution while others are personally offended by the depiction. Maybe some of us are offended no differently by the depiction, than you are of Pale's comments. But you only condemn him because you feel differently about the flag burning subject. And since you weren't offended as much as others were about the flag, you don't think an apology is necessary.

JD has yet to say she was offended. I think this BS is about post count. Cuz you don't have a case, Jim.

[jimnyc]

JD has yet to say she was offended. I think this BS is about post count. Cuz you don't have a case, Jim.

One generally doesn't ask for an apology if they weren't offended.

And I really don't give a fuck what you think. You've been on your little tirade ever since you were forced to comply with the signature guidelines like everyone else. I originally stated yours could stay, then changed my mind as others were forced to have theirs removed/changed to comply. Deal with it.

[Mr. P]

One generally doesn't ask for an apology if they weren't offended.

And I really don't give a fuck what you think. You've been on your little tirade ever since you were forced to comply with the signature guidelines like everyone else. I originally stated yours could stay, then changed my mind as others were forced to have theirs removed/changed to comply. Deal with it.

The new rule has nothing to do with my opinion. Think what you will but I assure you you're wrong.

JD didn't say she was offended, you did. Maybe she'll clear that up for you, it's clear to me.

Slow on the board today ain't? :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

The new rule has nothing to do with my opinion. Think what you will but I assure you you're wrong.

JD didn't say she was offended, you did. Maybe she'll clear that up for you, it's clear to me.

Slow on the board today ain't? :laugh2:

Don't like the pace of the board, or what is discussed? Go elsewhere then. You said you were going to anyway if your signature was changed.

[Mr. P]

Don't like the pace of the board, or what is discussed? Go elsewhere then. You said you were going to anyway if your signature was changed.

Are you asking me to leave the board, or just inciting more posts?

[jimnyc]

Go partake in another thread, Mr. P.

[JohnDoe]

hmmmmm?

[Pale Rider]

My comment was not a shot at Christianity at all. It was a shot at a self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical-blowhard.

So now we just skip right to the insults aye Mm? No more need for you lose a debate?

You throw that garbage at em without provocation, and I'm the bad guy? You need a reality check moron.

[Pale Rider]

Pale!!!!

Shame on you!

THAT,

Was uncalled for, in every manner.

You, just represented the Devil (evil) and in no way represented any form of being a so called Christian, or Godlike (good).

As a Christian, I can't believe you let yourself scoop so low? And it would be WRONG for me not to set you straight and tell you such!!!

YOU, my new friend, (so I thought), and my fellow Christian, OWE LN an apology for your intentional words that were MEANT to be hurtful.

jd

Bullshit. This goes a lot deeper than you know.

If anybody owes someone here an apology, it's LN. She should personally apologize to the whole board, especially us veterans, for displaying such vile avatars.

[Pale Rider]

Correctamundo! He believes in double standards and hypocrisy...I don't.
Point out ONE double standard I "believe in."


You don't see me posting time and again about how some group is comprised of godless, immoral heathens or some other group is made up of the devil's children. Do you suppose that if "homos are commanded by the devil" that a believer might have been commanded by Jesus to take his kid to a whorehouse? PR's as credible in regards to morality as Hitlery is credible in stock-trading ethics.
Here's the diference misslehead, I say I'm a Christian, and I will never deny that. I believe in God and Christ the savior. I have ALSO said that I'm "NOT THAT GOOD OF CHRISTIAN, AND THAT I WILL ANSWER FOR MY SINS TO THE LORD IN THE END." THAT, misslebrain, is STILL, a Christian. I DO NOT deny my faith. I also admit I sin.

Now you have no game. Shut the fuck up.

[Pale Rider]

That's for you to decide.

It appears to me you'd also like to decide.

[Pale Rider]

Actually, I have substantiated it, not that it will stop you from circling the wagons.

You have aye? And where would the proof of that be?

[Pale Rider]

Unfortunately, I don't think the folks that should listen will.

There is nothing hypocritical about what JD said. It has nothing to do with free speech or being offended but everything to do with being a representative of Christianity. Vial personal attacks are NOT a good representation, in fact, as I've said before about our thumpers, it only does harm to the faith.

Yes I'm a Christian, but I've said UMPTEEN TIMES on this board AND the old one, I'M NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A CHRISTIAN! If that bothers you and others, I can't help it. But the fact that I AM A CHRISTIAN remains. I will NOT deny my faith just because I'M A SINNER. At least I ADMIT I'm a sinner, and THAT is the CHRISTIAN thing to do.

[Pale Rider]

But as Mr P noted, I corrected Pale, as a fellow Christian.... NOT as a [political foe, but YOU have tried to make more of it, than what it was worth.
YOU have NOT "corrected" me ABOUT ANYTHING woman! I excersized my freedom of speech, and unlike the burning flag, you didn't like it.

WELL TO FUCKING BAD!!!!!!!!!

You can pick and choose what makes YOU feel all warm and fuzzy, BUT I CAN'T???!!!

YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRIT JOHNDOPE. It's mud all over your face.

[Pale Rider]

Then why are you not of the belief that LN owes an apology to those she offended? Is it simply because Pale is Catholic and you expect different from a Catholic? Would you feel differently if it was a non-Catholic making those statements? Would that person still owe an apology? What if a non-Catholic made those statements, and was personally offended by what LN used as an avatar?

I'm nondenominational brother. Just a simple Christian.

[Pale Rider]

JD has yet to say she was offended. I think this BS is about post count. Cuz you don't have a case, Jim.

I don't have any idea where that's coming from Mr. P. You're usually pretty reasonable. But this.... you're cracked brother.

Johndope has been squeeling like a stuck pig about comments I made to LN, but she lets that burning American flag avatar slide like it's a picture of cotton candy. Oh nooooooo.... no hypocritical double standard there... :uhoh:

The ROOT of this WHOLE DAMN STINKING MESS, is LIBERALNATIONS AVATAR!!!!

SHE IS THE ONE THAT OWES THIS WHOLE BOARD AN APOLOGY, AND, SHE NEEDS TO REMOVE IT!

[Pale Rider]

Hagbardceline
LiberalNation
Obama08 Bin Landen


There's your board freaks and geeks that that LOVE to see the AMERICAN FLAG BURNING!

[JohnDoe]

YOU have NOT "corrected" me ABOUT ANYTHING woman! I excersized my freedom of speech, and unlike the burning flag, you didn't like it.

WELL TO FUCKING BAD!!!!!!!!!

You can pick and choose what makes YOU feel all warm and fuzzy, BUT I CAN'T???!!!

YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRIT JOHNDOPE. It's mud all over your face.


I have no intention of getting in a spitting match with you over this.

I only stick by what I have said regarding your mean spiritedness towards LN personally, not your comments about your displeasure with HER CHOICE of bad moves, or freedom of speech for displaying an animated icon of the flag burning, because you can argue all you want about this in any kind of tone be it nasty or not, and I would accept this as something that comes with the argument on either side of this issue....

It was your vicious attack on her LOOKS, that was uncalled for, which had nothing at all to do with whether someone supports the freedom to burn the flag, or not... THAT is what was uncalled for in my opinion and I stick by it.

jd

[Pale Rider]

It was your vicious attack on her LOOKS, that was uncalled for, which had nothing at all to do with whether someone supports the freedom to burn the flag, or not... THAT is what was uncalled for in my opinion and I stick by it.

jd

NO... WRONG... it was HER VICIOUS ATTACK ON MY FLAG that was/is uncalled for. My response was SECONDARY to her INSULT. You utterly FAIL to see that. Out of ignorance, indifference, or otherwise, I don't know. All I do know is you don't give a SHIT about "MY" feelings, or ANY OTHER VETERAN HERE. You only care about the feelings of some IGNORANT little FAGGOT and her BURNING FLAG. You liberals are all alike.

GO FUCK YOURSELF JD. YOU'RE WAY OTTA LINE HERE WITH YOUR HYPOCRACY.

[JohnDoe]

NO... WRONG... it was HER VICIOUS ATTACK ON MY FLAG that was/is uncalled for. My response was SECONDARY to her INSULT. You utterly FAIL to see that. Out of ignorance, indifference, or otherwise, I don't know. All I do know is you don't give a SHIT about "MY" feelings, or ANY OTHER VETERAN HERE. You only care about the feelings of some IGNORANT little FAGGOT and her BURNING FLAG. You liberals are all alike.

GO FUCK YOURSELF JD. YOU'RE WAY OTTA LINE HERE WITH YOUR HYPOCRACY.The thing is though, is that it is not just YOUR FLAG it is OUR FLAG, including Liberal Nations...

Her "looks" should have nothing to do with it. And Pale, you can continue to be as vulgar as you like, it doesn't make you any better of a person, or somehow "right" in any way for your actions imo....just immature....and unable to take, constructive critisicm from a fellow Christian.

jd

[Missileman]

So now we just skip right to the insults aye Mm? No more need for you lose a debate?

You throw that garbage at em without provocation, and I'm the bad guy? You need a reality check moron.


You have aye? And where would the proof of that be?


Point out ONE double standard I "believe in."


Here's the diference misslehead, I say I'm a Christian, and I will never deny that. I believe in God and Christ the savior. I have ALSO said that I'm "NOT THAT GOOD OF CHRISTIAN, AND THAT I WILL ANSWER FOR MY SINS TO THE LORD IN THE END." THAT, misslebrain, is STILL, a Christian. I DO NOT deny my faith. I also admit I sin.

Now you have no game. Shut the fuck up.

You post rants about how the liberals are proponents of sexual immorality, promiscuity, and fornication. You call homosexuals the children of the devil. Your user title is "Homos need to repent".

Less than a month ago, you posted this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=94395&postcount=22


Last year I took my son and friend from work who both had October birthdays to the Bunny Ranch II. They both got laid for $200 each, and my son had this oriental that was HOT! He also had to have seconds.

Yeah you can drop a load of cash on the girls, and yes, there are some VERY hot babes. Out at the Wild Horse, which is like a brothel/bar, the girls wander around, same as any other brothel, but this is bigger and nicer, and there are lots of hot ones. The world famous "MUSTANG" is having a grand opening. I plan on going to that.

Does any of that shit fall into your definition of sexually moral? Doesn't PLANNING on going back make YOU unrepentent?

BTW, you can stick your negative rep up your ass...you have no credibility in that department either.

[Pale Rider]

The thing is though, is that it is not just YOUR FLAG it is OUR FLAG, including Liberal Nations...
But "I" am the only one that finds it offensive to BURN it out of all of us you mention. I that makes it a little more "MY" flag than yours.


Her "looks" should have nothing to do with it. And Pale, you can continue to be as vulgar as you like, it doesn't make you any better of a person, or somehow "right" in any way for your actions imo....just immature....and unable to take, constructive critisicm from a fellow Christian.

jd
It's not my fault she's uglier than a mud toad and a lezbo slit licker. Hag wondered what she looked like. I told him.

You're awful JUDGEMENTAL for a "Christian." You seem to pick your sides and apply your brand "Christianity" as YOU see fit. That's not very Christian like. You seem to have nose problems, sticking it in where it isn't needed. I'm glad I'm not your neighbor.

[Pale Rider]

You post rants about how the liberals are proponents of sexual immorality, promiscuity, and fornication. You call homosexuals the children of the devil. Your user title is "Homos need to repent".

Less than a month ago, you posted this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=94395&postcount=22

Does any of that shit fall into your definition of sexually moral? Doesn't PLANNING on going back make YOU unrepentent?

BTW, you can stick your negative rep up your ass...you have no credibility in that department either.

Mm... is that the best you can do? So I'm a sinner... so what? We all sin, but I have the testicles to ADMIT it, and that is what Christians do.

So take that pathetic bullshit you've wasted your time on above and stick it where the sun don't shine moron. It ain't carryin' the water.

[Missileman]

Mm... is that the best you can do?
Totally exposing you for the hypocrite you are isn't enough for you?


So I'm a sinner... so what? We all sin, but I have the testicles to ADMIT it, and that is what Christians do.

So take that pathetic bullshit you've wasted your time on above and stick it where the sun don't shine moron. It ain't carryin' the water.

Is that your best answer to my substantiation? Your conduct is okay because you admit it's wrong? Your double standards and hypocrisy are okay because you admit you sin? That's gotta be the weakest excuse for an excuse I've ever seen. You wonder why some people think Christians are full of sheep dip? It's because of people, like you, who don't believe in their own morals enough to follow them. The same people demand that the rest of us live by them.

[Gunny]

Totally exposing you for the hypocrite you are isn't enough for you?



Is that your best answer to my substantiation? Your conduct is okay because you admit it's wrong? Your double standards and hypocrisy are okay because you admit you sin? That's gotta be the weakest excuse for an excuse I've ever seen. You wonder why some people think Christians are full of sheep dip? It's because of people, like you, who don't believe in their own morals enough to follow them. The same people demand that the rest of us live by them.

You're just about as self-righteous and full of it as you accuse Pale of being. There's a BIG difference between telling others how to live, and expressing an opinion that how they are living is wrong.

This board is for expressing opinions. I have not once seen you present an argument that wasn't based solely on your opinion, or some irrelevant game of semantics defelcting issues to suit your agenda rather than address them head on and call something what it is.

Homosexuals are abnormal, period. If that's what they want to be, fine, but don't tell me that 95%+ of the population should have to suffer the whims of less than 5% of the population because they don't know which fucking hole to stick it in.

As far as being hypocritical goes ... show me the evidence the Pale's a homosexual saying homosexuality is wrong, and I'll agree with you, Otherwise, you'er just posting rhetoric.

[Gunny]

Totally exposing you for the hypocrite you are isn't enough for you?



Is that your best answer to my substantiation? Your conduct is okay because you admit it's wrong? Your double standards and hypocrisy are okay because you admit you sin? That's gotta be the weakest excuse for an excuse I've ever seen. You wonder why some people think Christians are full of sheep dip? It's because of people, like you, who don't believe in their own morals enough to follow them. The same people demand that the rest of us live by them.


The only person you are exposing is yourself.

[Missileman]

You're just about as self-righteous and full of it as you accuse Pale of being. There's a BIG difference between telling others how to live, and expressing an opinion that how they are living is wrong.

This board is for expressing opinions. I have not once seen you present an argument that wasn't based solely on your opinion, or some irrelevant game of semantics defelcting issues to suit your agenda rather than address them head on and call something what it is.

Homosexuals are abnormal, period. If that's what they want to be, fine, but don't tell me that 95%+ of the population should have to suffer the whims of less than 5% of the population because they don't know which fucking hole to stick it in.

As far as being hypocritical goes ... show me the evidence the Pale's a homosexual saying homosexuality is wrong, and I'll agree with you, Otherwise, you'er just posting rhetoric.

Are you fucking blind or intentionally skipping over the substantiation I posted? My accusation of his hypocisy hasn't anything to do with homosexuality in this case. He started a thread about liberals. It was one long string of claims that liberals promote promiscuity and fornication among other immoral activities. He entered into this grandstanding assault on the morals of others after posting that he took his kid to a whorehouse and was making plans on attending the Grand Opening (wasn't my pun) of another. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, you're blind.