Post New

I sort of stopped caring about this issue --- after all --- what does it stand for anymore.

But..... Trump makes an amazing case to ban flag burning in 20 seconds.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ff8DYdtHQc4?si=Ab8OY9e8...


I can't imagine anyone not wanting to ban flag burning after hearing our President speak.

Heh. The left wants to ban flag burning.

Here’s a test. Take two flags to a city park in a liberal area. Other a crowd and tell them you’re here to burn the flag to demonstrate free speech.

First, burn the American flag. Make a speech about how this sort of thing is enshrined in the US Constitution. The crowd will nod its collective head in approval.

Then…light up a Pride flag. How does that same crowd react?

First, burn the American flag. Make a speech about how this sort of thing is enshrined in the US Constitution. The crowd will nod its collective head in approval.

Then…light up a Pride flag. How does that same crowd react?


Since this scenario is taking place in your imagination, you tell us.

Since this scenario is taking place in your imagination, you tell us.

Don’t want to take an actual position before somebody else tells you what to say, eh? That’s cool. We all know what the reaction would be.

Don’t want to take an actual position before somebody else tells you what to say, eh? That’s cool. We all know what the reaction would be.

It’s pointless to argue with someone who makes up the scenario in his own mind and then tests others on what happens in the scenario.

“What number am I thinking of?”

“I dunno. 3? 9?”

“Wrong, you stupid fool! The correct number is 7,674.5832!”


Also, a helpful hint to Dope……

Nobody, absolutely nobody is giving me the inside scoop on a fantasy that is playing out exclusively between your ears.

Then…light up a Pride flag. How does that same crowd react?

The Pride Flag has different colored sparklers and fireworks in it, so everyone enjoyed the show. :) It was a gay old time!

We all know what the reaction would be.

What do you think it would be? Do you think they would disagree that burning the pride flag is protected by the U.S. Constitution the way they agreed that burning the American flag was?

Oh hell….. why not?

The answer I’d give to both flag burners is exactly the same for both.

Dope, can you give me the answer?

One response to both. Not two. Just one very simple response.

Albaby wins the internet

Albaby wins the internet

Thanks - but it's just such a weird hypothetical. A crowd of people who are sufficiently versed in constitutional law to recognize that burning an American flag is protected by the constitutional right to free speech, no matter how odious it might be to the majority....but might possibly reach a different answer about whether there's a similar constitutional right to burn a pride flag? Why would Dope think that there would be two different answers on whether the constitution protects the speech?

It’s pointless to argue wit

It’s called a “hypothetical” and the lashing out you’re doing really drives home the end result.

I’ve always said that liberalism/progressivism was a dead-end political philosophy and I’m reminded of why on these boards every day - the dead end is misery.

What do you think it would be?

Let’s see. Crowds of leftists are known for expressing…tolerance of views and believe in wide-ranging dialogue.

Oh, right - they don’t. The crowd would watch the US flag being burned either quietly or would cheer. When the pride flag went up in smoke they’d get uncomfortable or ugly.

Conceptually both acts are the same. However, the reaction to each would be different.

Why would Dope think that there would be two different answers on whether the constitution protects the speech?

Very clever attempt here…but clumsy. -1 for the redirect attempt.

I’ve always said that liberalism/progressivism was a dead-end political philosophy and I’m reminded of why on these boards every day - the dead end is misery.

After people refuse to fall for your transparently loaded hypothetical, you conclude that liberalism and progressivism are dead?

The failure was yours. Nobody else’s

Conceptually both acts are the same.

What are you talking about?

They're not conceptually the same. They're legally the same. But the message being conveyed is completely different.

You surely know that. Fox News and MSNBC are legally the same thing. They're both television news channels that have identical protections under the Constitution. But their content is completely different.

Yawn, Dope is just regurgitating what his right-wing programmers have told him to say as per usual...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/maga-really-wa...

After people refuse to fall for your transparently loaded hypothetical,

“Transparently loaded hypothetical”? Awww.

At least this time you ack’d that it is indeed a hypothetical. That’s real growth, congrats!

As far as the “loaded” part the only reason you’d say that is because you know exactly how the crowd would react. It’s not really debatable.

The modern left is a ball of contradictions, hypocrisy and mishmash. It’s a movement that wraps itself in the warm woobie of “tolerance” but reserves it only for approved views

You and your running mates in this board are Exhibits A-Z of just such behavior.

Very clever attempt here…but clumsy. -1 for the redirect attempt.

What redirect? Here's your exact scenario:

Take two flags to a city park in a liberal area. Other a crowd and tell them you’re here to burn the flag to demonstrate free speech.

First, burn the American flag. Make a speech about how this sort of thing is enshrined in the US Constitution. The crowd will nod its collective head in approval.

Then…light up a Pride flag. How does that same crowd react?

Your scenario - which you wrote - is asking the crowd about free speech. Not whether they agreed with the message being conveyed, but talking about how you're demonstrating free speech and that "this sort of thing is enshrined in the Constitution." That's your hypothetical.

Why would you think that a crowd that agreed that burning the U.S. flag is free speech that is protected by the Constitution would reach a different conclusion about a pride flag?

Did you mistakenly make your hypothetical to be about the crowd's beliefs about free speech and the constitution, rather than trying to illustrate that liberal people will react more favorably to liberal beliefs than conservative beliefs? If the latter is what you were trying to elicit, your hypothetical isn't set up for that.

And really - if that's what you were trying to get at, it's hardly much of an observation. I mean, a crowd of conservatives will react differently to someone burning a picture of AOC than to someone burning a picture of Donald Trump, too. Not because they're inconsistent on the legality or constitutionality of those acts, but because they support one message and disagree with the other. Is that what you were trying to get at?

What are you talking about?

The entire hypothetical, which is quite clear.

But the message being conveyed is completely different.

No, it isn’t. And here’s where the justification for the inevitable bad reaction to burning the one comes in.

According to the logic you’re hinting at, one can burn the US flag as a protected piece of free speech. But one *can’t* torch a pride flag because it’s an emotional symbol for millions. Is that what you’re wanting to say?

But one *can’t* torch a pride flag because it’s an emotional symbol for millions. Is that what you’re wanting to say?

What? No. No one would say that. People are perfectly within their rights to burn a pride flag. It's protected speech under the constitution.

I think you're mixing up "is X legally protected speech" with "is X a message I agree with or support."

The crowd might reach a different conclusion about whether they support the message with the different flags (although probably not), but they wouldn't reach a different conclusion about whether it's protected speech under the Constitution.

The crowd would hate you for burning a pride flag (and they'd probably think you were an a-hole for burning the American flag for no reason) - but no one would reach a different conclusion about whether it was legally permitted speech.

Why would you think that a crowd that agreed that burning the U.S. flag is free speech that is protected by the Constitution would reach a different conclusion about a pride flag?

Simple. Certain audiences don’t really believe in or understand the very concept of free speech.

It’s a very simple hypothetical - either speech that’s uncomfortable is acceptable or it is not. I guess it’s not surprising that

1) Even discussing the topic makes folks here uncomfortable (proving the underlying hypothesis under the hypothetical to be true)

2) immediately posters here attack the message/messenger rather than engage on an intellectual level.

immediately posters here attack the message/messenger rather than engage on an intellectual level.

Everyone is engaging with you on an intellectual level.

We're all just asking you why you think the crowd would reach a different conclusion on whether the speech they disagreed with was legal. I can easily imagine that the crowd would despise the message you were conveying by burning the Pride Flag (and also the American flag, for the most part) - but why do you think that they would conclude that burning the Pride Flag wasn't protected by the Constitution?

Everyone is engaging with you on an intellectual level.

LOL@that.

LOL@that.

Seriously, Dope. No one in this thread took any ad hominem shots at you. They simply pointed out that this was your hypothetical, so that if you were imagining a different reaction it would be incumbent on you to explain what it would be.

I can't possibly imagine why you think a crowd of people who agreed that burning the American flag was protected by the Constitution would disagree that burning a Pride Flag would be protected by the Constitution.

I can't possibly imagine why you think it's significant or meaningful that a crowd of people might react differently to the content of two completely different messages, when that happens literally all the time with every different type of crowd.

No one in this thread took any ad hominem shots at you.

I'm looking at the body of work of the entire board, which is one ad hom after another.

I'm looking at the body of work of the entire board, which is one ad hom after another.

But that's not what you said. You said, "immediately posters here attack the message/messenger rather than engage on an intellectual level." No one's doing that.

Returning to your post, of course a crowd will react differently to the substance of two different messages. That's, like, incredibly obvious. If you go to a crowd of Yankees fans and shout, "Go Yankees!," they will react differently than if you shouted "Go Red Sox!" That doesn't mean they're hypocrites. People agree with some messages and disagree with others. The crowd isn't taking contradictory or hypocritical positions on free speech - they simply hate one of the messages.

If you convey the message via burning a flag, the crowd will react differently depending on what flag you burn. A conservative crowd would react differently to you burning a Trans flag than burning an American flag. So what? That doesn't mean they're hypocritical about the mechanism of flag burning. It just means they have different opinions about different messages.

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to illustrate here about the Constitution and free speech, or liberal attitudes towards either of them. Even the most ardent free speech advocate (whether liberal or conservative) will recognize that people will still like and/or dislike the substance of different messages.

You said, "immediately posters here attack the message/messenger rather than engage on an intellectual level." No one's doing that.

Oh?

Yawn, Dope is just regurgitating what his right-wing programmers have told him to say as per usual...

You said, "immediately posters here attack the message/messenger rather than engage on an intellectual level." No one's doing that.

Oh?

Yawn, Dope is just regurgitating what his right-wing programmers have told him to say as per usual...

Note: If you post while not being logged in, it will list as posted by "null".

Why didn't they whine that HILLARY wanted something so Trumpy ?

Why would Dope think that there would be two different answers on whether the constitution protects the speech?

My guess: because of a belief that - on this board anyway - liberals hate America with the same passion that they consider the LGBTQA cause sacrosanct. And so American flag burning is ok, but Pride flag burning isn't, first amendment notwithstanding.

Just pointing out the truth...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/maga-really-wa...

Charlie Kirk says it, Dope parrots it, like a good little automaton.

But one *can’t* torch a pride flag because it’s an emotional symbol for millions. Is that what you’re wanting to say?

Dope- this has gone on long enough. Why do you continue to insist that what we are not saying is what we are saying,

Even after we’ve told you in multiple ways that this is not what we are saying?

Or is this one of your “I know what you are thinking, even if you don’t say it” gambits?

Hillary Clinton made that passionate plea to end flag burning.

The Sheeple - silent.


Not even a Baaaaaaaaaaaa


Still awaiting Mamdani support.....

C'mon, be an individual voter. Have your own opinion.


LOL no way, not yet. not today.

Even after we’ve told you in multiple ways that this is not what we are saying?

Have you? You haven't. Instead, you're falling back to the tired schtick that allows you to never state a firm position, but claim you did somewhere.

It's called Gutless Wonderism - a phenomenon that hte Jedi Foundation has identified over and over since TMF

Beyond Substack or NPR....

Sheeples need prodding from masters or memes to even baaaaaa one word.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/maga-really-wa...

Charlie Kirk says it, Dope parrots it, like a good little automaton.

That’s exactly the nonsense Dope was parroting with his cute little “what if?”.

Charlie Kirk, huh?

Nuff said.

That’s exactly the nonsense Dope was parroting with his cute little “what if?”.

It's a hypothetical. Not my fault a) it's uncomfortable for you b) you don't want to answer it clearly and c) all you're left with are personal attacks and the inevitable cop-outs.

Have you?

Yes. Unambiguously. The crowd in your hypothetical would:

1) Agree that burning the pride flag is protected speech under the Constitution to the exact same degree as burning the American flag; and
2) Despise the message you are attempting to convey by burning the pride flag.

That's what we think would happen. What do you think would happen?

1) Agree that burning the pride flag is protected speech under the Constitution to the exact same degree as burning the American flag; and
2) Despise the message you are attempting to convey by burning the pride flag.

That's what we think would happen. What do you think would happen?

Thank you. The rest of the board rarely states anything clearly and unambiguously. As you're demonstrating, it's not that hard.

As for what I think will happen, it will be a spectrum. Some communities would act on your #2. Others will understand the equivalencies of the acts.

Some localities, though, don't agree that messing with the pride flag is protected speech.

Have you? You haven't. Instead, you're falling back to the tired schtick that allows you to never state a firm position, but claim you did somewhere.

Here’s the position: Burning flags is an exercise in free speech, whether that flag is an American flag or a Pride flag. Therefore it is Constitutionally protected speech.

Neither, however, is protected from the free speech debate that such burning would initiate. Burn either one of them and I’m still going to call you an idiot.

But file charges or arrest you for burning either? Never.

I fail to see your point, other than some leftists might burn an American flag and some righties might burn a Pride flag, and depending on the crowd, the response might be cheering or booing.

Burn an American flag in my county, you might get shot. Burn a Pride flag? One third of the folks might cheer. One third would boo, and one third might ask “What’s a Pride flag?”

This entire discussion is so bizarre.

Burning flags is an exercise in free speech, whether that flag is an American flag or a Pride flag. Therefore it is Constitutionally protected speech.

Neither, however, is protected from the free speech debate that such burning would initiate. Burn either one of them and I’m still going to call you an idiot.

But file charges or arrest you for burning either? Never.

Good. See how easy it is to state an opinion without hiding behind other posters or resorting to stupid insults? Mentally liberating, it is.

I fail to see your point, other than some leftists might burn an American flag and some righties might burn a Pride flag, and depending on the crowd, the response might be cheering or booing.

You mean to say, you fail to see Charlie Kirks point.
This is not Dopes argument, he stole it and is pretending it is his.

You mean to say, you fail to see Charlie Kirks point.
This is not Dopes argument, he stole it and is pretending it is his.

I'm amazed that this topic has gone on for as long as it has. It was a nonsense premise, easily answered within a few posts. Now it's just a waste of time as some right-winger is trying -and failing- to make a point that in all likelihood isn't valid.

Some communities would act on your #2. Others will understand the equivalencies of the acts.

They're not equivalent. The message is entirely different. The medium by which that message is conveyed is the same, but the message is different.

Again, using a less politically loaded example, burning a Red Sox flag in front of a bunch of Yankees fans will get a different reaction than burning a Yankees flag in front of them. They are not equivalent. They are completely different messages.

Some localities, though, don't agree that messing with the pride flag is protected speech.

Really? Could you provide a link to a "locality" that has tried to differentiate between burning a pride flag and burning an American flag? Where the latter would be allowed but the former prohibited?

You mean to say, you fail to see Charlie Kirks point.
This is not Dopes argument, he stole it and is pretending it is his.

I saw that connection pointed out earlier, but though probable, it’s not certain.

We all get our ideas from somewhere. Original thought is rare. Hell, even Charlie Kirk gets his nonsense from a deeper well…… a deep, deep well indeed. So deep in fact, that sulfuric fumes pour from the wellhead.

They're not equivalent.

Sure they are. They are different symbols, but messing up each one is an act of speech.

How would Trumplethinskin react to seeing one of those American flags burned that has been desecrated with either the Confederate flag or one with his image on it?

They are different symbols, but messing up each one is an act of speech.

But the message is different! That's the point. People react differently to the message. If AOC and Trump both give a speech, they're both acts of speech - but you would expect a conservative crowd to react favorably to one and negatively to the other.

No one would expect a conservative crowd to react the same way to someone burning a photo of AOC as they would to someone burning a photo of Trump - even though they're both the same medium of communicating an idea, the idea is different.

It's not hypocritical to respond differently to different messages, even if the messages are communicated via the same medium. No one has to like every movie exactly the same just because they're all movies. No one has to approve of every political speech the same way just because they're all political speeches. And the same is true of burning flags.

It's called Gutless Wonderism - a phenomenon that hte Jedi Foundation has identified over and over since TMF

Beyond Substack or NPR....

Sheeples need prodding from masters or memes to even baaaaaa one word.

We had a breakthrough in the thread, though - after getting permission at least one of them came through with an actual opinion!

That's 100% better than their usual display of "thinking".

We had a breakthrough in the thread, though - after getting permission at least one of them came through with an actual opinion!

Dope, it's that kind of snide commentary that undermines the intimation that you're actually seeking to have a meaningful discussion in these issues.

Who do you think granted me permission? Do you think that I am generally reticent to take positions, or tell you what I think on issues?

Dope, it's that kind of snide commentary that undermines the intimation that you're actually seeking to have a meaningful discussion in these issues.

Sorry, I could continually insult every single member of this board for the next decade and STILL not balance the ledger.
Will I do that? No, that's not the right thing to do. I choose to take the high road 99% of the time.

Who do you think granted me permission?

I wasn't referring to you, that was aimed at Bill.

I wasn't referring to you, that was aimed at Bill.

That’s “Crazy Bill” to you, Baghdad Dope.

Do you think they would disagree that burning the pride flag is protected by the U.S. Constitution the way they agreed that burning the American flag was?

------------------

My guess is that no one will engage in a constitutional discussion. Some in the crowd would stomp out the burning pride flag and then a few of them would go on to attempt to stomp on those who lit it.

Why are people afraid to say this?

My guess is that no one will engage in a constitutional discussion. Some in the crowd would stomp out the burning pride flag and then a few of them would go on to attempt to stomp on those who lit it.

Why are people afraid to say this?

No one's afraid to say this - several times upthread I noted that the crowd would detest the message inherent in burning the pride flag. Whether you think that manifests in angry remonstrances to the local paper and a meditation circle, or people "stomping," depends on whether you want to indulge a stereotype of liberals as ineffectual pencil-neck weenies or violent agitators.

In reality, the liberal crowd would have the same reaction as a conservative crowd would have if you burned the flags in the reverse order - acceptance of burning a Pride Flag as a legitimate expression of free speech, and outrage (perhaps to the point of "stomping") at the burning of the American flag.

We bring up the constitutional discussion because Dope made a point of including that detail in his original hypothetical. In his hypothetical, the demonstrator specifically told the crowd that the burning of the American flag was a demonstration of free speech, and that the crowd expressed understanding and agreement of that. When construing hypotheticals, the general rule is that the deliberate inclusion of a specific detail is intended to have operative significance in the hypothetical. So we proceed in the discussion to presume that the constitutional discussion was not irrelevant (else why mention it), but instead is something that the crowd has actually acknowledged. I agree that's not very likely, but it's not my hypothetical....

My guess is that no one will engage in a constitutional discussion. Some in the crowd would stomp out the burning pride flag and then a few of them would go on to attempt to stomp on those who lit it.

Why are people afraid to say this?

Mike, in the article Kirk referenced, the fellow ripped the Pride Flag off the Church, took it down to the parking lot of the local gay bar and set in on fire. No one stomped him. He was arrested, charged, tried,, convicted, and sentenced to 16 years. The prosecutors classified it as a hate crime, he was unapologetic - even in court, repeatedly stated that gays should be eliminated (can't recall exactly how he said it), and was a habitual offender with a long rap sheet. So in REAL LIFE the flag burner doesn't get stomped, just given 16 years for a hate crime.

Did Dope look up the actual crime Kirk was referencing? Those of us who did look it up were more interested in how the fellow got 16 years, and still are. I'm not one bit interested in Dope's or Kirk's MAGA imagination fantasy, I'm still interested in how he got 16 years for burning a pride flag. I would like to see a discussion on that, but NNOOOOooooOOOOOoohh, we gotta waste time.

SNIP In the wake of Donald Trump seeming to ignore Supreme Court precedent and push to criminalize burning the American flag, leaders and commentators on the right are arguing that defacing LGBT+ Pride and Black Lives Matter flags and symbols should be legal.

“While we're talking about flags, we should work to overturn every conviction for those arrested, fined, or otherwise harassed for the ‘hate crime’ of doing donuts over Pride flags painted on public streets,” Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk wrote on X on Monday.

“It should be legal to burn a rainbow or BLM flag in public,” he added in a separate post.
Advertisement

“I'm sorry, but as long as this is the status quo, I'm not going to work myself into a state of hysteria about Trump's executive order on burning the American flag,” right-wing activist and writer Christopher Rufo wrote on X, pointing to an Iowa case where a man was sentenced in 2019 to 16 years in prison for ripping a rainbow flag from an Iowa church and burning it in a nearby strip club parking lot.

“It is an extremely unequal standard,” X billionaire and former Trump administration advisor Elon Musk wrote in response to Rufo.SNIP

Another take:

SNIP Unlike most defendants who try to stay out of jail, Martinez, 30, seemed to actively court punishment, Pastor Eileen Gebbie of Ames United Church of Christ observed. Martinez spoke out of turn. He made violent arm gestures. Yes, Martinez told the judge, he was indeed trying to make a statement about gay people when he ripped down AUCC’s rainbow-striped pride flag on June 11 and set it on fire in a nearby strip club parking lot. And no, he wasn’t sorry.

“He said he wants to ‘cut us out of the land of the living,’ ” Gebbie told The Washington Post on Friday as she recalled Martinez’s angry rhetoric targeting queer people like herself at a time when hate crimes against LGBTQ people have risen sharply over the past three years in cities throughout the United States. SNIP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/20/h...

Dope can't even get descent discussions started on things that are real and matter.

He was arrested, charged, tried,, convicted, and sentenced to 16 years.

So the crowd didn’t stomp the guy; the authorities did it for him.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Are you okay with burning the US flag as an expression of free speech but not the pride flag?

So the crowd didn’t stomp the guy; the authorities did it for him.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

Are you okay with burning the US flag as an expression of free speech but not the pride flag?

You are allowed to burn the pride flag as an expression of free speech without sanction or penalty by the government. You can do it right now. Go to the store, buy a pride flag, and burn it on your own property. The government won't do anything to you.

What you're not allowed to do is steal someone else's pride flag and burn it on someone else's property. Just like you're not allowed to steal someone else's American flag and burn it on someone else's property. You'll go to jail for either of them.

If you deliberately do everything possible to tick off every single box in the sentencing guidelines to try to get the maximum criminal penalty for either crime, then you'll get the maximum penalty for either crime. If you act like a 'normal' criminal defendant and behave during the trial and express remorse for your criminal acts, you'll get a fairly ordinary sentence for either crime.

What you're not allowed to do is steal someone else's pride flag and burn it on someone else's property. Just like you're not allowed to steal someone else's American flag and burn it on someone else's property. You'll go to jail for either of them.

For 16 years? Seems a bit...harsh, no?

What you describe is theft and destruction of property. Lambo called it a hate crime.

In reality, the liberal crowd would have the same reaction as a conservative crowd would have if you burned the flags in the reverse order - acceptance of burning a Pride Flag as a legitimate expression of free speech, and outrage (perhaps to the point of "stomping") at the burning of the American flag.

You keep making this analogy.

I think most people on this board know I’m a progressive. Personally, I think burning any flag (American, Pride, etc.)* is stupid. My reaction would be to shake my head and walk away. Hell, I don’t want to breathe burning flag fumes, even though as an American you have the right to.

* Actually, it might put smile on my face to see a burning Nazi flag (not to mention a burning Nazi 😁), but I’d still walk away.

For 16 years? Seems a bit...harsh, no?

Not in the specific instance you're mentioning, no.

The big "sentence enhancer" for Martinez was that he had prior convictions. Under Iowa law, if you have two prior felony convictions you get charged as "habitual offender" and your max sentence can go up to 15 years on conviction regardless of what the sentence would otherwise be for the crime your charged with. Three strikes and you're out, you know.

He went out of his way to show that he deserved to be treated that way. He threatened further reprisals against the church whose flag he burned, allegedly threatening to burn down the church. He was unrepentant and presented himself in court as someone who would absolutely keep committing these crimes. He did everything he could to demonstrate to the prosecutor and the court that he was exactly the sort of person the "habitual offender" provision was directed at: unrepentant for the crimes he had committed and perfectly willing to repeat them:

Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds told KCCI since Martinez has a long history of harassment and was also charged as a habitual offender, he faced a harsher penalty.

“I believe him to be very dangerous,” Reynolds said. “That’s why my office recommended the maximum sentence.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/iowa-man-burns-l...

So the thing that drove up his sentence was the "habitual offender" enhancement. Without that, he faces a three year sentence max. But because he's got prior convictions for drug and theft crimes, the Iowa penal code ups the max penalty for the arson count to 15 years. Pretty standard law and order proposal, usually offered by conservatives - two or more prior felony convictions gets you a 15 year stretch if you commit a third one. When a guy has shown himself to be a dangerous criminal by having those kinds of priors, he gets the book thrown at him if he commits a third crime.

In other words, he acted exactly like the sort of criminal defendant that law and order Republicans are appalled by when some "liberal" district attorney doesn't throw the book at them, and then later they go out and kill someone. Everything he's done at that point indicates that he's a danger to this community. The County Attorney and the judge agreed. His behavior since then doesn't exactly indicate they were wrong:

https://www.thegazette.com/crime-courts/ames-flag-...

Usually conservatives are better at picking the right person to aim their 80/20 issues at. A druggie thief who's committing violent crimes against churches after building up multiple felony convictions, who gets put away under the sort of law that conservative law and order folks love? That's an odd choice....

You keep making this analogy.

I think most people on this board know I’m a progressive. Personally, I think burning any flag (American, Pride, etc.)* is stupid. My reaction would be to shake my head and walk away. Hell, I don’t want to breathe burning flag fumes, even though as an American you have the right to.

I know. I agree that most liberals would be incensed by burning an American flag as well. But I just didn't want to sidetrack the thread by pointing out that that part of the hypothetical was wrong as well.

A druggie thief who's committing violent crimes against churches after building up multiple felony convictions, who gets put away under the sort of law that conservative law and order folks love? That's an odd choice....

Nice try, but I'm merely idling curious because it showed up in this thread :)

But I just didn't want to sidetrack the thread by pointing out that that part of the hypothetical was wrong as well.

Is it, now.
Heh. You guys really need to meet your ideological cohorts out on the west coast. You folks would be voting Vance in '28 faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

He went out of his way to show that he deserved to be treated that way. He threatened further reprisals against the church whose flag he burned, allegedly threatening to burn down the church. He was unrepentant and presented himself in court as someone who would absolutely keep committing these crimes. He did everything he could to demonstrate to the prosecutor and the court that he was exactly the sort of person the "habitual offender" provision was directed at: unrepentant for the crimes he had committed and perfectly willing to repeat them:

MAGA is upset that “extenuating circumstances” play a role in sentencing.

Nice try, but I'm merely idling curious because it showed up in this thread :)

Well, then that satisfies your curiosity - he got 16 years not because the state attorney or the judge thought that burning a flag alone merits that kind of punishment in the abstract, but because this specific dude was up on charges with a "three strikes" law count and they felt he was sufficiently dangerous that he warranted having that law applied to him.

Heh. You guys really need to meet your ideological cohorts out on the west coast. You folks would be voting Vance in '28 faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

Nope - no more than you meeting some of the far right nutjobs that would make the John Bircher's toes curl up would get you go vote AOC in '28. Progressives in general won't vote for the GOP just because there are extreme folks on the far far left, any more than conservatives in general will vote for the Democrats just because there are some extreme folks on the far far right.

MAGA is upset that “extenuating circumstances” play a role in sentencing.

MAGA is upset because they don't understand that this is exactly what "three strikes" laws are intended to do: impose a harsh sentence on "habitual" criminals when they commit their third crime, regardless of what the actual crime would normally merit on sentencing.

This is exactly the sort of thing that critics of three strikes laws have been arguing for years. It's the sort of scenario that leads to someone getting a 50 year term for shoplifting a video:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/06/usa....

...even though no one actually thinks that shoplifting a video itself warrants a 50 year sentence.

MAGA is upset because they don't understand that this is exactly what "three strikes" laws are intended to do

How are you drawing that conclusion?

How are you drawing that conclusion?

Because this case is (newly) making the rounds on conservative media, and commentators are describing it as an example of someone receiving an unjustly long sentence because the government especially didn't like the content of his speech. But that's not what drove up his sentence, any more than Andrade got 50 years without parole because the there's a massive sentence that comes with video shoplifting.

He got the lengthy sentence because Iowa's got a three strikes rule, and this was his third strike. The prosecutor and the judge took a look at this guy's record and decided to use the third strike law to keep him from getting back on the streets. That's why he got 15 years.

Because this case is (newly) making the rounds on conservative media, and commentators are describing it as an example of someone receiving an unjustly long sentence because the government especially didn't like the content of his speech.

Then someone who's upset at this is missing the context...and not upset at 3 strikes laws (which work, and should be used more).

Then someone who's upset at this is missing the context...and not upset at 3 strikes laws (which work, and should be used more).

That's my point - they're misunderstanding that this is the outcome of the 3 strikes laws, not an outcome coming from the rules governing the underlying crime.

...even though no one actually thinks that shoplifting a video itself warrants a 50 year sentence.

Also, remember in the pride flag case, there was also a Hate Crime. Hate Crime laws are used to enhance criminal penalties and to deter bias-related violence or intimidation, and to protect vulnerable groups. This was probably a factor, along with the three-strike law, in a heavy penalty.

There was apparently no contrition in court, either. Judges and juries tend not to leniency when a guilty defendant is not only unrepentant, but defiantly so.

Pete

ME: He was arrested, charged, tried,, convicted, and sentenced to 16 years.

DOPE: So the crowd didn’t stomp the guy; the authorities did it for him.

I think you mean "the authorities did it for them.

No. If you looked at the picture of the article, he wasn't beaten. We'll see if he gets out after 5 years.

DOPE: Now we’re getting somewhere.

No, we aren't. You just segued to a different act without acknowledging that your original hypo was countered by reality on the ground,

Dope: Are you okay with burning the US flag as an expression of free speech but not the pride flag?

Wrong question Dope. Burning the American Flag is usually done as speech against a GOVERNMENT action or policy. Burn it as protest of the Vietnam War and it's free political speech. Burn the same flag with a statement that all Americans should be killed, wiped off the face of the earth and the entire continent, and have a history of priors, some with violence, while being unapologetic about your actions, and it may cross over to hate speech, which is not protected political speech. Burning the American Flag in that respect doesn't protest a government action, but the people themselves for existing.

So the same act of burning the American Flag can become hate speech which falls outside of protected political speech, methinks.

What you describe is theft and destruction of property. Lambo called it a hate crime.

So by implication you didn't read the articles or you'd know. The first article I read talked about hate and property. No problem - rescinded. But you can have the exact same act, with different contexts, and it's treated differently. In this case I would guess there's no hate crime law, so you go to the property acts, etc., the priors, and the unrepentant attitude.

We'd have better discussions if you'd quit firing from the hip without reading the articles.

That's an odd choice....

Aren't odd choices like this a common test by cult leaders to weed out those who aren't truly committed? And then they continue in order to habituate the cult members to following orders without question.

As I recall, the Jones cult ran frequent rehearsals of their Kool-aid permanent exit. He got his cult members to the point where they followed his order simply because he said so.

That level of control over people is a powerful thing for the cult leader. It reinforces their feeling of power over their cult members.

--Peter

MAGA is upset that “extenuating circumstances” play a role in sentencing.

But only when the criminal is a white male.

--Peter

We'd have better discussions

“We” don’t have discussions. Al and I have discussions; most of the rest of you just throw rocks from the sidelines.

Stop making other posters the issue and get in the game. Or put on your cheerleader outfit from the sideline. Your choice, although I’m pretty sure you’ve already made it.

PS. Pretty frustrating when people don’t ack your links or any points you’ve made, isn’t it?

Wow an 80 post thread!
Summation:
Dope doesn't understand the world he lives in so Al explains it to him, again.

Flags are fun and all but a far more interesting question is:
What punishment is appropriate for a serial pedophile?

What punishment is appropriate for a serial pedophile?

Depends. Has he been convicted of 34 felonies??

--Peter

What punishment is appropriate for a serial pedophile?

Interesting question.
Republican Governor Brad Little from Idaho signed Bill 380 last year, allowing the death penalty for pedophiles charged with aggravated lewd conduct with children 12 and younger and strengthening punishments for other convicted pedophiles...

"Just like capital murder destroys lives, aggravated sexual abuse of a young child devastates victims and families for generations.
The sexual abuse of children is sickening and evil, and perpetrators convicted of these crimes deserve the ultimate punishment.
Idaho also just became the ONLY state to make death by firing squad the primary method of execution.
I commend my partners in the Legislature for strengthening Idaho’s already powerful tough on crime reputation among the states."

So I guess I'm with Gov. Little on this one....death by firing squad!

https://gov.idaho.gov/pressrelease/gov-littles-sta...

What you're not allowed to do is steal someone else's pride flag and burn it on someone else's property. Just like you're not allowed to steal someone else's American flag and burn it on someone else's property. You'll go to jail for either of them.

Thank you albaby1.

This is NOT complicated. Why can't DOPE understand it!

Because those on the right are ALWAYS victims, even as they victimize others. Historically, we have seen this before.

This is NOT complicated. Why can't DOPE understand it!

Unfortunately, Dope has been trying every way but Sunday to get someone to say something that will give him the excuse to claim “Libs are for burning the American flag while wanting to criminalize burning Pride flags.”

So far, he’s failed, but he keeps recasting the questions and the answers; he will eventually cobble something together that will enable to stomp off in disgust while claiming victory.

So far, he’s failed, but he keeps recasting the questions and the answers; he will eventually cobble something together that will enable to stomp off in disgust while claiming victory.

Yeah, no. I didn't put much energy into this thread.

Unfortunately, Dope has been trying every way but Sunday to get someone to say something that will give him the excuse to claim “Libs are for burning the American flag while wanting to criminalize burning Pride flags.”

Precisely, that's what his hero Charlie Kirk does.
Of course Kirk only argues against college children, so he has a much easier go of it.

That's my point - they're misunderstanding that this is the outcome of the 3 strikes laws,

That's because they use the term 'sentence enhancers' instead of that plus '3 strikes laws'. First I heard of 3 strikes laws was in Albaby's post. Sentence enhancer doesn't come across as well as 3 strikes laws. We seem to understand that term better.

Aggravated - another sentence enhancer that aggravates me every time it shows up. But now there's an AI splainer to jiggle the memory.

So far, he’s failed, but he keeps recasting the questions and the answers; he will eventually cobble something together that will enable to stomp off in disgust while claiming victory.

Oh no. Dope already stated that instead of the crowd beating him up, they got the law to beat him up. Then he needed it explained about the alw and sentence enhancers, which he will easily ignore when he wants to and revert back to the law beat him up.

Oh no. Dope

It's sad how hard I own you people. Just can't stay on any issue at all.

Unfortunately, Dope has been trying every way but Sunday to get someone to say something that will give him the excuse to claim “Libs are for burning the American flag while wanting to criminalize burning Pride flags.”

Equating the American Flag to that of a Pride Flag?

Give me a break.

Anyone dishonoring the American Flag in any which way or form is dirt under my feet. Period.
Members of my family have fought and died for what the American Flag stands for.
Members of my family are serving now, two being West Point graduates.

A POW during WW II scavenged for bits of material so to make an American Flag..that is what patriotism is all about, pride in America and the American Flag.
SNIP
“While struggling to survive in the camp he worked with a Canadian POW, who had lost both legs in the war, to fashion an American flag to symbolize his patriotism. Quintero hid it below the floorboard of his bed.

A U.S. flag, made by an American survivor of Corregidor from scraps of jeans and colored blankets in a POW camp in Japan, was turned over on Sept 8 to the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., where it will become part of its collection of military artifacts.”

Anyone burning the American Flag for a political protest because it’s his right to freedom of speech is dirt under my feet. Period.

The Pride Flag? Pride flags represent various sexual orientations, nothing more.

EOM!

Yeah, they need an "ignore thread" button. It took less than 5 posts to completely address this entirely made-up issue.

Albaby has a lot more patience than I do. Or, maybe he likes to argue more. :-)

But you summed it up very succinctly.

Equating the American Flag to that of a Pride Flag?


Burning either is Constitutionally protected free speech.

Which is more important to you?

The cloth symbol of those protections?

Or the reality of those protections?

Meanwhile, just how big of a problem is burning American flags? How many burned American flags are we talking about?

And how many burned Pride flags?

Anyone dishonoring the American Flag in any which way or form is dirt under my feet. Period.

I think they are idiots as well, LM. But I will protect the Constitution that gives them the right to do so, even if they are idiots.

Members of my family have fought and died for what the American Flag stands for.
Members of my family are serving now, two being West Point graduates.

I could write something very similar about my family members, LM- all of whom took an oath to protect the Constitution, and a big part of that Constitution is the right of free speech.

In fact, free speech is a HUGE protected right of ANY country that dares to call itself GREAT, or for that matter-FREE.

So consider yourself FREE to continue viewing anyone who burns an American flag to be dirt under your feet. That’s your opinion and you are free to hold it, just as those who burn a flag in protest are free to the expression of their opinion as well.

But when someone crosses over the line into advocating the imprisonment of those who are exercising their right to free speech, that’s when their advocacy becomes unAmerican.

But when someone crosses over the line into advocating the imprisonment of those who are exercising their right to free speech, that’s when their advocacy becomes unAmerican.

As I said and I repeat....

“Anyone burning the American Flag for a political protest because it’s his right to freedom of speech is dirt under my feet. Period.”

Are you telling me I don’t have the right to voice my opinion?

“Anyone burning the American Flag for a political protest because it’s his right to freedom of speech is dirt under my feet. Period.”

Are you telling me I don’t have the right to voice my opinion?

He did not do that, no. He was telling you that it would be wrong to criminalize the burning of the American flag. Not stealing someone else's flag - that it would be wrong to make it a crime to burn your own American flag as an expression of protest.

I don't think you would disagree with that. Would you?

Are you telling me I don’t have the right to voice my opinion?

Absolutely not. And I made that clear in what I wrote.

I don't think you would disagree with that. Would you?

Of course I do not disagree with that.

I never said otherwise. I voiced my disdained for those who would desecrate the American Flag
even though they have the right to do so.

I am entitled to my free speech to voice my opinion.

never said otherwise. I voiced my disdained for those who would desecrate the American Flag
even though they have the right to do so.

Voicing our disdain for others is as America as Apple strudel… or pie, if you prefer.

We do it all the time here, after all.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.