Younggun,
And you KNOW that exactly HOW??
Defacing/destroying public property has been a serious FELONY for at least 2 centuries rather than "free speech" or "free expression", as has committing arson, breaking windows, overturning/setting fire to police vehicles, etc.
Out Founding Fathers would be astounded that anyone of normal intelligence would ever believe that public defecating/urinating on the flag of the USA would EVER be considered "free speech", rather than UNLAWFUL action & which would be likely to cause a "reasonable man" to resort to violence to protect the flag from desecration. Further, I believe that Washington, Jefferson, Mason & the other Founders would consider such disgusting action to be an attack on the Republic itself.
yours, satx
Thanks! Corrected. Still getting the hang of this phone.zincwarrior,
The reason that I ask is that your 1st sentence in #139 is "peculiar" at best & sounds like something written by a person whose 1st language is other than English. - Did you bother to read what you posted?
yours, tex
You just moved the goal post from flag burning to defacing public property. Most likely because you realize your argument was failing.
If you want to argue flag burning, stay with it. If you want to argue defacing public property you'll get no arguments. However, if you are attempting to draw a comparison between the two your arguments are an utter failure regardless of how many words you put in all caps or quotation marks.
If you can't make your point without resorting to straw men or attempting to change the point of contention, your opinion on the subject is probably not one that can be supported through logic and reason.
Younggun,
I see BOTH as an ATTACK on our Republic & your opinion as just that: opinion.
Fwiw, I couldn't care less about whether you like/don't like my admittedly eccentric typing style.
yours, satx
Just responding to your always interesting post. You are conflating public and private, and your opinion of how the founder's would have viewed flag burning is unsupported and merely opinion.
Obviously. You seem to put as much stock in my opinion as you do logic and reason.
Younggun,
Pardon me for pointing out that many of your posts have little sign of logic or reason & are generally nothing more than your unsupported opinion(s) & a wish to argue about something/anything..
yours, satx
zincwarrior,
As is what you posted above nothing more or less than your unsupported/personal opinion.
Btw, in the original case that was (wrongly, imo) decided by the SCOTUS, the flag that was ripped down & burned/stomped upon was not the private property of the flag-burner & that action was not only destruction of property (a felony) but also a violation of The Texas Venerated Objects & Places Act.
(Had the activist federal court NOT agreed to hear the case, Texas would have handled then case under our State law, which protected objects/places like historic relics, museum property, statues, gravesites, flags, churches, synagogues, mosques from desecration, vandalism, arson, intentional damage, unlawful destruction AND our TX jury in the case would have decided the criminal case. IF the State court had shown itself to be incapable of handling the case, then the federal courts could have intervened .)
yours, satx
Saw this on another forum and thought this was a good place to share it:
Ah, he's the lone black guy. How many millions of descendants are there of the 180,000 men that served for the North I wonder, men that risked (at best) being again enslaved if captured and more likely killed on the spot.I wonder what their opinion is.
What about Durham? The rabbit holes and other asides are a distraction . . .