BUSH DEFACES U.S. FLAG

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

U-P, in the most friendly way possible, I think you might pull your head in on this one and see what happens.


What do I have to see ? That the US President is just autographing a little US flag ? Where is the problem ?


U-P:


1. The law.

2. To many Americans the star-spangled banner is sacrosanct. Considerably above the status of Presidential office. This was not a sensible thing to do. If it was a knowing symbolic act rather than a thoughtless one, that would be a real problem.

BUT

3. To those with an enquiring mind, it shows Bush's ignorance again.

I don't think you would find any American 'president' or President who has defaced the US flag, by autographing it or doing anything else to it, before this idiot. But I would be interested to know otherwise.

Anyway, I'm sure idiot Dubya won't be doing it again, and it will fetch some cash on ebay for the kid some time, no value to him.


[Edited on 26-7-2003 by MaskedAvatar]




posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Let's face it. There are those who wouldn't let Bush get away with his toilet technique in the morning without criticism. That is why there is such a thing as irrational hatred.

And, flag burners get a free ride.........hmm, I am sure GWB was thinking: "I can deface this tiny little flag for this citizen and further my agenda of world domination over all!!!!! Muuuuuwaaaaaaauuuhhaaaaaa...."

Time -out.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Freddie, have you lost your mind? I don't care what perverted courts say, burning the flag or showing disrespect to it in such manner as you described is not constitutionally protected. It isn't even speech. Larry Flint isn't saying a thing by wearing the flag as a diaper except "Hey, red-blooded Americans, come stomp the crap out of me!" Those perverting the constitution attempt to say they have a "freedom of expression" so that they may cover all sorts of rubbish under the first amendment. The society has become so degenerate that it thinks the Founding Fathers actually went to war so that they may be lewd, offensive and impolite today.
The first amendment was so that you may tell the emporer he is wearing no clothes, not so that you can crap on, or write on the national symbol.

President Bush should have balked at the idea of signing the flag. He should have known better.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I think everyone here needs to just calm down, this is simply a case of the President of the United States autographing an American flag.

If I had my chance for one, I'd get Tony Blair to autograph the Union Jack. It doesn't matter whether people think he is a good or bad leader, it is a nice piece of memorabilia.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
29MV29, if you tryed to look ridiculous, it's a full success.
Congratulations.


UP, First of all I don't know where you get off saying something like this. Secondly, I know it's no big deal to sign an autograph on a flag, Christ he's the president. However, It's the point that he did break the law. If I don't follow the rules at work I get written up, and when I don't follow the rules of the land i'll be charged appropiately, right?
I'd like an explanation on how I looked ridiculous. According to our constitution I have every right to do this without fear or worry. So why do you belittle me?



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Freddie, have you lost your mind? I don't care what perverted courts say, burning the flag or showing disrespect to it in such manner as you described is not constitutionally protected. It isn't even speech. Larry Flint isn't saying a thing by wearing the flag as a diaper except "Hey, red-blooded Americans, come stomp the crap out of me!" Those perverting the constitution attempt to say they have a "freedom of expression" so that they may cover all sorts of rubbish under the first amendment. The society has become so degenerate that it thinks the Founding Fathers actually went to war so that they may be lewd, offensive and impolite today.
The first amendment was so that you may tell the emporer he is wearing no clothes, not so that you can crap on, or write on the national symbol.

President Bush should have balked at the idea of signing the flag. He should have known better.


Where did I say I agreed with it?



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Well, Dubya never thinks, so he obviously wasn't thinking when he commited this crime.

Second, he has broken so many, what's another one? Before he was president there was several DUI's daddy and daddy's freinds in the GOP got him out of. Then there was coke in college, a coalege thiut pessed him even thoh hi es illeterat amd cen'u ta&k wert e duem, unless someone writes out his speech and tells him how to say it through a earpiece. Then of course him and his brother and his freinds in the GOP stole an election by destroying/hiding/tampering with so many votes that five republican judges voted him in. Then the illegal war and getting his kids/other family members out of drug charges and DUI charges by acting like the NWO puppet he is.

Need I go on?



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 05:13 PM
link   
1) There's nothing wrong with what he's doing, it's a tiny novelty flag, that isn't even to proper scale...

2) That doesn't even look like Bush's head, and his face is not visible, so unless you personally saw him doing this, it looks pretty fishy.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 05:58 PM
link   
James the Lesser, you have goneoverboard in order to validate rhetoric however, among your rhetoric you trip across something. But if he wsn't aware of the fact that defacing the flag is not right, it makes it even worse. I don't care what size it is, it is the flag, not a novelty. It stands for the ideals and principles on which the country is built. It isn't a cocktail napkin upon which to gain the signature of a celebrity.
And Simon, the Union Jack is just as valuable and equally deserves more respect. It stands for good principles and a good people as well. Rather than this conservative traditionalist loosen up, I suggest others' tighten up. Looseness has only led to disentigration.

[Edited on 26-7-2003 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Don't you people realize that that back of the head photo looks more like Bill Clinton than it does BUSH!....



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   
FreeMason

I am finding increasingly, that your posts have the tendency to cloud issues rather than adding value to them, and you have some misdirected need to obfuscate or defend criminal actions of the 'president'.

TC has a very good view of this, but for your info:

(1) It is Bush. The photo is from a recent accredited source.

(2) Signing exactly what he signed is agaisnt the law.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Actually no I have a very good point, the only source this photo is from is Yahoo...a very unacredited source.

We don't know who the hell is in the picture, and it says that he's at some factory, when it looks like the person signing is signing for soldiers dressed in class B uniforms...the whole picture looks F-ed up.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 11:53 PM
link   
FreeMason

No. The photo is syndicated by Yahoo (or posted there by some user) from an accredited journalist who took it recently. Someone might see if they can find the original source for you, but it's a timewaster.

It is far, far, far less of a case than the people who are debating the disinformation campaign about two bodies held out to be the Hussein brothers.



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Yes, retarded son George W Bush reallyshould have known better......


The Flag Enforcement Administration
Published July 2, 1989 in the Denver Post.
Copyright 1989 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

And it came to pass that on the 213th anniversary of its freedom, the United States of America adopted the 27th amendment to its national constitution, and thenceforth it was illegal to burn, mutilate, or otherwise "desecrate" the American flag.

Among the first to be imprisoned for violating the Flag Protection Amendment were the dozen or so American Christians who actually practiced the teachings of the Bible.

At their trial, they cited their First Amendment religious freedom, as well as the Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above (i.e., stars) . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

In their view, a law against "desecrating" the flag carried the clear implication that the flag, a piece of man-made cloth, had become sacred, and therefore, obedience to that law of man was the worship of an idol, and thus a violation of the laws of God.

President Bush said that although he sympathized with them, he "had no problem" with sending the Christians to a reeducation center where they were forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- his major campaign issue in 1988 -- for 16 hours a day.

Bush also pledged "an all-out war on flag abuse" and established the Flag Enforcement Administration as part of a anti-flag-abuse task force headed by Vice-President Dan Quayle.

Editors of veterans' magazines were shocked when they were their offices were among the first places to be raided by the FEA.

"Have you seen some of their advertising?" Quayle asked. "It's disgusting. They're selling American flag belt buckles, shoulder patches and lapel pins. Can you believe that they could call themselves patriots while they're busy commercializing our sacred flag? Even worse, they're actually selling paraphernalia which leads to even worse forms of flag abuse."

Pressed for specifics, Quayle mentioned flag decals and bumper stickers for automobiles. "In themselves, they're probably acceptable. But the problem is, people put them on cars, where they get splattered by mud. Very few drivers have sufficient patriotism to obey the law of the land. They don't stop the moment their flag is defaced and clean it. Instead, they just drive on in the mistaken belief that washing the car once a month is enough. It isn't."

At their trial, the flag paraphernalia merchants pointed out that the U.S. government, through its subsidiary, the Postal Service, was one of the major offenders. Many postage stamps have flags on them, and the Postal Service defaces those flags with its canceling machines.

A new method of cancellation was developed, thus giving the Postal Service an excuse to raise first-class postage to 50 cents an ounce, but there remained another problem.

With the exception of a few dingbat maiden aunts, Americans throw out old envelopes, even envelopes that have flag stamps on them. Once these flags enter the garbage stream, they could be buried without due honor, corroded by toxic wastes, or even burned.

"To insure that our great national symbol is not defaced," Bush promised to place an FEA inspector at every landfill in America. "We have zero tolerance for flag abuse," he announced.

There were some who thought the money might be better spent by inspecting just what was being dumped on America -- oil on its beaches, acid rain on its forests, chemicals in its rivers -- but Bush said he couldn't buy that. "Do whatever you want to America, as long as it shows a profit," he said. "But don't mess with our flag."



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 12:20 AM
link   
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18

CHAPTER 33

Part I. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES
THIS TITLE WAS ENACTED BY ACT JUNE 25, 1948, CH. 645, SEC. 1, 62 STAT. 683


700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor
or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it
has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term 'flag of the United States' means any flag of the United
States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly
displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to
deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction
over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any
interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling
upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction
over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.



I read this as backing up my supposition that Bush would argue what relations he had with the flag, and what a flag is.

However, it is self-evident from Clause (2) above that the beneficiary who received Bush's defaced flag could do anything they want in its disposal, as clearly the flag is now soiled.




posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 12:30 AM
link   
CITE 4 USC Sec. 3 01/26/98
EXPCITE TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG
TEXT Sec. 3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner,
for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any
word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement
of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the
United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to
public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which
shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which
shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure,
mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any
nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture,
sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in
possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any
purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise,
or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or
transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed,
painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such
flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to,
decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so
placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not
more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The words ''flag, standard, colors, or ensign'', as used herein,
shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or
representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made
of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size
evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors,
or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a
representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the
stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any
part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the
same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the
flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.
SOURCE (July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 642; Pub. L. 90-381, Sec. 3, July
5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291.)
NOTES AMENDMENTS
1968 - Pub. L. 90-381 struck out ''; or who, within the District
of Columbia, shall publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy,
trample upon, or cast contempt, either by word or act, upon any
such flag, standard, colors, or ensign,'' after ''substance on
which so placed''.



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 12:32 AM
link   
This has no teeth, even within the District of Colombia.



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Freddie

I think the question came up originally as to whether the DC rules apply where Bush autographed the flag.

I haven't seen the local statute there.



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I would say they don't even apply in the D.C., despite the wording of what I quoted. I do not know for sure if it has been challenged, but other Supreme Court decisions come down saying such a law is unconstitutional.



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 04:39 AM
link   
These are opinions from www.jimboellis.com (the facts about Bush signing I can take on board fully, not his tirade and tars and feathers).

Another section of the US Code refers very specifically to this kind of defacing.

Also cites where this most bizarre, stupid and thoughtless thing happened -




US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (g): "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL!!!!!!!!!

"President Bush signs American flags for workers at Beaver Aerospace and Defense after speaking about jobs and economic growth in Livonia, Michigan, Thursday, July 23, 2003. President Bush, in campaign-style speeches in states vital to his reelection, sought Thursday to make sure voters give him credit for rebates heading to millions of taxpayers this week."

Here's our moron in chief desecrating the flag that our kids are dying for. I am so sick of hearing about the new casualties everyday. And for what? Are we any safer? Is Saddam dead? Found those WMDs yet? No- just more of the same- soldiers dying so the moron and his buddies can turn a profit. The news is coming out so fast and furious and conflicting, that Joe Six Pack doesn't know what to think. And that's just where the government wants us. Too confused to form any opinion- just go along to get along. Too confused to figure out the president is a liar. Too confused to know the economy is in shambles. To confused to know the US is making more enemies everyday. The death of Saddam's sons sure quieted things down in Iraq, eh? Tell that to the dead soldier's families, and the soldiers that continue to be sitting ducks. Now we're sending troops to Liberia- better order up some more body bags! If we haven't used them all up in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Another country we "liberated" then high tailed it out of there to leave the same chaos that was there before.

Hopefully, and soon, this country will collapse upon itself from the weight of the crap that our corrupted government has heaped upon us. Then, again, hopefully, we can start over, learning from the mistakes that got us into the stinking hole we are in. I can already hear the right-wing assholes saying "love it or leave it". Well screw you. Remember this country was built on dissent, and some part of our Constitution, (the part that hasn't been used for toilet paper by our "leaders") says that I and any other citizen has the right to bitch and moan all we want. But all the complaining and protesting won't do any good. Just wait till the 2004 elections. If you don't think that it's already in the bag, then you're a moron also. The only reason Clinton was allowed to take the office from daddy Bush is that Bush knew he would carry on the same criminal acts and he would keep his mouth shut about the Iran-Contra debacle. After all, Clinton was Governor of Arkansas when the plane loads of coc aine were brought into Mena, AK to finance the Contras. That same coc aine was sold in our cities to waste our youth, particularly black youth, and provide a convenient way to put them in jail. If you think your vote will count in 2004, you're delusional. The mainstream media is finally coming around to reporting on the vulnerabilities in the new electronic voting systems we'll see in use in 2004.

I can hear some of you saying "Wow-Jim's on a rant today, eh?" But you wait and see. See how much longer this country can go on supporting wars in other countries while nothing is done to help citizens here. While the US kills civilians abroad and provides aid to the next dictator-of the-day. While women and children live on the streets and eat out of dumpsters. While senior citizens have to decide between prescription meds and eating cat food. While our borders remain open, and if you're an illegal immigrant, you can get free health care and a subsidized education, but if you were born here, these programs are not available. Hopefully the collapse is near- I can't wait to see it happen. I've got my tar and feathers and rope ready.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join