patrick.net

The 1st only counts for Americans.

If you are desecrating the Flag, then you violating the Rights of Every American.
You have no rights as a Citizen of the US or any of the protection afforded by our great constitution.
Perhaps you Libtarded Shitbirds should consider ramifications before you leap off a building at your professor's request.
Stupid Lemming sons of bitches.

I believe that Trump is wrong here, but let me tell everyone here a little anecdote that might lend a different perspective on the entirety of this debate, in legal terms.

I had a discussion with a well-respected attorney and law school professor who taught constitutional law at Case Western University.

He had told me that, almost without fail, that when he challenged incoming classes on the history of, and then their positions upon, which were nearly 100% in favor of treating THE ACT OF BURNING the American Flag as "constitutionally protected free expression of speech," many reacted with shock & recoiled in horror.

How could this professor of constitutional law, at a relatively liberal law school, not POSSIBLY agree that flag burning should be free of ANY consequences (if even misdemeanor charges), let alone not be legitimized as a legal act of expression?

It was only after they delved into the history of the case law pertaining to flag burning, and reviewing differing opinions of different courts and justices, that some students would start to understand that many justices have opined that the freedom to engage in political speech and criticize the government should extend to SPEECH OR EXPRESSION THAT IS SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE.

As a famous supreme court justice once wrote, "burning a flag is akin to uttering an inarticulate grunt."

While I still believe, and always have, that there is some political content/substance involved when one sets fire to a symbol, such as a flag, some intelligent people disagree with me.

I would be the 1st one to defend the act of flag burning as a form of political expression, that IS protected under the 1st Amendment.

This is, however, more complex a debate than many assume upon first (or repeated) glance.

What about solutions to Global Warming?

Nano Reflectors
Hydrogen Extraction using Nanotubes for Combustion
1T tree planting exercise by Peace Corps, Gates/Buffet Assoc, Red Cross and other global Philothanthopes.

Tenpoundbass says

The 1st only counts for Americans.

If you are desecrating the Flag, then you violating the Rights of Every American.

You have no rights as a Citizen of the US or any of the protection afforded by our great constitution.

Perhaps we should put this in terms that Tenpound Ass can understand.

Nazi Anti-Flag Desecration Law

The Nazi Anti-Flag Desecration Law was a law passed under the Nazi regime, making it illegal to burn, destroy, or otherwise desecrate the flag.

Banning flag burning is far more indicative of a Nazi supreme state mentality than banning guns.

Oh, and Godwin's Law doesn't apply to acknowledging things the Nazis actually did that were intrinsic to the tyrannical Nazi regime and essential to establishing a totalitarian state, like silencing political and cultural dissent. That's actually a really important lesson to learn from history. Godwin's Law isn't a pact to ignore history and pretend it can never be repeated.

You know what, we should make it mandatory to burn a flag in order to possess a gun. I'd love to see conservatives deal with that choice.

Dan, you should listen and read others' responses before engaging in a string of verbal diarrhea, whereby you repeat the same thing over.

freespeechforever says

"burning a flag is akin to uttering an inarticulate grunt."

It is inarticulate, but if it were of no consequence, then nobody would care. As it is, flag burning stirs up a lot of emotions and has more of an impact than scratching your nuts and grunting. PEOTUS for some reason feels it is important enough for him to be telling the country that it should be banned despite the obvious chilling effect on free speech. You might say that he's been triggered.

On the not so dark side, Trump has been walking back his tough talk on global warming and pulling out of Paris.

I'm advocating revoking immigration status and/or other consequences for non-citizens. Citizenship is a privilege that must be earned. For citizens though it should be covered as freedom of expression/speech.

Also burning the flag is the military approved method to retire old and damaged flags, typically done once per year.
Someone should police Trumps twitter account...

I can't wait to grow pineapples and coconuts.

Meanwhile in Latvia:

Tenpoundbass says

'm more afraid of the Atheist Globalist Anarchist Liberals

Hey, that's me.

Tenpoundbass says

that laugh like hell watching Muslims rape the women in their own country while saying... "Wut dey dindu nuffin!"

That's not me. Whew.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/delta-bans-disruptive-trump-supporter-future-flights-192602003--finance.html

A Delta Air Lines Airbus A330 aircraft takes off at the Charles de Gaulle airport in Roissy, France, August 9, 2016.

Liberals demand free speech but your rights are shit to them. You have no right to free speech and if you are excited about a great man being elected. YOu better keep your Goddamned mouth shut.
When Obama was elected the Liberal animals drove around in their cars for three straight days honking their horns Yelling "Yes we can!" and "Change!" out of the window.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2016/11/24/twitter-trolling-lands-jail-dallas-case-tests-limits-free-speech

Babak Taherzadeh is a troll.  One of his Twitter personas boasts the bio: "im smarter than u unless you are really smart."  He claims he has a "different sense of humor." He peppers his tweets with profanity. He plays an online character, one he says doesn't reflect who he really is.  That character has gotten him into trouble.  Taherzadeh sits in the Dallas County jail, where he has been since June, held on a felony stalking charge. He is accused of using social media to harass a judge who oversaw a criminal case against him.  Before his arrest, he regularly...

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/29/flashback-sen-hillary-clinton-files-bill-punishing-flag-burners-one-year-jail/

President-elect Donald Trump isn’t the first person to propose punishment for burning the American flag. Consider theFlag Protection Act of 2005, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.).

freespeechforever says

Dan, you should listen and read others' responses before engaging in a string of verbal diarrhea, whereby you repeat the same thing over.

If you disagree with my analysis, feel free to make a constructive counterargument. Ad hominems prove nothing.

Also, it's really hard to repeat oneself in a thread where one has made only a single post.

Entitlemented says

1T tree planting exercise by Peace Corps, Gates/Buffet Assoc, Red Cross and other global Philothanthopes.

A man is on his way to your house to kick the shit out of you for suggesting this is something we should fix if there is a problem rather than politicizing it.

Everyone jump on this thread.
10#bass,Ironman & freespeechforever feel bad.
They need some website attention.
They may feel better since all were mentioned in one sentence.

YesYNot says

freespeechforever says

"burning a flag is akin to uttering an inarticulate grunt."

It is inarticulate, but if it were of no consequence, then nobody would care

Inarticulate grunts are free speech. The fact that burning a flag is as silly as waiving one does not make a difference. The speech isn't protected because it's articulate or compelling. The speech is protected because allowing suppression of it is downright dangerous and evil. To inflict any harm on a person for burning a flag is an attack on every citizen. This is where Tenpoundbass gets it backwards.

Banning flag burning is the most unpatriotic thing you can do. It means you care more about a piece of cloth or reverence to the state than you do about your fellow countrymen, and that's downright treasonous. Your loyalty should always be to your countrymen, not your government.

Sources from NASA and scientists who have actually been to Antarctica and measured sea ice say otherwise...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/

With stories like this we should always ask ourselves, "Who stands to profit?". Carbon taxes are a direct example of governments/elite profiteering from the global warming scare. Who profits from the global cooling angle? Cows, plants, and trees? I guess South Park was right

Brilliant

errc says

3:55 am lol

That fucker is nuts

No wonder he stays sober. Sleep deprivation will fuck you up more than most drugs or even alcohol

"The proposal appears to be in conflict with an array of Supreme Court precedents." NYTimes

He needs to learn that the POTUS can't just send random tweets at 3 in the morning. He has to deal with pesky rules he doesn't even know exist.

Earth Isn’t Doomed Yet. NYT says so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/economy/trumps-climate-policies-may-work-out-in-the-planets-favor.html?ref=business

He has to deal with pesky rules he doesn't even know exist.

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

Why should anyone be expected to obey rules that they couldn't possibly be expected to know exist in the first place?

There's far too many rules already, the most refreshing thing about Trump is his propensity to break them

Yep, I imagine errc might feel differently if someone stole his car or beat his wife. Suddenly laws are more important then.

SQUAWK!

SQUAWK!SQUAWK!

SQUAWK!SQUAWK!SQUAWK!

SQUAWK!SQUAWK!

SQUAWK!SQUAWK!SQUAWK!

Taking a page out of Hillary's play book
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/29/trump-takes-heat-for-wanting-to-outlaw-flag-burning-but-clinton-wanted-same-in-2005.html

And you're happy about that? Taking a page out of Hillary's playbook is OK with you?

smaulgld says

And you're happy about that? Taking a page out of Hillary's playbook is OK with you?

Are you okay with voting for a flag burning ban advocate?
How about a border wall as both Clintons have expressed support for?

He has to deal with pesky rules he doesn't even know exist.

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

Why should anyone be expected to obey rules that they couldn't possibly be expected to know exist in the first place?

There's far too many rules already, the most refreshing thing about Trump is his propensity to break them

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

That's a fascinating viewpoint. So you believe the most refreshing thing about the man responsible for running the executive branch of government, as in the man responsible for executing our laws, is that he has no problem breaking or ignoring them.

Brilliant.

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

Absolutely. The entire system of laws is shit.

There's a law on the books that forces you to either purchase a terrible, worthless product from private corporations, or pay a penalty to The State.

There's another law that prohibits you from utilizing flowers from plants to secure your life, liberty, health, and pursuit of happiness. If you break this law, the State can kick down your door, seize everything and anything you've worked hard to earn, destroy your property, cause you physical harm, and toss you in a prison cell.

There's nothing more UnAmerican than obeying these terrible laws.

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

I see this is where you part company with reason.

Anarchists are incomprehensibly stupid and none of their arguments hold up to even the most amateur scrutiny.

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

Where did i suggest Anarchy?

I simply suggested that disregarding BAD laws, is something to be celebrated. I see that you obedient little anti-americans aren't even allowed to think about, or discuss such things. This reflects poorly on you, not me.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Meanwhile in Latvia:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LatvianJokes/

"Are you okay with voting for a flag burning ban advocate?
How about a border wall as both Clintons have expressed support for?"

No to both. Clinton is far from my ideal candidate.

america is dead thanks to D & R voters. Might as well cremate the flag.

Trump is the leader Degenerate America is ready for now.
According to recent research, the share of Americans who say that Army rule would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995. History shows that 15% is plenty to lead the mob into madness.

The number of Americans who say that living in a democracy is "essential"has fallen to around 30%, from 75% in the 30's.

Forty percent of millennials think government should be able to stop people from "offending" minority groups,
and a clear majority of Democrats polled want to criminalize “hate speech", so what's left of the "Left" was no bastion of Liberty.

Robert Sproul says

and a clear majority of Democrats polled want to criminalize “hate speech", so what's left of the "Left" was no bastion of Liberty.

And a significant portion of the Ron Paul/Libertarian crowd became flat out NeoReax/Hard AltRight/NeoFeudalists over the past 8 years.

he's exercising his 1st amendment right.

NuttBoxer says

Sources from NASA and scientists who have actually been to Antarctica and measured sea ice otherwise...

It's called global warming, not antarctic warming. Try to keep up with the class.

https://patrick.net/?p=1299598&c=1352405#comment-1352405

Entitlemented says

What about solutions to Global Warming?

rando says

If global warming continues, we're all going to need to move to Canada permanently!

It's not the heat. It's the tides.

Sorry, but I live in those places and that's a shit ton of real estate being wiped out. If the company I work for has to move because all the land around it is now occupied by fishes, is everyone in the company going to move with it? What about all the small businesses like laundromats, bars, restaurants, night clubs, clothing outlets, etc. that will simply cease to exist. Their employees will have to move elsewhere when their houses are literally under water, but those jobs won't magic to the former employee's new location.

There are very real economic consequences of sea-level rises, and that's just one aspect of climate change.

Losing land, especially the most economically productive land, is highly disruptive to the economy and very costly. Even ignoring the ethical and environmental concerns, the mere financial problems of climate change would make any sensible person terrified.

And in the long run, it gets even worse. It will cost orders of magnitudes more to terraform the Earth back to it's state in the 1970s then it would to simply not fuck up the Earth in the first place. Polluting the Earth makes no economic sense. It's short-term greed causing long-term economic devastation. There's a reason we don't let people throw their garbage out on the street. It's far more economical to pack that trash into nice little bags that are systematically removed and processed. The same goes for all waste products. Pollution is basically trash being thrown out on the street disrupting traffic and making the entire city of Earth less productive and a less enjoyable place to live.