It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexican activist attempts to burn American Flag-key word "attempts"

page: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Any man would fight to defend his home, his family, and what he loves. Not everyone can stomach invading another country, killing people, and slapping a defending democracy sticker all over the whole situation. If we ever get invaded or attacked I'll go get the "bad guys" with the best of them but untill then I'm not going to confuse the symbol of this government with the people that made it great. Also that sacred document as you call it was written behind closed doors by the wealthiest merchants of the time with no consideration for the people it governed. If they had anything against flag burning as a form of protest they would have put it in the constitution. I think they burned alot of english union flags themselves though.




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
My point is intrepid is that you all are parading the constitution around, yet, condone the burning of the flag which is a representation of the constitution


Please, oh please! Show me exactly where that is true, and what valid source there is that states this? I expect a government source, not any less.

I'll be waiting to see this revelation stating clearly "the flag represents the Constitution."



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by intrepid


Do you own firearms? Will you give them up to me? NOW!



I'm Texan, it'll never happen... Your chances of getting my gun is like a camel fitting through the head of a needle..

My point is intrepid is that you all are parading the constitution around, yet, condone the burning of the flag which is a representation of the constitution



[edit on 30-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


No the flag ISN'T a representation of the Constitution, but thanks for making my point for me. What YOU are doing is picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution YOU want to abide by. That isn't what the Constitution is about. YOU are the one here that is making a mockery of the document that the basis of the American nation is founded upon. The only other person in recent memory that I can think of that has done this is Bush.

Again, thanks.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Here's a history lesson for all of you..


Establishment of State Flag Desecration Laws (1897-1932): In the years immediately following the Civil War, many felt that the trademark value of the American flag was threatened on at least two fronts: by many white Southerners' preference for the Confederate flag, and by business' tendency to use the American flag as a standard advertising logo. To respond to this perceived threat, 48 states passed laws banning flag desecration.
The First U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Flag Desecration (1907): Most early flag desecration statutes prohibited marking or otherwise defacing a flag design, using the flag in commercial advertising, and showing "contempt" for flag in any way--by publicly burning, trampling on it, spitting on it, or otherwise showing a lack of respect for it. In Halter v. Nebraska (1907), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these statutes as constitutional.

* Summary: Halter v. Nebraska (1907)

Federal Flag Desecration Law (1968): In 1968, Congress passed the Federal Flag Desecration Law in response to a Central Park event in which peace activists burned American flags in protest against the Vietnam War. The law banned any display of "contempt" directed against the flag, but did not address the other issues dealt with by state flag desecration laws.
Well,well,well

so, it was illegal to disface the American flag until relatively recently. Please, pray tell, do tell what you think led to the change in attitude. I have my own thoughts, but I am just curious as to what the rest of you think.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Politicians don't want the flag burnt because they wrap themselves up too much in it for electoral purposes. So they tell us its bad to burn the flag. Just in case we turn on them. If they did a half decent job, we wouldn't. And they don't even do that and we still don't. Its better burn a flag than shoot someone.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Here's a history lesson for all of you..



Here's a lesson for YOU. Go back a page or 2 where I showed that the Supreme Court threw out such legislation in recent times. You're grasping at straws that aren't there SoT.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Here's a history lesson for all of you..



Here's a lesson for YOU. Go back a page or 2 where I showed that the Supreme Court threw out such legislation in recent times. You're grasping at straws that aren't there SoT.


And I am asking why... Why do you think they made such an anti-American decision?And don't even try to say it's not anti-American when 48 out of the 50 U.S states supported an anti-burn bill

[edit on 30-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If the government would try to prosecute people for protesting because they burned a flag it would probably backfire on them. If they make it legal and sick all the naive citizens on each other they accomplish the same goal with less involment.

plus how can you consider an act of protest as misunderstood as it may be, as an attack on a legal document being the core of the legal system in this country. More often than not a protestors main tool in his arsenal is his countries legal code.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
And I am asking why... Why do you think they made such an anti-American decision?


See? This is where we differ. I see this as PRO-American. It's backing up what the Fore Fathers meant for America in the Constitution. YOU see it as anti-American because it doesn't fit your mindset.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
If I burn a flag in symbolism of our government because for example they violate the constitution's laws am I guilty of being un american or disrespectful to this country.

What if I burn a picture of our leader, who ever he may be, is that unamerican . If the intention is to limit governmental abuse and the means hurts no one , why call foul.


What if I do nothing....who then am I disrespecting.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
YOU see it as anti-American because it doesn't fit your mindset.


Nor does it fit very many people's mindset, if the fact that 48 of the 50 states supported an anti-burning amendment is any indication.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by newyorkee

What if I burn a picture of our leader, who ever he may be, is that unamerican . If the intention is to limit governmental abuse and the means hurts no one , why call foul.




Something you are missing.... Burning a picture of a person is not the same as burning a symbol of an idea that millions of people support. If you burn a picture of a president, you are simply stating that you have a problem with the president. However, when you burn an emblem, such as a flag, you are essentially declaring your hatred for millions of people.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by intrepid
YOU see it as anti-American because it doesn't fit your mindset.


Nor does it fit very many people's mindset, if the fact that 48 of the 50 states supported an anti-burning amendment is any indication.


Yes, yes, yes. I already pointed that out and the Federal government has put into place another Amendment to do what you want because it can't get past the Supreme Court. Guess why they haven't passed that aged peace of legislation? It would be political suicide. Sorry dude. The Constitution stands and the people are behind it.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Guess why they haven't passed that aged peace of legislation? It would be political suicide.


Care to elaborate as to why it would be "political suicide" to introduce a no-burn amendment? I am trying to get a direct answer to this question... I think we all know why,but I just want to see someone,besides myself, verbalize the reason.


[edit on 30-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Like I said earlier, a protestor burns a flag more often than not because of the lack of a better symbol for the government for which it stands, rarely is it used to get at the people that stand behind it. Usually it is done for the people of a country rather than against. It is not the same to compare a anti-american protest and an anti-american government protest. One wants the death of this country and of all its people and the other wants its improvement and prosperity without corruption, or illegalities. Same flag on fire, different motives



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
And I am asking why... Why do you think they made such an anti-American decision?And don't even try to say it's not anti-American when 48 out of the 50 U.S states supported an anti-burn bill.


If that is true, and truly 96% of Americans support this bill, why hasn't there been a law enacted?

It is not anti-American, but you can go on all day trying to make me believe that. You'd just be following the same "self-purpose" agenda you are hinting at with these "relatively recent" changes in the laws?

And why did it take over 100 years for a flag desecration law to have been enacted in the late 1800's? Was it the evil lefties going at it back then, defending Mexicans?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82


Was it the evil lefties going at it back then,


Wow, you are right on top of the answer to my question... Thanks, for answering it. See, we all do know the answer to the question...
Thanks for joining me in the verbalization of it.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Care to elaborate as to why it would be "political suicide" to introduce a no-burn amendment? I am trying to get a direct answer to this question... I think we all know why,but I just want to see someone,besides myself, verbalize the reason.


[edit on 30-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


For the same reason if they tried to pass a law expecting the American people to give up their guns. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! As I said political suicide. Hell, the people would revolt en masse. Don't let this little blip on the political screen that has been going on for 30ish years fool you. The people know their rights. Screw with that and you'll have a Libertarian gov't in no time. Not like that would be a bad thing.

Ball game's on. I'll be back. Not an Ahnold quote.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Its not like the guy in the video was in a terrorist training camp or on tv after 911 celebrating that mess with flags ablaze....this guy was ranting about something that bothered him. Imagine vietnam with 100% support from home. How many american lives did all those dirty hippies save by making a big stink about it. Thank christ for them ....every flag burned was worth it for ever bullet not put into an american gut.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by niteboy82
Was it the evil lefties going at it back then,

Thanks for joining me in the verbalization of it.


Oh thank you, you made my night!


Care to give some evidence to this?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join