moonbattery logo

Apr 08 2016

The Hazards of Burning Old Glory in the Presence of Countermoonbats

An entitled young punk comes to regret burning the flag that represents values far better Americans than himself died to uphold:

old-glory-defended

Via Patriot Nation, on a tip from C. Steven Tucker.



96 Responses to “The Hazards of Burning Old Glory in the Presence of Countermoonbats”

  1. Hungjumper says:

    Now watch the old guy go to jail for X years.

  2. Hungjumper says:

    Now watch the old guy go to jail for X years.

  3. grayjohn says:

    Good for the old guy. Down with the greasy hippy scum.

  4. grayjohn says:

    Good for the old guy. Down with the greasy hippy scum.

  5. MAS says:

    Sometimes it’s worth it and I’ll guarantee he will be well looked after by the staff.

  6. MAS says:

    Sometimes it’s worth it and I’ll guarantee he will be well looked after by the staff.

  7. Uncle Bob says:

    Damn! No video?!

  8. Uncle Bob says:

    Damn! No video?!

  9. bobdog19006 says:

    Give that man a cee-gar. On me.

  10. bobdog19006 says:

    Give that man a cee-gar. On me.

  11. Henry says:

    While I enjoy watching such things, it’s wrong.

    That’s the crap progs do.

  12. Henry says:

    While I enjoy watching such things, it’s wrong.

    That’s the crap progs do.

  13. Jack says:

    Greasy hippy trans-queer gets stomped by a patriot.

  14. Appalled By The World says:

    Aww- stupid punk didn’t make it to his safe space in time.

  15. Appalled By The World says:

    Aww- stupid punk didn’t make it to his safe space in time.

  16. david says:

    Not very consistent in your conservative values, eh, Dave?

  17. david says:

    Not very consistent in your conservative values, eh, Dave? The old guy is behaving like a violent, unhinged libtard who doesn’t respect laws or freedom of speech, and you’re cheering him on. What were you saying about Trump again?

  18. Nobama says:

    Nothing wrong at all with enjoying watching someone finally fight back against the Marxists who have spent decades destroying this country. Perhaps if we’d started fighting back sooner, things would have never gotten as bad as they are.

  19. Come&TakeIt says:

    Nothing wrong at all with enjoying watching someone finally fight back against the Marxists who have spent decades destroying this country. Perhaps if we’d started fighting back sooner, things would have never gotten as bad as they are.

  20. Alphamail says:

    .
    david…..the America-hater who puts his Trump-cultism over the ugliness of his fellow flag-stomping America haters.
    .
    This should be totally acceptable, and I love watching that shitty little creep getting a lesson in patriotism. What if that old man was shot in Vietnam and his son was blown to pieces in Iraq – should the punk’s freedom disrespect that?.
    .
    The only reason you call the guy a violent libtard is because some judges said it’s illegal and it violates free speech. Remember that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is NOT free speech, because the same judges said so. What if those judges suddenly declared that burning an American flag is NOT free speech – what then? Is the old man wrong?
    .
    It’s time for America to consider this a MORAL and security issue – no longer a legal issue, and make another important singular exception to free speech.
    .
    This is no longer a 1960 or 1970’s world when burning the flag was basically an internal (national) expression of anger, or negative opinion of our government, either of which was benign in those days, without any power to back it up.
    .
    In 2016, internal groups, external forces within the U.S., and threatening world powers are openly calling for the destruction of America – and, unlike 50 years ago, they now have the power to destroy us – and their one aggressive symbolic gesture is the burning of Old Glory.
    .
    It’s time for those judges to redefine the desecration of our national symbol for what it is – the call for the elimination of our country and our way of life. So people like david, who for the sake of a cult-hero would give away the moral high ground and support people who would destroy America.
    .

  21. Alphamail says:

    .
    david…..the America-hater who evokes his Trump-cultism, and defends the ugliness of his fellow flag-stomping America haters.
    .
    Beating this david look-a-like should be totally acceptable, and I love watching that shitty little creep getting a lesson in patriotism. What if that old man was shot in Vietnam and his son was blown to pieces in Iraq – should a punk’s freedom be allowed to disrespect some incredible patriotic sacrifice for freedom?
    .
    The only reason you call the old guy a violent libtard is because some judges said it’s illegal and it violates free speech. Remember that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is NOT free speech, because the same judges said so. What if those judges suddenly declared that burning an American flag is NOT free speech – what then? Is the old man wrong?
    .
    It’s time for America to consider this a MORAL and security issue – not a legal issue, and make another important singular exception to free speech.
    .
    This is no longer a 1960 or 1970’s world when burning the flag was basically an internal (national) expression of anger, or negative opinion of our government, either of which was benign in those days, without any power to back it up.
    .
    In 2016, internal groups, external forces within the U.S., and threatening world powers are openly calling for the destruction of America – and, unlike 50 years ago, they now have the power to destroy us – and their one common aggressive symbolic gesture is the burning of Old Glory.
    .
    It’s time for those judges to redefine the desecration of our national symbol for what it is – the call for the elimination of our country and our way of life. So people like david – who for the sake of his political cult-hero would give away the moral high ground and support people who would destroy America – can get his little ass whipped by some good old patriot .
    .

  22. david says:

    That’s a lot of words just to say nothing. Next time, say, “I’m a libtard who doesn’t respect laws or the freedom of speech” and save yourself the effort.

  23. david says:

    That’s a lot of words just to say nothing. Next time, say, “I’m a libtard who doesn’t respect laws or the freedom of speech” and save yourself the effort.

  24. Alphamail says:

    .
    I disagree Henry – see my answer to david…….time for a change.
    .

  25. Alphamail says:

    .
    I disagree Henry – see my answer to david…….time for a change.
    .

  26. Alphamail says:

    .
    In this day and age, burning and stomping on the flag is no longer a message of disagreement, it has become a message of destruction – calling for the annihilation of America.
    .
    Allowing trampling on the flag is simply a law. If you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because it might end up hurting people, then you should no longer be able to stomp on our national symbol of freedom if it’s calling for and encouraging national genocide. It is no longer benign when it becomes the action and intent of an enemy.
    .
    Yelling “fire” is a safety issue. This is a security issue. The law needs to be changed in the case of this singular issue.
    .

  27. Alphamail says:

    .
    In this day and age, burning and stomping on the flag is no longer a message of disagreement, it has become a message of destruction – calling for the annihilation of America.
    .
    Allowing trampling on the flag is simply a law. If you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater because it might end up hurting people, then you should no longer be able to stomp on our national symbol of freedom if it’s calling for and encouraging national genocide. It is no longer benign when it becomes the action and intent of an enemy.
    .
    Yelling “fire” is a safety issue. This is a security issue. The law needs to be changed in the case of this singular issue.
    .

  28. Virginiaetesch3 says:

    “my room mate Maria Is getting paid 98$/h on the internet.”….two days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi3335➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBasic/GetPaidHourly98$…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi3335…..

  29. oldguy says:

    Laws, what laws? I don’t need no stinkin laws.

  30. oldguy says:

    Laws, what laws? I don’t need no stinkin laws.

  31. Henry says:

    Yes, I read your answer to David. I see you support taking the law into your hands and physically attacking someone who yells “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    Hey, there’s an old lady jaywalking over there… why don’t you head over there and knee cap her?

    You lack understanding of our legal system and the First Amendment.

  32. Henry says:

    Yes, I read your answer to David. I see you support taking the law into your hands and physically attacking someone who yells “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    Hey, there’s an old lady jaywalking over there… why don’t you head over there and knee cap her?

    You lack understanding of our legal system and the First Amendment.

  33. Ed. G. Mann says:

    If you’re going to whip some asshole like that, don’t get your face on film. That little snot will find some lawyer who needs whore money and will take the case.

  34. Ed. G. Mann says:

    If you’re going to whip some asshole like that, don’t get your face on film. That little snot will find some lawyer who needs whore money and will take the case.

  35. Tom says:

    So burning the flag in the 60’s and 70’s was “benign”, but now it’s such a threat to America that we should carve out an exemption to the 1st amendment to prohibit it? In the interests of national security and morality?

    Because unlike, say, the USSR, which had thousands of nuclear MIRVs targeting the US back in those good old benign days, this hippie and his ilk now “…have the power to destroy us.”?

    The hippies were rioting in the streets when they were burning the flag back then…think of the 1968 Democratic Convention…look it up if you are unaware of how huge the protests / riots were. But now, in 2016, this lone misguided white-boy-dreads-wearing protester is the symbol of an ominous conspiracy to bring about the destruction of America?

    “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

    — Justice William J. Brennan

  36. Tom says:

    So burning the flag in the 60’s and 70’s was “benign”, but now it’s such a threat to America that we should carve out an exemption to the 1st amendment to prohibit it? In the interests of national security and morality?

    Because unlike, say, the USSR, which had thousands of nuclear MIRVs targeting the US back in those good old benign days, this hippie and his ilk now “…have the power to destroy us.”?

    The hippies were rioting in the streets when they were burning the flag back then…think of the 1968 Democratic Convention…look it up if you are unaware of how huge the protests / riots were. But now, in 2016, this lone misguided white-boy-dreads-wearing protester is the symbol of an ominous conspiracy to bring about the destruction of America?

    “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

    — Justice William J. Brennan

  37. Bob says:

    He should just have rescued he flag and told the little punk what a jerk off he is. But don’t make contact with him. This younger generation should talk to a few of the WWII vets and try to understand the terrible cost past generations have paid to keep us free. Once we become a communist country these useful idiots will be very sorry!

  38. Bob says:

    He should just have rescued he flag and told the little punk what a jerk off he is. But don’t make contact with him. This younger generation should talk to a few of the WWII vets and try to understand the terrible cost past generations have paid to keep us free. Once we become a communist country these useful idiots will be very sorry!

  39. chris black says:

    And guess which one would go to jail.

  40. chris black says:

    And guess which one would go to jail.

  41. Jim says:

    A trial first, in which, using jury nullification, I would find the defendant not guilty and would convict the prosecutor of stupidity and recommend five years in prison

  42. Jim says:

    A trial first, in which, using jury nullification, I would find the defendant not guilty and would convict the prosecutor of stupidity and recommend five years in prison

  43. Jim says:

    And you don’t seem to understand that the laws of this country are selectively enforced which is the results of Obama and his leftist DOJ.

  44. Jim says:

    And you don’t seem to understand that the laws of this country are selectively enforced which is the results of Obama and his leftist DOJ.

  45. grayjohn says:

    Behead those who spam.

  46. grayjohn says:

    Behead those who spam.

  47. Jerry Shelton says:

    For all those that think burning the flag in protest of this country is a good ideal. Please pick any other country go there and burn that flag in protest and see what happens.

  48. Jerry Shelton says:

    For all those that think burning the flag in protest of this country is a good ideal. Please pick any other country go there and burn that flag in protest and see what happens.

  49. Tom says:

    It’s not a statute that legalized flag burning (as you seem to erroneously believe)..it is the 1989 SCOTUS decision Texas v. Johnson which STRUCK DOWN existing laws against flag burning. From civilliberty.about.com:

    Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989):

    Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan’s policies. He was arrested under Texas’ flag desecration statute. In its 5-4 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws in 48 states by ruling that flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

    Flag Protection Act (1989-1990):

    In 1989, the U.S. Congress protested the Johnson decision by passing the Flag Protection Act, a federal version of the already-struck state flag desecration statutes. Thousands burned flags in protest of the new law, and when two protesters were arrested, the Supreme Court affirmed its previous ruling and struck down the federal statute.
    _____________________________________________
    It’s not just, “Oh, let’s pass a law against flag burning”…they had those…the SCOTUS said they were unconstitutional. You’re almost 30 years behind the times…try to keep up and not say dumb stuff like “the law needs to be changed…”

  50. Tom says:

    It’s not a statute that legalized flag burning (as you seem to erroneously believe)..it is the 1989 SCOTUS decision Texas v. Johnson which STRUCK DOWN existing laws against flag burning. From civilliberty.about.com:

    Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989):

    Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag in protest against President Ronald Reagan’s policies. He was arrested under Texas’ flag desecration statute. In its 5-4 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration laws in 48 states by ruling that flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

    Flag Protection Act (1989-1990):

    In 1989, the U.S. Congress protested the Johnson decision by passing the Flag Protection Act, a federal version of the already-struck state flag desecration statutes. Thousands burned flags in protest of the new law, and when two protesters were arrested, the Supreme Court affirmed its previous ruling and struck down the federal statute.
    _____________________________________________
    It’s not just, “Oh, let’s pass a law against flag burning”…they had those…the SCOTUS said they were unconstitutional. You’re almost 30 years behind the times…try to keep up and not say dumb stuff like “the law needs to be changed…”

  51. Tom says:

    That’s what makes us unique here in America, Jerry…our freedoms.
    You’re saying we should emulate the flag-desecration laws from various totalitarian hell-holes or Third-World America-Hating pits of oppression?
    Because that will show those flag-burners…what? That we’re no better than “any other country” and we’ll curtail your constitutional rights if you say or do something that might offend. Not “fighting words” or yelling fire etc. etc, so there is no physical danger involved…you’re willing to abridge the 1st amendment merely to spare people’s feelings? Strong feelings, granted, and not without some justified anger, but feelings and emotions nonetheless.

    No, thank you…I’ll tolerate the occasional random moron who ignorantly torches the American flag rather than let our 1st amendment be weakened.

  52. Tom says:

    That’s what makes us unique here in America, Jerry…our freedoms.
    You’re saying we should emulate the flag-desecration laws from various totalitarian hell-holes or Third-World America-Hating pits of oppression?
    Because that will show those flag-burners…what? That we’re no better than “any other country” and we’ll curtail your constitutional rights if you say or do something that might offend. Not “fighting words” or yelling fire etc. etc, so there is no physical danger involved…you’re willing to abridge the 1st amendment merely to spare people’s feelings? Strong feelings, granted, and not without some justified anger, but feelings and emotions nonetheless.

    No, thank you…I’ll tolerate the occasional random moron who ignorantly torches the American flag rather than let our 1st amendment be weakened.

  53. Alphamail says:

    .

    “Oh, let’s pass a law against flag burning”…WHAT?
    .
    You have to be one of the shallowest thinkers to invade this site. Now you infer I say something, and then argue against what you inferred I said, but didn’t say.
    .

  54. Alphamail says:

    .

    “Oh, let’s pass a law against flag burning”…WHAT?
    .
    You have to be one of the shallowest thinkers to invade this site. Now you infer I say something, and then argue against what you inferred I said, but didn’t say. Sad, but funny.
    .

  55. Alphamail says:

    .
    david…Henry…and Tom
    .
    Leave it to liberal appeasers to suddenly invoke the Constitution and to quickly research case law and stick it in your face when it’s convenient to their argument. Your emperor Obama is doing that as we speak – he circumvents the “negative document” he calls the Constitution at every turn, but now tells us he needs to fulfill his constitutional duty to appoint a justice. Like all three of you – particularly intellectually-challenged Tom – Obama only wants to look good while absolutely mischaracterizing his opposition, and while pushing his personal agenda which in the long run will greatly harm our country.
    .
    All three of you have completely missed the point, and your suggestion that I want to break an innocent grandma’s kneecaps falls right in line with your progressive talking point of wanting to throw grandma off the cliff. You could all be Larry, Moe, and Curly if this issue were not so immediate and life threatening. Tom also qualifies to be Bozo the Clown when he says I’m thirty years behind and I should try to keep up. I actually like most clowns….most.
    .
    “Carve out an exemption to the 1st Amendment,” Tom creatively asks with a lie. Asking the judges to review and revise an exception to the 1st Amendment requires a judicial process much like the one that created the exemption that prevents people from yelling ONE WORD in a crowded theater so people wouldn’t get hurt while evacuating? That simple exemption was made for safety reasons. If a singular exemption can be made for crowd-safety then a single exception can certainly be made for security reasons that involve life and death. If we don’t make an exception quickly, a lot of lives are about to be lost and the growing enemy within will be even more emboldened.
    .
    Tom says I need to brush up on my history, citing cold war Russian missiles pointing at us from Cuba, as well as the 1968 Democratic Convention violence, and Henry says I don’t know anything about the law. I stood on the tarmac in full combat gear in 1962 waiting for Kennedy to give us the order to get on the planes to begin the invasion of Cuba. I was a Los Angeles police officer in 1968 and worked the Century City riots – L.A.’s version of Chicago – and had to scuffle with the Students for a Democratic Society in 1969 when they first became the violent Weathermen and their SDS members hung out on the West Coast in Berkeley and at Occidental College (Obama’s alma mater) only a couple miles from my LAPD station. I was the second patrol car at the bloody Tate/La Bianca murder scene and had to angrily listen to Bernardine Dohrn (Bill Ayer’s wife) brag that Manson’s followers had stuck a fork in pregnant Sharon Tate’s stomach. So I had a dog in this fight before any of you knew there was a fight, and I always followed the letter of the law and still do – while also writing a legal brief or two along the way. So your criticisms are boisterous fluff and your allegations are sadly humorous.
    .
    Even though Bill Ayers Weathermen set off over forty bombs, and Wade Churchill built the bombs for the 1968 Democratic Convention, the bombs were not sophisticated enough to blow up multiple square blocks, flatten large crowded complexes, or irradiate an entire city. In that regard alone, times are now manifestly different, and should be viewed intelligently in that context. Tom I fear, doesn’t have the capacity to fathom that context. His opinion on this issue is certainly free speech, however his ignorance and naivete regarding the context is criminal.
    .
    Again, these are far more dangerous times than the 1960’s and 1970’s when kids like this punk burned and stomped on flags – no matter the size of the crowds. Instead of disgruntled groups of war protestors or anti-establishment types, today we have several groups ALL burning the flag and calling for the elimination (genocide) of either cops, whites, Christians, or simply Americans. Between anarchists, BLM, NBPP, the Nation of Islam, La Raza, or radical Muslims in the U.S., we now face a greater number of more powerfully armed, more hateful and better organized enemies inside America, than all of the past combined.
    .
    The one common denominator is not just Obama, it is burning the flag while screaming death, or genocide, or the extermination of America itself. Imagine if another parade bombing occurred or a crowded sports arena was leveled by Muslims shouting Alahu Ackbar. What would happen – and what would be the increased death toll – if the next day radical Muslims took to the street near the tragedy and burned the flag and shouted Death to America? This scenario is now possible with each aforementioned group, and it is now a major security issue due to the unpredictable spontaneous violence that would surely occur.
    .
    O.K, so we need to “carve out’ a singular exemption where desecrating the American flag WHILE AT THE SAME TIME calling for genocide, destruction, or death to America – is a felony. “Carve out” can be as simple as a process that begins with a contested arrest, supported by a conservative prosecutor, backed by a conservative judge – to get it to a conservative appellate court, a conservative federal judge, and on to a new SCOTUS decision. Today Americans can lose everything if we use the N-word, insult Mohammed, decline to bake a cake, make a “micro-aggression,” or even tell someone who we want to vote for – but it’s O.K. to burn our nation’s symbol while crying “Death to America,” and that needs to change before it’s too late. Actions need to begin ASAP to “change the law” before all hell breaks loose.
    .
    .

  56. Alphamail says:

    .
    david…Henry…and Tom
    .
    Leave it to liberal appeasers to suddenly invoke the Constitution and to quickly research case law and stick it in your face when it’s convenient to their argument. Your emperor Obama is doing that as we speak – he circumvents the “negative document” he calls the Constitution at every turn, but now tells us he needs to fulfill his constitutional duty to appoint a justice. Like all three of you – particularly intellectually-challenged Tom – Obama only wants to look good while absolutely mischaracterizing his opposition, and while pushing his personal agenda which in the long run will greatly harm our country.
    .
    All three of you have completely missed the point, and your suggestion that I want to break an innocent grandma’s kneecaps falls right in line with your progressive talking point of wanting to throw grandma off the cliff. You could all be Larry, Moe, and Curly if this issue were not so immediate and life threatening. Tom also qualifies to be Bozo the Clown when he says I’m thirty years behind and I should try to keep up. I actually like most clowns….most.
    .
    “Carve out an exemption to the 1st Amendment,” Tom creatively asks with a lie. Asking the judges to review and revise an exception to the 1st Amendment requires a judicial process much like the one that created the exemption that prevents people from yelling ONE WORD in a crowded theater so people wouldn’t get hurt while evacuating? That simple exemption was made for safety reasons. If a singular exemption can be made for crowd-safety then a single exception can certainly be made for security reasons that involve life and death. If we don’t make an exception quickly, a lot of lives are about to be lost and the growing enemy within will be even more emboldened.
    .
    Tom says I need to brush up on my history, citing cold war Russian missiles pointing at us from Cuba, as well as the 1968 Democratic Convention violence, and Henry says I don’t know anything about the law. I stood on the tarmac in full combat gear in 1962 waiting for Kennedy to give us the order to get on the planes to begin the invasion of Cuba. I was a Los Angeles police officer in 1968 and worked the Century City riots – L.A.’s version of Chicago – and had to scuffle with the Students for a Democratic Society in 1969 when they first became the violent Weathermen and their SDS members hung out on the West Coast in Berkeley and at Occidental College (Obama’s alma mater) only a couple miles from my LAPD station. I was the second patrol car at the bloody Tate/La Bianca murder scene and had to angrily listen to Bernardine Dohrn (Bill Ayer’s wife) brag that Manson’s followers had stuck a fork in pregnant Sharon Tate’s stomach. So I had a dog in this fight before any of you knew there was a fight, and I always followed the letter of the law and still do – while also writing a legal brief or two along the way. So your criticisms are boisterous fluff and your allegations are sadly humorous.
    .
    Even though Bill Ayers Weathermen set off over forty bombs, and Wade Churchill built the bombs for the 1968 Democratic Convention, the bombs were not sophisticated enough to blow up multiple square blocks, flatten large crowded complexes, or irradiate an entire city. In that regard alone, times are now manifestly different, and should be viewed intelligently in that context. Tom I fear, doesn’t have the capacity to fathom that context. His opinion on this issue is certainly free speech, however his ignorance and naivete regarding the context is criminal.
    .
    Again, these are far more dangerous times than the 1960’s and 1970’s when kids like this punk burned and stomped on flags – no matter the size of the crowds. Instead of disgruntled groups of war protestors or anti-establishment types, today we have several groups ALL burning the flag and calling for the elimination (genocide) of either cops, whites, Christians, or simply Americans. Between anarchists, BLM, NBPP, the Nation of Islam, La Raza, or radical Muslims in the U.S., we now face a greater number of more powerfully armed, more hateful and better organized enemies inside America, than all of the past combined.
    .
    The one common denominator is not just Obama, it is burning the flag while screaming death, or genocide, or the extermination of America itself. Imagine if another parade bombing occurred or a crowded sports arena was leveled by Muslims shouting Alahu Ackbar. What would happen – and what would be the increased death toll – if the next day radical Muslims took to the street near the tragedy and burned the flag and shouted Death to America? This scenario is now possible with each aforementioned group, and it is now a major security issue due to the unpredictable spontaneous violence that would surely occur.
    .
    O.K, so we need to “carve out’ a singular exemption where desecrating the American flag WHILE AT THE SAME TIME calling for genocide, destruction, or death to America – is a felony. “Carve out” can be as simple as a process that begins with a contested arrest, supported by a conservative prosecutor, backed by a conservative judge – to get it to a conservative appellate court, a conservative federal judge, and on to a new SCOTUS decision. Today Americans can lose everything if we use the N-word, insult Mohammed, decline to bake a cake, make a “micro-aggression,” or even tell someone who we want to vote for – but it’s O.K. to burn our nation’s symbol while crying “Death to America,” and that needs to change before it’s too late. Actions need to begin ASAP to “change the law” before all hell breaks loose.
    .
    .

  57. Alphamail says:

    .
    …”should be acceptable is my operative phrase…”
    .
    Seeing someone getting their ass kicked for dishonoring and disrespecting our nation is not something I’m particularly going to cry about, but of course it’s against the law. My point is that it should not be the law and the law needs to change.
    .

  58. Alphamail says:

    .
    …”should be acceptable is my operative phrase…”
    .
    Seeing someone getting their ass kicked for dishonoring and disrespecting our nation is not something I’m particularly going to cry about, but of course it’s against the law. My point is that it should not be the law and the law needs to change.
    .

  59. Tom says:

    ” The law needs to be changed in the case of this singular issue”…

    What “law” is it then? You spout the most ignorant and uninformed tripe and when I reply politely, you immediately launch into name-calling and insults.

    Can we get this straight?? THERE IS NO LAW that either permits or disallows flag-burning. There USED TO BE 30 YEARS AGO, but the SCOTUS said that they (all of them) were unconstitutional. The Congress – you know, the House and Senate? – passed a federal law after Texas v. Johnson was decided and guess what? The SCOTUS said that that law was unconstitutional, too.
    So, since 1989 or 1990, there have BEEN NO LAWS that ban flag burning because the Supreme Court (not just “some judges”) declared that these laws were unconstitutional.

    So please tell us, what law needs to be changed?

  60. Tom says:

    ” The law needs to be changed in the case of this singular issue”…

    What “law” is it then? You spout the most ignorant and uninformed tripe and when I reply politely, you immediately launch into name-calling and insults.

    Can we get this straight?? THERE IS NO LAW that either permits or disallows flag-burning. There USED TO BE 30 YEARS AGO, but the SCOTUS said that they (all of them) were unconstitutional. The Congress – you know, the House and Senate? – passed a federal law after Texas v. Johnson was decided and guess what? The SCOTUS said that that law was unconstitutional, too.
    So, since 1989 or 1990, there have BEEN NO LAWS that ban flag burning because the Supreme Court (not just “some judges”) declared that these laws were unconstitutional.

    So please tell us, what law needs to be changed?

  61. Tom says:

    “Allowing trampling on the flag is simply a law. ” No, it’s not. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

  62. Tom says:

    “Allowing trampling on the flag is simply a law. ” No, it’s not. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

  63. Tom says:

    “I was the second patrol car at the bloody Tate/La Bianca murder scene…”

    Really? Which radio units were dispatched? What were the names assigned to the cars? You know these items are a matter of historical record, right?

  64. Tom says:

    “I was the second patrol car at the bloody Tate/La Bianca murder scene…”

    Really? Which radio units were dispatched? What were the names assigned to the cars? You know these items are a matter of historical record, right?

  65. Jerry Shelton says:

    Tom, nope that is not what I am saying at all. But the folks that are burning the flag also say how much they hate this country….they can leave any time they want and try the same BS else where. What I am tired of is flag burners telling me how screwed up America is, all the while being unwilling to do anything to fix how screwed up it is except burn a flag. Think the police are all on a power trip…become a cop and be the first one who is not on the power trip….oohhh wait that is too much like work…..I think you can understand the point I make…..

  66. Jerry Shelton says:

    Tom, nope that is not what I am saying at all. But the folks that are burning the flag also say how much they hate this country….they can leave any time they want and try the same BS else where. What I am tired of is flag burners telling me how screwed up America is, all the while being unwilling to do anything to fix how screwed up it is except burn a flag. Think the police are all on a power trip…become a cop and be the first one who is not on the power trip….oohhh wait that is too much like work…..I think you can understand the point I make…..

  67. Alphamail says:

    .
    FU you cheap disgraceful dishonorable bastard…you are the scum of the earth. Look up Keith DuPuis my training partner you worthless putz. I went to nine LAPD police officer funerals all killed by gunshot you miserable prick. All you can do is pull this disgusting trash of deception out of your braindead ass.
    .
    For your info you irreverent frickin pus, it was an early morning “all units” multiple homicide call dispatched specifically to Hollywood patrol (but opened to a larger area) to Cielo Drive in Hollywood Division. I worked across Beverley Blvd. (the Divisions’ border) in Wilshire Division on Pico Boulevard and my partner and I just pulled in at end of early shift (probably working 7A42) when the call came out, and even though we were not usually allowed to cross into another Division unless dispatched, because of the serious nature of the call and the close proximity, we took a nearly straight shot across from Wilshire into Hollywood and up Cielo Drive and surprisingly got there just as the first car arrived and we drove up the narrow driveway behind them into a larger upper parking area. As a bunch of other cars arrived my partner and I first secured a bloody entry (with a dead body and bloody door) and the first couple rooms (with a very bloodied body) while other officers surrounded the house and even more fanned out around the grounds. We were taught first to secure the area and to not contaminate a crime scene so my partner and I stayed in place less than 5 minutes before a few Hollywood detectives and a slew of officers began a slow house sweep and scour. It wasn’t our division and not our responsibility so we informed a Hollywood detective of that, and were relieved and we went back to Wilshire…so fuck yourself.
    .

  68. Alphamail says:

    .
    FU you cheap disgraceful dishonorable bastard…you are the scum of the earth. Look up Keith DuPuis my training partner you worthless putz. I went to nine LAPD police officer funerals all killed by gunshot you miserable prick. All you can do is pull this disgusting trash of deception out of your braindead ass.
    .
    For your info you irreverent frickin pus, it was an early morning “all units” multiple homicide call dispatched specifically to Hollywood patrol (but opened to a larger area) to Cielo Drive in Hollywood Division. I worked across Beverley Blvd. (the Divisions’ border) in Wilshire Division on Pico Boulevard and my partner and I just pulled in at end of early shift (probably working 7A42) when the call came out, and even though we were not usually allowed to cross into another Division unless dispatched, because of the serious nature of the call and the close proximity, we took a nearly straight shot across from Wilshire into Hollywood and up Cielo Drive and surprisingly got there just as the first car arrived and we drove up the narrow driveway behind them into a larger upper parking area. As a bunch of other cars arrived my partner and I first secured a bloody entry (with a dead body and bloody door) and the first couple rooms (with a very bloodied body) while other officers surrounded the house and even more fanned out around the grounds. We were taught first to secure the area and to not contaminate a crime scene so my partner and I stayed in place less than 5 minutes before a few Hollywood detectives and a slew of officers began a slow house sweep and scour. It wasn’t our division and not our responsibility so we informed a Hollywood detective of that, and were relieved and we went back to Wilshire…so fuck yourself.
    .

  69. Tom says:

    OOoooh, you’re spittin’ mad now aren’t you? Why? Because I did not just accept what you say as the truth? Because I call you out on your woefully ignorant statements, such as your repeated calls to “change the law” regarding flag burning?

    Or laugh at such bitter absurdities as “Leave it to liberal appeasers to suddenly invoke the Constitution…” as if the Constitution is some sort of obscure and archaic red herring that we’re just trying to use to discredit you, instead of the basis of our entire system of government and laws, and pointing out that that despite your repeated calls to “change the law”, that there is no LAW regarding flag burning and there hasn’t been in almost 30 years is some sort of personal attack. That gets your blood boiling, doesn’t it? Someone disputing your ignorant blather?

    Just wondering… when you “…got there just as the first car arrived and we drove up the narrow driveway behind them into a larger upper parking area….” I guess you didn’t notice the white Rambler parked right there in the driveway since you make no mention of it in your otherwise quite detailed recount. You didn’t notice the white Rambler – the one with the driver’s window down and the slashed and shot bloody corpse of Steven Earl Parent in the front seat,? Just drove right by…I guess we can see why you never made detective, huh?

    Maybe you WERE there that morning…were you the dumbass cop who pushed the “open gate” button and smeared / contaminated what was almost surely Tex Watson’s bloody fingerprint? I bet that was you!

  70. Tom says:

    OOoooh, you’re spittin’ mad now aren’t you? Why? Because I did not just accept what you say as the truth? Because I call you out on your woefully ignorant statements, such as your repeated calls to “change the law” regarding flag burning?

    Or laugh at such bitter absurdities as “Leave it to liberal appeasers to suddenly invoke the Constitution…” as if the Constitution is some sort of obscure and archaic red herring that we’re just trying to use to discredit you, instead of the basis of our entire system of government and laws, and pointing out that that despite your repeated calls to “change the law”, that there is no LAW regarding flag burning and there hasn’t been in almost 30 years is some sort of personal attack. That gets your blood boiling, doesn’t it? Someone disputing your ignorant blather?

    Just wondering… when you “…got there just as the first car arrived and we drove up the narrow driveway behind them into a larger upper parking area….” I guess you didn’t notice the white Rambler parked right there in the driveway since you make no mention of it in your otherwise quite detailed recount. You didn’t notice the white Rambler – the one with the driver’s window down and the slashed and shot bloody corpse of Steven Earl Parent in the front seat,? Just drove right by…I guess we can see why you never made detective, huh?

    Maybe you WERE there that morning…were you the dumbass cop who pushed the “open gate” button and smeared / contaminated what was almost surely Tex Watson’s bloody fingerprint? I bet that was you!

  71. Tom says:

    Well, you invited them to burn another country’s flag in that country and “see what happens”. What happens? Something you want to see happen in America?

  72. Tom says:

    Well, you invited them to burn another country’s flag in that country and “see what happens”. What happens? Something you want to see happen in America?

  73. Henry says:

    LOL LOL You spent all that time typing out your blather, yet your first sentence was so off the mark, you rendered the rest ridiculous.

    Stuff it, loser.

  74. Henry says:

    LOL LOL You spent all that time typing out your blather, yet your first sentence was so off the mark, you rendered the rest ridiculous.

    Stuff it, loser.

  75. Alphamail says:

    .
    The comment was pointed at all three of you, but obviously only the parts that related to your comment were relevant to you, and the first sentence certainly was not. I disagreed with you specifically but I couldn’t and didn’t have the time to respond to everyone individually so I answered en banc.
    .
    I fully understand the legal system and our 1st Amendment but I thought your accusation that I would knee cap an old lady was pretty sick. As far as the first sentence, I apologize you felt that was aimed at you, that was not my intent. You might want to reread my comment to see my fundamental worry about the consequences of not making a new exception to desecrating the flag.
    .
    Again, sorry for the confusion.
    .

  76. Alphamail says:

    .
    The comment was pointed at all three of you, but obviously only the parts that related to your comment were relevant to you, and the first sentence certainly was not. I disagreed with you specifically but I couldn’t and didn’t have the time to respond to everyone individually so I answered en banc.
    .
    I fully understand the legal system and our 1st Amendment but I thought your accusation that I would knee cap an old lady was pretty sick. As far as the first sentence, I apologize you felt that was aimed at you, that was not my intent. You might want to reread my comment to see my fundamental worry about the consequences of not making a new exception to desecrating the flag.
    .
    Again, sorry for the confusion.
    .

  77. Alphamail says:

    .
    TOM
    .
    No I’m not spittin’ mad now. If anything, I’m just disappointed again in the number of people I meet these days – particularly on the anonymous internet – who embody a spirit of meanness, deceit, and what can only be described as an inordinately pernicious need to win at all costs. And I am talking about you.
    .
    When I was a kid we played three-on-three basketball and balls were always going out of bounds and we gauged who we wanted to play with in the future by how a person might call a deflected shot. Balls inevitably bounced off individuals and since we didn’t have a referee we depended on one another to be honest if the ball hit them on the way out of bounds. A ball could hit a person on the way out of bounds but he might say it did not. We never invited that person back to play. That is how I view you. If a ball bounced off of any of us and no one could tell, we were immaculate in enforcing integrity, and we admitted the truth – even if it cost us the game. You have shown in several ways you are incapable of that. When you try daily to retain your faith in people then spend a day on the internet arguing with someone like you, it is deflating and depressing – so no, I’m not angry, it’s more like I’m sick to my stomach and questioning people again.
    .
    I do not attack people unless they openly lie to me, unless they lie about what I said, unless they dishonestly rephrase what I said or reform my intent, or lie simply in order to win. When you did all of those you incurred my verbal wrath.
    .
    You’re kind of a con man, who knew absolutely and exactly all the points I was trying to make and why, but once you engaged you could not accept my simple layman’s vernacular so you went to Google and probably some law review to try and shred what you knew were very simple and basic points. And when I answered your challenge about what the hell I know about the 1960’s or the 1968 Dem Convention, I answered your question in a forthright and honest manner which should have convinced any reasonable person that I know the time period, but you went on a petty – almost freaky – crusade to prove me a liar…and then you bragged about, well, calling me a liar.
    .
    Your juvenile and creepy over-exertion to try and challenge a very disturbing episode in my life, when I was forthright as part of an answer to you, is really weird and explains a lot. It certainly shows you do not know police protocol and you might have gotten other officers killed if active shooters had still been there. The driveway had a few cars – it’s hard to recall now – but unless people were visible in the cars, the first few cars need to go directly to the point of action and the following cars follow behind and would secure the long driveway, including parked vehicles and their contents. I remember the parking area of the upper driveway only held six or eight police cars so several cars back, officers would embark and ensure no more traffic was allowed in and the following officers would need not only to secure the outer grounds but also stop traffic further back to allow for pending ambulances or command personnel . But I don’t need to explain all this stuff to you, you read up on this didn’t you, and now you know police work is kinda like flippin’ burgers huh?
    .
    As far as “change the law” is concerned, I spoke in a vernacular common to most every average person, and quite honestly I would have to refresh my legalese to be able to hit every legal term on the head, but suffice to say, you KNEW what I was saying, what I meant, and why, and again, your battle was ONLY to win. In fact I doubt seriously you read my points on the weapon differences in eras.
    .
    I will say again, the “law needs to be changed.” You know that’s not how to explain it but I submit: Ask 100 people on the street if it is within the law to stomp on a flag and 100 people will say yes. Ask 100 people if it is against the law to stomp on a flag and they will say no. When SCOTUS struck down 5-4 the laws against flag burning they de facto voided (changed) laws. When Congress passed an Act to “recreate’ those “laws” and SCOTUS denied Congress, SCOTUS de facto resisted the reimplementation of “laws.” AGAIN, you know what I was saying and what I meant and your failure to meet me halfway was completely dishonest.
    .
    Without the legalese, Americans view stomping on a flag as the “law of the land.”
    .
    Also, what you are inferring, or at least conveying to those who do not understand, is the right to trample a flag can never be changed which is totally false. Are you saying Roe v. Wade can never be changed? Are you saying if Obama or a Dem gets two more Prog justices that the 2nd Amendment could never be eliminated? There are a couple of ways to create an exception to the 1st Amendment but it takes time and a process and it’s important to begin a process ASAP. Call it what you want but my layman’s vernacular calls it a change in a “law of the land.” When the groups I mentioned become a well-coordinated violent movement and begin to burn the flag en masse as part of their “Death to America” chants, it will be too late to return your Neville Chamberlain mask, so you might want to remove it now.
    .

  78. Alphamail says:

    .
    TOM
    .
    No I’m not spittin’ mad now. If anything, I’m just disappointed again in the number of people I meet these days – particularly on the anonymous internet – who embody a spirit of meanness, deceit, and what can only be described as an inordinately pernicious need to win at all costs. And I am talking about you.
    .
    When I was a kid we played three-on-three basketball and balls were always going out of bounds and we gauged who we wanted to play with in the future by how a person might call a deflected shot. Balls inevitably bounced off individuals and since we didn’t have a referee we depended on one another to be honest if the ball hit them on the way out of bounds. A ball could hit a person on the way out of bounds but he might say it did not. We never invited that person back to play. That is how I view you. If a ball bounced off of any of us and no one could tell, we were immaculate in enforcing integrity, and we admitted the truth – even if it cost us the game. You have shown in several ways you are incapable of that. When you try daily to retain your faith in people then spend a day on the internet arguing with someone like you, it is deflating and depressing – so no, I’m not angry, it’s more like I’m sick to my stomach and questioning people again.
    .
    I do not attack people unless they openly lie to me, unless they lie about what I said, unless they dishonestly rephrase what I said or reform my intent, or lie simply in order to win. When you did all of those you incurred my verbal wrath.
    .
    You’re kind of a con man, who knew absolutely and exactly all the points I was trying to make and why, but once you engaged you could not accept my simple layman’s vernacular so you went to Google and probably some law review to try and shred what you knew were very simple and basic points. And when I answered your challenge about what the hell I know about the 1960’s or the 1968 Dem Convention, I answered your question in a forthright and honest manner which should have convinced any reasonable person that I know the time period, but you went on a petty – almost freaky – crusade to prove me a liar…and then you bragged about, well, calling me a liar.
    .
    Your juvenile and creepy over-exertion to try and challenge a very disturbing episode in my life, when I was forthright as part of an answer to you, is really weird and explains a lot. It certainly shows you do not know police protocol and you might have gotten other officers killed if active shooters had still been there. The driveway had a few cars – it’s hard to recall now – but unless people were visible in the cars, the first few cars need to go directly to the point of action and the following cars follow behind and would secure the long driveway, including parked vehicles and their contents. I remember the parking area of the upper driveway only held six or eight police cars so several cars back, officers would embark and ensure no more traffic was allowed in and the following officers would need not only to secure the outer grounds but also stop traffic further back to allow for pending ambulances or command personnel . But I don’t need to explain all this stuff to you, you read up on this didn’t you, and now you know police work is kinda like flippin’ burgers huh?
    .
    As far as “change the law” is concerned, I spoke in a vernacular common to most every average person, and quite honestly I would have to refresh my legalese to be able to hit every legal term on the head, but suffice to say, you KNEW what I was saying, what I meant, and why, and again, your battle was ONLY to win. In fact I doubt seriously you read my points on the weapon differences in eras.
    .
    I will say again, the “law needs to be changed.” You know that’s not how to explain it but I submit: Ask 100 people on the street if it is within the law to stomp on a flag and 100 people will say yes. Ask 100 people if it is against the law to stomp on a flag and they will say no. When SCOTUS struck down 5-4 the laws against flag burning they de facto voided (changed) laws. When Congress passed an Act to “recreate’ those “laws” and SCOTUS denied Congress, SCOTUS de facto resisted the reimplementation of “laws.” AGAIN, you know what I was saying and what I meant and your failure to meet me halfway was completely dishonest.
    .
    Without the legalese, Americans view stomping on a flag as the “law of the land.”
    .
    Also, what you are inferring, or at least conveying to those who do not understand, is the right to trample a flag can never be changed which is totally false. Are you saying Roe v. Wade can never be changed? Are you saying if Obama or a Dem gets two more Prog justices that the 2nd Amendment could never be eliminated? There are a couple of ways to create an exception to the 1st Amendment but it takes time and a process and it’s important to begin a process ASAP. Call it what you want but my layman’s vernacular calls it a change in a “law of the land.” When the groups I mentioned become a well-coordinated violent movement and begin to burn the flag en masse as part of their “Death to America” chants, it will be too late to return your Neville Chamberlain mask, so you might want to remove it now.
    .

  79. Idarreed says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr.”….!oa161utwo days ago new Silver McLaren P2 bought after earning 18,512 Dollars,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k Dollars Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with. extra open doors &. weekly. paychecks… it’s realy the simplest. work. I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. 87 Dollars, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oa161➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBossGetPaidHourly98$…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!oa161u……

  80. lgeubank says:

    I like the hipster’s costume — the complete “counter-cultural, fake-intellectual, left-wing poseur” uniform. With hair-do to match.

  81. lgeubank says:

    I like the hipster’s costume — the complete “counter-cultural, fake-intellectual, left-wing poseur” uniform. With hair-do to match.

  82. Tom says:

    You know, alpha, if you didn’t immediately respond to my remarks – EVERY time I have engaged with you here – with name-calling and insults, perhaps I wouldn’t be so…antagonistic with you. I express an opinion that differs from yours, and instead of trying to convince me or show me where what I said was untrue, you respond with gems such as “FU you cheap disgraceful dishonorable bastard…you are the scum of the earth.”

    Do you perhaps see where immediately resorting to vitriol and venom makes me think that – He can’t logically defend his position so he has to jump tight to name-calling and insults, such as telling me I am a liberal appeaser and an irreverent frickin pus. When someone does not or cannot defend the assertions they make without getting into the gutter, that seems to me to be the hallmarks of a weak argument.

    And, alpha, some of the stuff you write is just so off-the-wall that I feel compelled to respond. For instance, your assertion that, 50 years ago, nobody had the capability to destroy America but now they do. 50 years ago (1966), the Soviets already had thousands of nukes pointed at us and the Chinese were doing their first H-bomb tests as well as developing ICBMs…My opinion is that 1966 (or that era) was tremendously dangerous for our nation…the threat of nuclear hellfire-and-brimstone raining down on the US was a very “clear and present danger” and far outweighs any current threats to our country. That’s my OPINION…you might not like it, but it’s mine, and I can present evidence from history to show that my opinion is correct without having to degrade and insult you.

    Now, back to the matters at hand…I hear what you are saying about getting the SCOTUS to revisit this issue but the problem is that once an activity such as flag burning has been shown to be constitutional and the laws against it UNconstitutional, then any city or state which tries to pass a no-flag-burning statute would expect the law to be struck down at the first appellate level…ths SCOTUS has already said that flag burning is constitutional and any law that attempts to again criminalize it is unconstitutional as well. The only way you are going to get flag-burning back to being illegal is to amend the constitution.

  83. Tom says:

    You know, alpha, if you didn’t immediately respond to my remarks – EVERY time I have engaged with you here – with name-calling and insults, perhaps I wouldn’t be so…antagonistic with you. I express an opinion that differs from yours, and instead of trying to convince me or show me where what I said was untrue, you respond with gems such as “FU you cheap disgraceful dishonorable bastard…you are the scum of the earth.”

    Do you perhaps see where immediately resorting to vitriol and venom makes me think that – He can’t logically defend his position so he has to jump tight to name-calling and insults, such as telling me I am a liberal appeaser and an irreverent frickin pus. When someone does not or cannot defend the assertions they make without getting into the gutter, that seems to me to be the hallmarks of a weak argument.

    And, alpha, some of the stuff you write is just so off-the-wall that I feel compelled to respond. For instance, your assertion that, 50 years ago, nobody had the capability to destroy America but now they do. 50 years ago (1966), the Soviets already had thousands of nukes pointed at us and the Chinese were doing their first H-bomb tests as well as developing ICBMs…My opinion is that 1966 (or that era) was tremendously dangerous for our nation…the threat of nuclear hellfire-and-brimstone raining down on the US was a very “clear and present danger” and far outweighs any current threats to our country. That’s my OPINION…you might not like it, but it’s mine, and I can present evidence from history to show that my opinion is correct without having to degrade and insult you.

    Now, back to the matters at hand…I hear what you are saying about getting the SCOTUS to revisit this issue but the problem is that once an activity such as flag burning has been shown to be constitutional and the laws against it UNconstitutional, then any city or state which tries to pass a no-flag-burning statute would expect the law to be struck down at the first appellate level…ths SCOTUS has already said that flag burning is constitutional and any law that attempts to again criminalize it is unconstitutional as well. The only way you are going to get flag-burning back to being illegal is to amend the constitution.

  84. Fiberal says:

    The fuzzy rat got off good. They would have had to clean up what was left of him with a hose if he had done that to the mexican flag at a La Raza fiesta.

    Debates about the 1st and burning the American flag are irrelevant when it comes to the malignantly stupid, where justice is allocated at the discretion of the citizen.

  85. Fiberal says:

    The fuzzy rat got off good. They would have had to clean up what was left of him with a hose if he had done that to the mexican flag at a La Raza fiesta.

    Debates about the 1st and burning the American flag are irrelevant when it comes to the malignantly stupid, where justice is allocated at the discretion of the citizen.

  86. Regulator Unlimited says:

    What Jim said.

  87. Regulator Unlimited says:

    What Jim said.

  88. Momster says:

    Is there any other kind of lawyer?

  89. Momster says:

    Is there any other kind of lawyer?

  90. Jerry Shelton says:

    No that is not what I want to see in America. But I do want them to see the raw irony in what they are saying and doing. The 1st amendment gives them the right to burn the flag and even say that they hate this country. Yet this is just about the only country that you can do and say such thing with out fear of breaking the law. Understand what it is that you hate….what a better way to understand what freedom of speech than to go somewhere that does not have it……

  91. Jerry Shelton says:

    No that is not what I want to see in America. But I do want them to see the raw irony in what they are saying and doing. The 1st amendment gives them the right to burn the flag and even say that they hate this country. Yet this is just about the only country that you can do and say such thing with out fear of breaking the law. Understand what it is that you hate….what a better way to understand what freedom of speech than to go somewhere that does not have it……

  92. Tom says:

    I get what you’re saying…sometimes I think that these flag-burners should – like a child who is naughtily showing off – be ignored or even laughed at. The angry response is what they are looking for…let’s not give it to them!

  93. Tom says:

    I get what you’re saying…sometimes I think that these flag-burners should – like a child who is naughtily showing off – be ignored or even laughed at. The angry response is what they are looking for…let’s not give it to them!

  94. SNuss says:

    Burning the Flag is a MACRO-aggression to patriotic Americans.

  95. SNuss says:

    Burning the Flag is a MACRO-aggression to patriotic Americans.


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy