Mark and Debbie Kuhn describe home break in by cop's for flying American Flag Up Side Down

As much distress that there is in the world, maybe every nation should be flying there flags in the distress mode. If these folks believe like I do that it needs to be seen as a display of our countries distress then i have to say I agree. BUT..I hate to think I might give cause to our veterans to feel I am showing them disrespect for their sacrifice!

Zindo

reply to post by badmedia


You sir should read all my post, yo would find then that you do not know what you are talking about and therfore have shown great bias in something you know nothing about.

I have served in battle with thse troops I support, and I have never stated I am patriotic, in fact I stated just the opposite. Supporting our troops, and supporting our constitution and the symbology of our flag and what it represents is of greater importance than being patriotic. So sir before opening mouth and insering foot, please read all my post in this topic.

reply to post by Oreyeon


You should educate yourself as well, as I did listen, and I specificaly stated why I felt and had the oinion that I did, Or as several on here have shown that reading a post does not mean that they comprehend what they read.

As far as education goes, go read the U.S. Flag code, I have even posted the link to it for your education in a prior post.

It's not illegal to yell at other people out of your car window.

It's not illegal to put cotton plants in your yard, with black slave cardboard cutouts.

It's not illegal to paint the side of your house with holocaust images and laughing nazis.

It's not illegal to ride through the ghetto on a bicycle, yelling racial slurs.

It's not illegal to run with a knife.

It's not illegal to look down the barrel of a loaded weapon while your finger is on a trigger.

It's not illegal to hang a flag upside down.

....Just not very good ideas.

"Freedom of speech" these days is really being debased. It is NOT an excuse for lack of common sense, reason, intelligence, or the understand that your "expression" has a real, sometimes VIOLENT affect on other people.

"Freedom of speech" DOES NOT protect you from being attacked by someone who doesn't agree with you! As a matter of fact, the repercussion to your freedom of speech HAVE NOTHING to do with your freedom of speech. There does not exist 1 JUDGE for every 3 people in America to monitor our alleged "freedom."

It might be nice to have an intelligent JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER to clean up the streets, but until then you have to PROVE your FREEDOM in a COURT of LAW, AFTER THE FACT!!! AFTER YOU'VE BEEN MISTREATED BY SOME SCHMUCK LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. AFTER YOU'VE BEEN BEATEN BY A PSYCHO, and AFTER YOU'VE HAD YOUR HOUSE BURNED DOWN.

Sure, what the cop did was ILLEGAL, but that doesn't tie in to "Freedom of speech" AT ALL. If the cop respected freedom of speech, he would have acted LEGALLY. He was OUT OF BOUNDS OF THE LAW.. just like everyone else who attacks you when you say something stupid.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't protect you from people acting illegally after you say what you feel you have to say, haha. It seems many of you don't understand this.

You know the only place "Freedom of speech" is going to be on your side?

In the court room, after you pay the money for the lawyer, after you've been arrested, after you've been physically beaten, after you've wasted your time... because any speech that doesn't result in such a journey, obviously society and/or government doesn't really care about it anyway! The only time freedom of speech ever comes into question is something like this happens, and it always wins - but it certainly doesn't win by default, does it?

These people got exactly what they were asking for if you ask me. What goes around comes around; you reap what you sow.

1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-------

Reading the 1st amendment, It's absurd that ANYONE is even attempting to tie what this couple did with the 1st amendment.

Congress didn't attack this couple! lol. Congress didn't come in their house and make a law on the spot, lol. Congress didn't DO ANYTHING AT ALL. It was just a crazy person.

It's like people here read the first amendment and change it to something like this in a delusion:

"You can say and express whatever you want, wherever you want with no repercussions. Under the magical spell of this amendment, which now directly controls the consciousness of everyone in America... nobody will ever be able to physically attack you, and no police officers can falsely arrest you for saying or expression whatever you want."

... but, in this case, the 1st amendment did EXACTLY what it was created to do: give you retroactive freedom of speech.

Anyways, everyone worth their salt knows that the first amendment was created so that speech and expression can be monitored if it begins to manifest other illegal activity. If altercations like this flag thing keep happening, then the form of expression will become ILLEGAL for the protection of the ignorant monkeys.

I never could get past the fade that one uses to get from "freedom of speech" to freedom of expression.

Speech is different from expression.

Speech, verbal or written is not the same as "expression."

Blowing off the head of someone who is flying their flag upside down may also be considered an expression.

After all, I AM expressing, am I not?

I think the Supreme Court blew this call years ago.

Originally posted by trace_the_truth

It's not illegal to hang a flag upside down.

....Just not very good ideas.

"Freedom of speech" these days is really being debased. It is NOT an excuse for lack of common sense, reason, intelligence, or the understand that your "expression" has a real, sometimes VIOLENT affect on other people.

"Freedom of speech" DOES NOT protect you from being attacked by someone who doesn't agree with you! As a matter of fact, the repercussion to your freedom of speech HAVE NOTHING to do with your freedom of speech. There does not exist 1 JUDGE for every 3 people in America to monitor our alleged "freedom."

It might be nice to have an intelligent JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER to clean up the streets, but until then you have to PROVE your FREEDOM in a COURT of LAW, AFTER THE FACT!!! AFTER YOU'VE BEEN MISTREATED BY SOME SCHMUCK LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. AFTER YOU'VE BEEN BEATEN BY A PSYCHO, and AFTER YOU'VE HAD YOUR HOUSE BURNED DOWN.

Sure, what the cop did was ILLEGAL, but that doesn't tie in to "Freedom of speech" AT ALL. If the cop respected freedom of speech, he would have acted LEGALLY. He was OUT OF BOUNDS OF THE LAW.. just like everyone else who attacks you when you say something stupid.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't protect you from people acting illegally after you say what you feel you have to say, haha. It seems many of you don't understand this.

You know the only place "Freedom of speech" is going to be on your side?

In the court room, after you pay the money for the lawyer, after you've been arrested, after you've been physically beaten, after you've wasted your time... because any speech that doesn't result in such a journey, obviously society and/or government doesn't really care about it anyway! The only time freedom of speech ever comes into question is something like this happens, and it always wins - but it certainly doesn't win by default, does it?

These people got exactly what they were asking for if you ask me. What goes around comes around; you reap what you sow.

1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-------

Reading the 1st amendment, It's absurd that ANYONE is even attempting to tie what this couple did with the 1st amendment.

Congress didn't attack this couple! lol. Congress didn't come in their house and make a law on the spot, lol. Congress didn't DO ANYTHING AT ALL. It was just a crazy person.

It's like people here read the first amendment and change it to something like this in a delusion:

"You can say and express whatever you want, wherever you want with no repercussions. Under the magical spell of this amendment, which now directly controls the consciousness of everyone in America... nobody will ever be able to physically attack you, and no police officers can falsely arrest you for saying or expression whatever you want."

... but, in this case, the 1st amendment did EXACTLY what it was created to do: give you retroactive freedom of speech.

Anyways, everyone worth their salt knows that the first amendment was created so that speech and expression can be monitored if it begins to manifest other illegal activity. If altercations like this flag thing keep happening, then the form of expression will become ILLEGAL for the protection of the ignorant monkeys.

It is just not a good idea? Says who? YOU? Who made you the 'idea' police? What don't you understand about the freedom and the ability to be allowed to protest? Not to mention the NECESSITY.

lol

What you suggest is that we all lay low and follow 'the man' so that we don't stir the pot and be good little robots as to not attract attention. HELLO, that is what they want us to do too.

Yes lets worry about it becoming illegal (which it has already been debated and lost) and cower in our homes because God forbid trace the truther doesn't want us getting silly 'ideas'. Ideas are stupid and no one should even consider them, we aren't capable nor good enough to even try. Lets all bow to the flag and the 'smart people' that own us and let them do all the cool idea-thinkin. They are like Gods that create everything good.

See this great Article for Social Science about how flakey an idea symbols are: www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk...

"Ernst Cassirer suggested that ‘instead of defining man as an animal rationale, we should define him as an animal symbolicum’ (1972:26). Symbols are major elements which shape the individual’s representation of his role in society and his perspective on the relationship between
individuals. The division between the signifier and the signified are major elements in the creation of the nation at the individual level. Only by commonly creating the signified, does a human community becomes a nation. The main use of symbols in society is to offer theenvironment necessary for the imagination and creation of the nation. From this perspective,religious and political symbols are mixed and offer new interpretations for the body of the nation."

"The creation of
the nation might be a modern project ‘invented’ by the political elite of a certain territory,however, if the signified level is missing for the individual, then the ‘invented nation’ becomes just a passing creation in history. The community has to construct the signified and commonlyraise the sign of the nation to the level of a symbol accepted by its members. Thus, by
symbolically feeling the sign, the nation exists as long as people need this symbol in their construct of reality."

and don't forget this famous poem:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.



[edit on 25-6-2009 by suzque66]

It is just not a good idea? Says who? YOU?


Says common sense. Hanging a flag upside down on your house when you live so close to a military base is borderline moronic. There will be repurcussions. The first amendment obviously doesn't stop phyco cops from busting into your house or you getting arrested.

Who made you the 'idea' police? What don't you understand about the freedom and the ability to be allowed to protest? Not to mention the NECESSITY.

lol

I understand it fine; however, I don't think you understand the micro situations which happen at protests which give them a spot on the evening news. I've been to over 10 protests. They all invariable end up in some type of violence, police intervention (tazing, arrests) or whatnot. Police have been to all but one of the protests I've been to. You see, I've noticed something at all of my protests that had cops. It's this: Cops have magic phrases. One of the big ones is "stand back". People who protest have a disposition to question authority, so a phrase like "stand back" invariably leads to an interrogation by the person being told to stand back. Many times the interrogation leads to a full blown argument. After that, it becomes harassing a police officer and/or obstructing justice. These types of things lead to tazering and arrests. It also leads to an unruly mob that "thought" they were coming to a "peaceful protest". It's like a chain reaction. I'm surprised you wouldn't have realized this, after all nearly every thread on ATS about a protest illustrates my experience.

Police put down riot at high school (started as a protest)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Iceland Protests Turn Violent
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Protest Over BART Shooting Turns Violent
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Students organize massive anticomunist protest in Moldova using Twitter (turned violent)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Police brutalize Anti-Police Brutality Demo - again! (protest turned violent)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

etc.. etc.. etc..

What you suggest is that we all lay low and follow 'the man' so that we don't stir the pot and be good little robots as to not attract attention. HELLO, that is what they want us to do too.

I beg to differ. I think "they" want us to protest so they can turn our peaceful protests violent and paint the protest-oriented crowed as being anti-authority and having a violent propensity. Remember, all that has to happen is that one police officer say something to an irrate protester. They actually bait the protestors on purpose it seems. They've tried to do it to me, but I don't let my ego get in the way. I comply and move because I know what they are trying to do. Other people can't see it, so they start escalating their interaction with the police, which invariably gets someone arrested. It's sad that protestors are generally so stupid. It's why I completely quit going to any more protests.

Yes lets worry about it becoming illegal (which it has already been debated and lost) and cower in our homes because God forbid trace the truther doesn't want us getting silly 'ideas'. Ideas are stupid and no one should even consider them, we aren't capable nor good enough to even try. Lets all bow to the flag and the 'smart people' that own us and let them do all the cool idea-thinkin. They are like Gods that create everything good.

Based on this and your previous responses, I've peged you as an individual who would get into an altercation with an officer if you were attending a protest. Now, this is a true story. I've seen this happen before at a protest in Florida at a protest at a court building.

ou're at the protest. He'd say something to you like "You can't be here". He's of course just talking about the grass you are standing on or something. This is something you wouldn't realize do to his (purposeful) ambiguity and your irrational and rash conclusion-jumping nature paired with your resentment of authority. You'd just assume he's talking about being at the protest itself and start telling him about your rights to do this and do that. He'd tell you to move again. You'd start up with him. He'd ask you to follow him (to get you off the grass). You'd go on about "Why? Are you going to arrest me?" He'd say "No, just follow me please" and of course you wouldn't comply. When I saw this happen, the guy ended up getting tazed and tackled by two other police officer after he pushed the officer who was trying to get him to walk off the grass. At this point, I promptly left the demonstration in order to avoid getting labeled as a violent protestor. As I walked away I overheard two other men getting to an argument with the cops about why they tazed the guy.

Protesters are just so generally caught up in the protest that they lose all sight of reason and awareness of what they are doing. It seems to be a combination of the mob mentality and a reverse bystander effect.

You see, something doesn't add up. When a protest turns violent, people always blame the cops and say that the protesters have a right to protest - which is true. The problem is that, from my experience, is that the protesters generally begin to assume more freedom in their protest than is allowed. They start to assume the freedom of arguing with and harassing the police officers present. Some start to assume, because of perceived anonimity of the mob, that they can throw stones at buildings, or light things on fire. They think they won't be caught, and perhaps they are right - but it ruins the entire protest. It causes the police to treat the mob as almost a single entity that must be dispersed.

But, I think you've still missed my point. You can protest all you want, just know that there will be repurcussions and irresponsible people (protesters and cops alike) at the protest. You can hang all the flags upside down that you want when you live next to a military base... you can expect your freedom of expression to be respected by most, but its irrational to expect safety while doing it. You can walk through the crime ridden ghetto at night with gold chains and a thousand bucks, after all you have the freedom to do so - just don't expect safety.

... and, as your last little poem about Jews: You can look at that in more than one way. I'm sure you look at it as the big bad government coming to get you because you didn't "speak out" or "protest".

As if a PROTEST would stop the Nazi and the Final Solution! haha what an ideal world you live in! Speak out against the Nazi's to stop them!

Speak out against Hitler! That'll show him, boys!

Let Hitler have a verbal what for!

Hey guyz, lets debate with the nazis that are coming to take us away! maybe they will change their minds! har har har. "puke".

... realistically, that will get you killed in Nazi Germany!

The greater point of that poem is this: You have the freedom to be a Jew in Nazi Germany... just don't expect to have safety. You better take matters into your own hands and LEAVE THE COUNTRY because it's obvious where Germany is heading if you have any common sense or reasoning ability.

It's kind of funny too how many people use that poem to attempt to make people aware of the road a country is going. That poem isn't as much of a warning as it is an illustration of human nature: when people don't identify themselves with a group, they think everything is okay, and they don't even see the pattern of multiple groups being targeted until it's too late.

Protests are just paltry battles in the scheme of things. Protests don't change governments or change countries in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that has ever changed a country or government was a revolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

The idea of peaceful (i.e. useless) protests vs. the idea of a revolution is similar to the myth that when you gradually increase the temperature ofa kettle that contains a frog, that the frog won't hop out.

... which of course is why the country is gradually changing and not changing over night. The majority of people will just adapt to their new restrictions. They'll adapt to the taking of the communists, to the taking of the social democrats, to the unionists, to the Jews until the water is boiling at it is THEY who are taken.

Poor frog... he can't keep trying to turn the temperature down, because it will always be rising more than he can turn it down. His battle is futile.

His only chance is to knock the entire pot over and get out of the pot.

Sometimes the world is a dangerous place..even more dangerous when people allow others or themselves to get walked on.

If people didn't stand up to forces they thought were beyond their control long ago (or even yesterday), we wouldn't be where we are today.

Stupid thing to do or not...someone has to do it. Some things are worth dying for. Yet, I am not that gullible, I'd do the reasonable and legal route first.

and yes, if more stood up to the Nazi's the probability of their agenda going as smooth as it did would have been less likely.

and you are right, I would take a tazering for my rights, rights of others and rights of offspring.

edit: and think about it, all these incidents are possibly to make us fear the police so things do go smoothly. Why make it easier for them?

[edit on 26-6-2009 by suzque66]

reply to post by kosmicjack

agreed. I for one am in the military and am proud to serve. However I would and will fight tooth and nail for any one to say anything! if you want to fly the flag upside down or hell at any odd direction that is your right! I for one fly the communist flag every now and again right out in front of my house on post why? because I can that is why. and I feal that is the direction that we are headed in and I have a right to express that and so do thies people!

Originally posted by Pappa_Bear
reply to post by badmedia

 

You sir should read all my post, yo would find then that you do not know what you are talking about and therfore have shown great bias in something you know nothing about.

I have served in battle with thse troops I support, and I have never stated I am patriotic, in fact I stated just the opposite. Supporting our troops, and supporting our constitution and the symbology of our flag and what it represents is of greater importance than being patriotic. So sir before opening mouth and insering foot, please read all my post in this topic.

I read them, you only tried to justify your pathetic remarks. You let your real opinion off at the start, and then tried to back track it when people called you out for being as such.

You are obviously not supporting the constitution if you are in favor of getting rid of things it provides. PERIOD. You are just another one "those people" who are more focused on symbolism than you are on principles. You are just another biased hypocrite who can take 2 actions that are the same, and place blame on 1 side, and justification on the other side simply based on the symbolism involved for each side.

I am sick and tired of the illlogical fallacies people such as yourself present, and I will stand up and say so at every chance I get.

amen to that...'principles' that is another word I was searching for but it failed me lol

fill space, fill space.

reply to post by badmedia


I backtracked nothing, I stated my reason for disagreeing with the flag being flown upside down,by these people, please don't troll or twist what I said. My remarks were my opinion and were clearly stated and restated several times as well as the specifics that I disagree with. You are attempting to place words or lack of into this. All my post on this matter keep the same idea.

Had they taken the flag down and found a better way, or had they claimed that they tried to compromise with the police and military members to prevent further action yet still get their point across, I would not have said anything.

especialy after one of them tries to get them to take it down as it deeply disturbed him.

That was in my first post

There are much better ways to get the message across that our nation is in trouble than to blatantly show disrespect to our soldiers as they did

this was also in my first post

After several attempts from police and military members asking that they take it down and flat refusing and laughing about it now is completely unforgiveable.....don't confuse patriotism with blatant disrespect to fellow citizens who have faught hard and felt hurt by their disrespect not so much to the flag but to the soldiers themselves.....Or better yet aks the soldiers how they could fly the flag without showing disrespect to the soldier but still get their message across

This was in my 2nd post
I reiterated this idea throughout all my post...........hhmmmmmmmmmmm
doesn't sound like backtracking to me

Also what exactly am I trying to get rid of that the constitution gives us rights to. Freedom of speech does have it's limits as well as Freedom of Expression, there are times when one must make a decision, will this act further my cause, or will this act be detrimental.

Would you agree that These people were allowed for a time to make their statement in the manner they pleased, after some time had passed they were then asked to change that. Would you not agree at that time it may have been wise for them to take the flag down as they did, then converse with the Sherriff Officer about another way they can display their message while still complying?

Freedom of Speech does not protect you from Freedom of Expression, they chose Freedom of Speech to act rudely and inappropriately when approached peacefully. Now they want to complain about someone's Freedom of Expression that wasn't to their liking.
You seem to be cut from the same cloth, as you have told me I'm not patriotic, when I didn't claim to be, you have stated I am trying to take away something that the constitution grants, which I'm not, and tried to claim I do not support our men and women in the service; apparently you did not read all the post or you would have already known I did serve 10 years and I support them fully and completely, as well as my other psts show the same thing. I am willing to debate with you on opinions, but do not twist my words to try and cause me to have said something I did not say.

edit: spelling
[edit on 26/6/2009 by Pappa_Bear]

[edit on 26/6/2009 by Pappa_Bear]

reply to post by Pappa_Bear


Also from your first post.

They're lucky I wasn't their neighbor.

As well as:

I think they got off to easy and deserve to be on a real terrorist list.

And both in the very first paragraph.

So, why are they lucky you weren't their neighbor? What you are saying when you say that is you would have done things much worse to them.

You back that up by saying they deserve to be considered terrorists. And why? Because they did something you didn't like.

But yet, you are the one who shows the terroristic tendencies. As you have implied that you would have taken actions against them for their opinions, aka terrorize them, and you believe they do not deserve the right to their opinion/freedom.

Of course, you won't see it that way because you A. Believe you are justified, and B. Believe that your actions are different for that reason. Meaning, you believe it's only a "terrorist" action when others do it, but not when you do it.

Sorry, but I look at peoples actions rather than the symbols they hide behind. I look at the principles you use in your life, rather than the symbols you use to justify those actions. And you gave yourself away with sentences like that.

You went well beyond an opinion of disagreement. You went into an opinion of wanting to punish and cause harm to those people because you didn't agree. And that is pathetic, and is against the very principles of the things you claim to care about.

The truth is, you do not care about the constitution, you do not care about the symoblisms, you just use them as excuses to cover your true feelings. And sorry, but such things have been known to be logical fallacies since atleast the time of Jesus, because Jesus makes the same point to the Pharisees.

The Pharisees claimed to be carrying out the laws of "god" and such. But Jesus points out to them that they are full of crap. Why? Because they don't actually keep all the laws, they pick and choose which ones to apply. Which only goes to prove the fact that they were just using the "god's law" as an excuse to further their own agendas when it suited their purposes.

It's no different than people who claim to be against gay marriage because it's in the bible. If they really cared about it because the bible says it, then they would also care about the other laws, such as killing disobedient children. As they do not care about the other laws and such, it goes to prove that they aren't against gay marriage because the bible says it, they are against it for their own biases and prejudices. Because if their real reason was that the bible said it, then they would also keep the other ones as well. They are simply using the bible as an excuse and justification for their actions because it suits their purposes.

I see right through such things.

And that is what you do. Because if you did actually care about the constitution, and the principles of it etc, then you certainly wouldn't be supporting or doing things that are opposite of it. As such, you are merely just using those things as an excuse.

As long as you do such things, then I will point them out. Because I am sick and tired of it.

You go on about the government and such, but it is people like you that empower that. I don't care how much you go on about such things, your real self was shown in the first paragraph.




[edit on 26-6-2009 by badmedia]

Do you realize behind every "issue" there are actually 2 questions, not just 1? The first question is always kept silent.

The first question is - Is this something the government should be involved in. That is kept silent and assumed to be "yes". From that point you get a "choice" on which direction it should be. Do they control it in this direction, or in that direction.

Of course, neither of those matters. It's the first question that was kept silent that matters. And when you choose to go into either of the 2nd questions, it doesn't really matter. Because you have first said it was ok for them to control that issue.

And what you said in your original post is that it is ok for the government and people to do things to those they disagree with. And then you want to go on about how bad the government is, but it is the things like what you say that enables that.

Because you are not just saying these people should be treated as such. What you are actually saying is that it is ok for 1 group of people to dictate and decide or punish another group because they disagree.

As such, you have just helped to enslave yourself. You can complain about the rest all you want, but IMO you have gotten exactly what you asked for and deserve.

It's about time people get a clue, and wake up to what they are really saying. You didn't simply say you disagreed with them, you didn't just simply say these people should be treated that way. What you said is - 1 group of people should be able to dictate what is acceptable to others, and should be allowed to punish others.

Of course, you in your own self ignorance have a fit when the same principles are applied back to you. Which makes you a just another hypocrite. People like you are the problem. And the only way to fix that is not to force things onto people, but for people such as yourself to wake up and look at things honestly and deeper than their own hatred towards people who are different.

Get a clue.

reply to post by badmedia


so you still can't read and comprehend, and you point out nothing except that youj wish to call me a liar and 2 faced, thats called baiting not debating

So, why are they lucky you weren't their neighbor? What you are saying when you say that is you would have done things much worse to them.

In answer to your question:
First I would have wnet to them and tried to find a different way , as I agree with the idea of what they were trying to get across, I just personaly don't agree with the method. After that I would have went to them everyday to ask them to stop flying the flag in that manner, I'm sure that would have tried to say that was harrassment, they seem to feel it was harrassment when by their admission they were asked 4 time by 4 different people to stop.

As far as my feeling that they deserve to be on a real terrorist list is the what i feel is inappropriate behavior they exhibited when approached peacefully about the situation.

Originally posted by Pappa_Bear
In answer to your question:
First I would have wnet to them and tried to find a different way , as I agree with the idea of what they were trying to get across, I just personaly don't agree with the method. After that I would have went to them everyday to ask them to stop flying the flag in that manner, I'm sure that would have tried to say that was harrassment, they seem to feel it was harrassment when by their admission they were asked 4 time by 4 different people to stop.

I seriously doubt that is what you mean. You said they were "lucky you weren't their neighbor". I seriously doubt someone is unlucky because someone would ask them to stop, and I also seriously doubt that is what you meant, or implied.

As far as my feeling that they deserve to be on a real terrorist list is the what i feel is inappropriate behavior they exhibited when approached peacefully about the situation.

Peacefully about the situation? Do this or else is hardly "peaceful". It's only peaceful if one side does what the other said. Such is about like saying black people were given a "peaceful" option when it came to slavery. You can go peacefully, you can go with a beating, or you can be killed outright. That's not being approached peacefully.

As I recall, it wasn't the people themselves that were using weapons in the situation.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by badmedia]

What pisses me off is the deputy breaking into their house. Forget about the flag for a second. You do not break out a window and unbolt the deadlock and assualt someone in their house. That cop would have been dead where he stood had he done that to me in my house! PapaBear, you are a #ing moronic tool.

reply to post by AntiWingnut


personal attacks aside, but you would be the moroon had you shot a police officer, as the rest of the force would shoot first and ask questions later.