[Edit] Flag Burning - Trump going after the first amendment

[scm]

Trump Threatens Flag-Burning Americans With Loss Of Citizenship Or Jail
803567993036754944http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-29/trump-threatens-flag-burning-americans-loss-citizenship-or-jail
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-29/trump-threatens-flag-burning-americans-loss-citizenship-or-jail)


"TIME’s Walter Isaacson commented (http://time.com/vault/issue/1989-07-03/page/18/) in the weeks that followed the decision. “Reverence for the flag is ingrained in every schoolchild who has quailed at the thought of letting it touch the ground, in every citizen moved by pictures of it being raised at Iwo Jima or planted on the moon, in every veteran who has ever heard taps played at the end of a Memorial Day parade, in every gold-star mother who treasures a neatly folded emblem of her family’s supreme sacrifice.”

Yet, he continued, that was precisely the reason why the court, in the case Texas v. Johnson, declared that federal and state laws that protect the flag are in violation of free-speech protections. The flag is so revered because it represents the land of the free, and that freedom includes the ability to use or abuse that flag in protest."

http://time.com/3907444/flag-supreme-court-history/

Question for the trolls. Who hates liberty? Who hates America?

[phill4paul]

Trump Threatens Flag-Burning Americans With Loss Of Citizenship Or Jail
803567993036754944http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-29/trump-threatens-flag-burning-americans-loss-citizenship-or-jail
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-29/trump-threatens-flag-burning-americans-loss-citizenship-or-jail)


"TIME’s Walter Isaacson commented (http://time.com/vault/issue/1989-07-03/page/18/) in the weeks that followed the decision. “Reverence for the flag is ingrained in every schoolchild who has quailed at the thought of letting it touch the ground, in every citizen moved by pictures of it being raised at Iwo Jima or planted on the moon, in every veteran who has ever heard taps played at the end of a Memorial Day parade, in every gold-star mother who treasures a neatly folded emblem of her family’s supreme sacrifice.”

Yet, he continued, that was precisely the reason why the court, in the case Texas v. Johnson, declared that federal and state laws that protect the flag are in violation of free-speech protections. The flag is so revered because it represents the land of the free, and that freedom includes the ability to use or abuse that flag in protest."

http://time.com/3907444/flag-supreme-court-history/

Question for the trolls. Who hates liberty? Who hates America?

Can we at least fly it upside down during his administration?

[brushfire]

tyrants gonna tyrant

[Madison320]

The funny part is that Hillary wants to do the same thing.

[JK/SEA]

heh...he's going to run into some resistance on this. Re-election campaign starts in 2 years...

[robert68]

803577968656338944

[timosman]

He is trolling Hillary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

[silverhandorder]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.

[helmuth_hubener]

803577968656338944

If the only punishment is losing citizenship, this could actually effectively provide a much easier, cheaper, and hassle-free alternative method of renouncing US citizenship (and thus losing US tax liability)!

That would be great! A big help to many people!

[Brian4Liberty]

He is trolling Hillary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Lol. Except for Bennet, the co-sponsors are all Democrats, including Hillary and Boxer.

[GunnyFreedom]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.

You really have absolutely no concept of liberty whatsoever do you?

[undergroundrr]

A neanderthal proposal. Should be a grand slam with his base.

[donnay]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.

Trump is wrong on this, and I am not, nor have I ever been a loony-left.

[silverhandorder]

You really have absolutely no concept of liberty whatsoever do you?

I understand it far better then you. I understand that your strategy is the one that lost to precious snowflakes that Trump is destroying.

[silverhandorder]

Trump is wrong on this, and I am not, nor have I ever been a loony-left.

Then good for you. But this is a reply to violence perpetuated against Trump people. It is for OP and those like him.

[donnay]

Then good for you. But this is a reply to violence perpetuated against Trump people. It is for OP and those like him.


There are already laws on the books to slam the violence against people.

[silverhandorder]

There are already laws on the books to slam the violence against people.

OK. So?

[CaptUSA]

I understand it far better then you. I understand that your strategy is the one that lost to precious snowflakes that Trump is destroying.

You do NOT. Gunny is right. If you think it's ok for the State to punish someone for burning some piece of cloth they have, then YOU are the snowflake! Really? You get offended because someone wants to burn a fabric?! And because of your offense, you feel justified in using force against that person?!

Damn, these liberal snowflakes... Trump's got them thinking they're "conservatives".

[donnay]

OK. So?

So what violence is done when someone sets afire a flag?

[CaseyJones]

Muh Flag!

[scm]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.

The only thing I would say about the protests is maybe, THUMP can call his friend George and ask him to stop them. But then, how else would the establishment continue to divide us. Oh ya, ALL those other ways. Race, religion, Genders, lifestyles, political parties, ETC.......

[silverhandorder]

You do NOT. Gunny is right. If you think it's ok for the State to punish someone for burning some piece of cloth they have, then YOU are the snowflake! Really? You get offended because someone wants to burn a fabric?! And because of your offense, you feel justified in using force against that person?!

Damn, these liberal snowflakes... Trump's got them thinking they're "conservatives".

I could care less about flag burning. The reality is that the country is split and we are on a collision course for bad times. We don't even know who will win. But I like Trump's side and I like their chances under his leadership.


So what violence is done when someone sets afire a flag?

This is not why he made the threat. He is asymmetrically attacking the people who oppose him. Full frontal assaults got us to here.

[silverhandorder]

The only thing I would say about the protests is maybe, THUMP can call his friend George and ask him to stop them. But then, how else would the establishment continue to divide us. Oh ya, ALL those other ways. Race, religion, Genders, lifestyles, political parties, ETC.......

What are you ranting about?

[otherone]

Muh Flag!

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder430/500x/73527430.jpg

[donnay]

I could care less about flag burning. The reality is that the country is split and we are on a collision course for bad times. We don't even know who will win. But I like Trump's side and I like their chances under his leadership.



This is not why he made the threat. He is asymmetrically attacking the people who oppose him. Full frontal assaults got us to here.


Which only adds to more division in the country. Not a very smart move to make idle threats like this one, IMHO.

[silverhandorder]

Which only adds to more division in the country. Not a very smart move to make idle threats like this one, IMHO.

Yeah well considering he was told he was making dumb moves for the past 18 month, I will take what you said with a grain of salt.

Also we are already divided. It's either truce or conquest. I am. Getting the vibe from leftists on this site that they prefer conquest.

[Brian4Liberty]

So what violence is done when someone sets afire a flag?

Depends upon who owns the flag being burned... ;)

[oyarde]

Muh Flag!

What would be the penalty for a burned flag in Muh Road ? Should it be more severe like having weed within so many feet of a school ? Maybe they could double uncitizen you .....

[CPUd]

I could care less about flag burning. The reality is that the country is split and we are on a collision course for bad times. We don't even know who will win. But I like Trump's side and I like their chances under his leadership.



This is not why he made the threat. He is asymmetrically attacking the people who oppose him. Full frontal assaults got us to here.

DEAL FROM STRENGTH OR GET CRUSHED EVERY TIME


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

[scm]

What are you ranting about?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

[Jamesiv1]

If the only punishment is losing citizenship, this could actually effectively provide a much easier, cheaper, and hassle-free alternative method of renouncing US citizenship (and thus losing US tax liability)!
lol

I tend to agree. If you don't love 'Murica, then you can git out!!!!!

[scm]

DEAL FROM STRENGTH OR GET CRUSHED EVERY TIME


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g
Thanks, I just totally wasted 41 seconds of my life watching that shit. I thought it was going to be something good.

[EBounding]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg

[Ender]

You really have absolutely no concept of liberty whatsoever do you?

NOPE.

Or of the 1st Amendment, which Trump has been assailing since the start of his campaign. :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

This is just like the torture talk. It's not going to go anywhere. He's playing mindgames with the Marxists again, so they will inevitably overreact. He's basically requesting them to burn flags nationwide.

[Ender]

This is just like the torture talk. It's not going to go anywhere. He's playing mindgames with the Marxists again, so they will inevitably overreact. He's basically requesting them to burn flags nationwide.

But, it's bad if Clinton says it? Come on......

[AuH20]

But, it's bad if Clinton says it? Come on......

No. But I've learned to decipher Trump language.

[CaptUSA]

This is just like the torture talk. It's not going to go anywhere. He's playing mindgames with the Marxists again, so they will inevitably overreact. He's basically requesting them to burn flags nationwide.

Yeah, he's playing mind games with someone, alright... :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

Yeah, he's playing mind games with someone, alright... :rolleyes:

Not mind games. No one is being thrown in jail or will have their citizenship revoked.

[AuH20]

803669491578089473

[seapilot]

He should get along great with Iran (penalty is death), China (5 years in prison), India (3 years in prison), South Korea (10 years! in prison), Argentina (4 years in prison).

Japan, Australia and UK burn their flags no laws on desecration, except Japan a person was charged with destroying public property after burning their flag.

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/06/14/Some-countries-dont-waver-when-it-comes-to-flag-laws/8577645336000/

[Petar]

Shitty move on Trump's part, but who honestly did not see something like this coming?

Oh well, at least liberals now suddenly have a chance to support civil liberties again.

MAGA STILL ON TRACK!

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand it far better then you. I understand that your strategy is the one that lost to precious snowflakes that Trump is destroying.
You are defending the idea of flag burning as a federal crime. Nobody who has a basic grasp of liberty would do such an absurd thing. You can set there and justify your anti liberty lunacy until the cows come home and you will not be any less wrong for your many words and adamant insisting.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is just like the torture talk. It's not going to go anywhere. He's playing mindgames with the Marxists again, so they will inevitably overreact. He's basically requesting them to burn flags nationwide.

So when Clinton says something it's awful but when Trump says the exact same thing it 49D chess and he's just lying?

This is why we call y'all delusional.

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/eN6C5ep.jpg

[Pizzo]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.

Lol?

[TheCount]

If the only punishment is losing citizenship, this could actually effectively provide a much easier, cheaper, and hassle-free alternative method of renouncing US citizenship (and thus losing US tax liability)!Non-citizen residents pay taxes.

[helmuth_hubener]

Non-citizen residents pay taxes.

:rolleyes:

ORLY?

No!

You don't say!

Then there is an easy solution: Out!, Out!, Out!! :D

[EBounding]

I don't think Trump is serious here. He's trolling the media (again) and it is kind of funny. He does the same trick to his supporters too; ie the Wall, deporting illegal immigrants, abolishing federal departments, etc. He's not going to do any of those things.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?

[devil21]

Hey, look over there!

Pay no attention to Goldman Sachs making a visit to Trump Tower today to tell Trump that Mnuchin will be his SecTreas, along with a few other cabinet appointments. Argue amongst yourselves about the flag instead.

[undergroundrr]

I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?

That kind of sums up 2016 right there.

[JK/SEA]

I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?

wow...you must be the only person i know who has NEVER lied...

amazing.

[Dangergirl]

From what I've seen of Trump and yes I've actually listened to what he's said as well, he's a guy who likes to keep leverage. He'll call a press conference because he wants to talk about obama's birth certificate and then parade a slew of MoH recipients that endorse him for 30 minutes on MSM for free. He's said over and over that it's stupid to tell ISIS we're going to bomb them 4 months before we bomb them. If you can't see he's a guy that knows how to play angles then you're reading too far into yourselves. Whether he's doing it for his own amusement, revenge, or a power play, you aren't going to out-guess him.

[Sentinelrv]

I think people are taking him too literal. I simply took it as Trump trolling the media and protesters, not as something serious. The protesters will now come out and start flag burning in protest to him, making them look anti-American and crazy. It gets them to protest the idea, then the revelation comes that Hillary supported what they're protesting against, making them experience cognitive dissonance. They fell right into Trump's trap. I find it hilarious.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?
Better than losing freedom!

By a far sight!

[helmuth_hubener]

https://s11.postimg.org/f7ah50a5v/trumptrapsmedia.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?

People didn't vote for Trump because he tells the truth. They wanted somebody they hoped would be "different". They are in for a big disappointment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/


A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false.

PolitiFact, the nonpartisan fact-checking outlet based in Florida, is out today with its mid-year report on the 2016 election. It's an attempt to take a step back from the day-to-day grind of the campaign and see which candidates are telling the truth and which aren't.

Donald Trump isn't.

Of the 158 Trump claims that PolitiFact has checked out, 95 have been rated either "False" or "Pants on Fire." That's 60 percent of all Trump claims. As PolitiFact notes, if you include the Trump statements rated "mostly false" in that group, 78 percent of all of Trump's fact-checked claims have been scored "mostly false" or worse.

That's not even the most amazing fact in the PolitiFact report. That honor goes to this: "Trump has more statements rated Pants on Fire, 30, than the 21 other candidates for president we’ve fact-checked this cycle combined." Ben Carson comes in second in "Pants on Fire" ratings -- with four!

[UWDude]

There will not be a law banning flag burning. Trump is trolling.

[William Tell]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.


I could care less about flag burning. The reality is that the country is split and we are on a collision course for bad times. We don't even know who will win. But I like Trump's side and I like their chances under his leadership.



This is not why he made the threat. He is asymmetrically attacking the people who oppose him. Full frontal assaults got us to here.

This is exactly how the George W Bush supporters all sounded. You are supporting tyranny for no other reason than spite. You are on Trump's side so you will support whatever he tells you to while screaming at the top of your lungs that you can think for yourself.

[William Tell]

There will not be a law banning flag burning. Trump is trolling.

I think I'll just put this right here....


I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?

[scm]

Title edited on a first amendment post. How Ironic.

LOL

Liberty is slipping FAST

[Brian4Liberty]

Depends upon who owns the flag being burned... ;)

And that turns out to be a relevant point. The media is being totally misleading about this. Lies by omission.

They talked about it on CNN with a legal expert. Apparently it was spurred by college students who pulled down a school flag and burned it. The entire narrative is that it was totally OK for them to do this, as it is protected by the First Amendment.

Wrong! The relevant point being ignored is that it wasn't THEIR flag. They engaged in vandalism and destruction of property. That is punishable. This has been ignored by the entire media.

They are completely protected by the First Amendment if they want to burn a flag that they own.

[helmuth_hubener]

I think I'll just put this right here....

Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
I'm still frankly lost as to exactly how "he's just lying about that stuff" is actually supposed to be any better?
Well, again, as I posted in response to Gunny, it's unbelievably, pretty much infinitely, better, for anyone who might want to burn a flag to express themselves.

Tweeting out some things doesn't violate anyone's rights.

Locking people in jail for a year for safely burning their own property: does.

So for the country, it's better -- much better! -- if this is just yet another trap for the media (as it almost certainly is), vs. if such a prohibition were to actually become law.

[Brian4Liberty]

Title edited on a first amendment post. How Ironic.

LOL

Liberty is slipping FAST

Quit your whining. Title was edited because it was not descriptive enough.

Thread title guideline:


Enter title below.
Be descriptive, do not use unverified information, vulgar language or otherwise be sensationalist.

[scm]

Quit your whining. Title was edited because it was not descriptive enough.



His name was changed. nice try

must be a relative of reddit

[Ender]

From The Ron Paul Liberty Report:



What Everyone Missed At The Flag-Burning Circus
11/29/2016

By Chris Rossini

Donald Trump has once again shown his mastery of dominating a news cycle. Today, the President-elect published an absurd tweet about jailing or revoking the citizenship of someone who burns a flag! Very predictably, the mainstream media jumped up like a pack of Pavlovian dogs and went all in on the story.

America was thus destined for a day where right-wingers told us that Hillary supports the same thing as Trump, while lefties (hilariously) waxed poetic about "The Constitution." The Washington Post added to the circus by putting out the headline: "It's time to ban Trump from Twitter".

While the blind continue to lead the blind, one is hard-pressed in locating the peaceful libertarian stance on flag-burning.

Fortunately, we have the eloquent words of the late Murray Rothbard in times like these:

Keeping our eye on property rights, the entire flag question is resolved easily and instantly. Everyone has the right to buy (or weave) and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an American flag (or in any other design) and to do with it what he will: fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it, etc. Flag laws are unjustifiable violations of the rights of private property...

On the other hand, no one has the right to come up and burn your flag, or someone else's. That should be illegal, not because a flag is being burned, but because the arsonist is burning your property without your permission. He is violating your property rights.

Note the way in which the focus on property rights solves all recondite issues.

Can it get any easier than liberty and private property?

Peace and the non-aggression principle are simple to comprehend. Live and let live. I keep my hands off of you and your stuff, and you keep your hands off me and my stuff.

No PhD's in "political science" required.

But alas, the ideas of power, violence, coercion and force continue to dominate.

That really needs to change.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/what-everyone-missed-at-the-flag-burning-circus

[ChristianAnarchist]

tyrants gonna tyrant

Goons gonna goon...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Depends upon who owns the flag being burned... ;)

Bingo... My flag, my fire...

[devil21]

While everyone was arguing about the flag, Goldman Sachs visited Trump today to tell him who his SecTreas will be. And hold on to your hats....it's an ex-Goldmanite!

Distraction 101. #MAGA (Make America Goldmans Again)

[Slave Mentality]

Hell, I would not waste my money on a damn flag, much less waste my time and lighter fuel to burn one.

President Troll - How comforting.

[Anti-Neocon]

While everyone was arguing about the flag, Goldman Sachs visited Trump today to tell him who his SecTreas will be. And hold on to your hats....it's an ex-Goldmanite!

Distraction 101. #MAGA (Make America Goldmans Again)
Both are pretty fucking big deals. I wouldn't exactly call this a distraction.

[Sola_Fide]

I love it. The only people who find this wrong are lefty loons. OP did you show any indignation to protests against Trump or violence against his supporters?

If no, then this law is a present for YOU.


You really have absolutely no concept of liberty whatsoever do you?

Doesn't look like it, no.

[devil21]

Hell, I would not waste my money on a damn flag, much less waste my time and lighter fuel to burn one.

President Troll - How comforting.

Expect a lot of this sort of thing when Trump (administration) is doing something they don't want the cybersphere to pay attention to. President Troll, trolling the masses with emotional red meat via Twitter.


Both are pretty fucking big deals. I wouldn't exactly call this a distraction.

It is a big deal at face value but just another thing to keep the people arguing with each other instead of watching what he's up to. It's absolutely no coincidence this junk was posted to Twitter the same day Trump meets with Goldman, ostensibly being told who his SecTreas will be and appointing a billionaire SecCommerce (also a Goldman directive, I'm sure...from CNBC article: "Before starting his own firm, Wilbur Ross led Rothschild's bankruptcy practice for 25 years."). So the moral is whenever he trolls with junk like this, watch what the other hand is doing. He sure likes appointing other billionaires, doesn't he? Real heartland types...

[BV2]

If hes a trollin, id prefer the president elect not to troll. Haha. Itd be like me, standing in middle of the room with a flame thrower bein like, in monotone, "Im going to burn you all to death." And some of you bein like, "hes just trollin..." Also, such a ban is probably the one thing that would make me want to burn a flag. Such symbols usually dont interest me.

[Anti-Neocon]

If hes a trollin, id prefer the president elect not to troll. Haha. Itd be like me, standing in middle of the room with a flame thrower bein like, in monotone, "Im going to burn you all to death." And some of you bein like, "hes just trollin..." Also, such a ban is probably the one thing that would make me want to burn a flag. Such symbols usually dont interest me.
Instead of "trolling", you can call it what it is - lying. He has been a pathological liar his whole life, promising the world and delivering nothing. The guy who wrote The Art of the Deal for him was shocked at how much he would just blatantly lie, but we saw it during the whole campaign. He promised thousands of jobs (6,000 if I recall correctly) for Scotland if they would hand over their nature to him to build a golf course over, and delivered only 95. He would talk like the biggest immigration hawk in the room, then behind closed doors with the NYT, present a much milder position. He said he would put Hillary in jail but what ever happened to that? These are things he got people believing in. Trolling with regards to policies that people take at face value is lying.

Trump is a big fat liar.

[BV2]

I think he is a cheato. Always have, always eill. Im still on that nobp shit. That might make me irrelevant, but id rather be irrelevant than relevant to a travesty.

[donnay]

And that turns out to be a relevant point. The media is being totally misleading about this. Lies by omission.

They talked about it on CNN with a legal expert. Apparently it was spurred by college students who pulled down a school flag and burned it. The entire narrative is that it was totally OK for them to do this, as it is protected by the First Amendment.

Wrong! The relevant point being ignored is that it wasn't THEIR flag. They engaged in vandalism and destruction of property. That is punishable. This has been ignored by the entire media.

They are completely protected by the First Amendment if they want to burn a flag that they own.

Thank you for the clarification, Brian.

[William Tell]

And that turns out to be a relevant point. The media is being totally misleading about this. Lies by omission.

They talked about it on CNN with a legal expert. Apparently it was spurred by college students who pulled down a school flag and burned it. The entire narrative is that it was totally OK for them to do this, as it is protected by the First Amendment.

Wrong! The relevant point being ignored is that it wasn't THEIR flag. They engaged in vandalism and destruction of property. That is punishable. This has been ignored by the entire media.

They are completely protected by the First Amendment if they want to burn a flag that they own.
Tell that to Trump. Read his tweet. Read it again. Maybe again. this is about his position not the media.

[BV2]

The tweet is pretty clear. If it were the fact that property was destroyed that provoked Trump's orange hot ire, then the tweet might read,"consequences for destroying other people's shit." We would all of agree and be into page 4 of a circle jerk by now. And that isnt how it reads

[BV2]

Im sorry, but if you thought this silver spoon fed orangutan was going to be good for the little guy, liberty, or textile workers everywhere, you were sooooòofa king wrong.

[spudea]

and yet Democrats will say burning the Gay Pride flag or the Mexican flag or displaying the Confederate Flag is hate speech and should be punished.

[BV2]

and yet Democrats will say burning the Gay Pride flag or the Mexican flag or displaying the Confederate Flag is hate speech and should be punished.

Welcome to the chamber of the hypocrites.

[William Tell]

and yet Democrats will say burning the Gay Pride flag or the Mexican flag or displaying the Confederate Flag is hate speech and should be punished.
True. But the dems are done. They are out of power and irrelevant until at least the next election.

[Brian4Liberty]

Tell that to Trump. Read his tweet. Read it again. Maybe again. this is about his position not the media.

Oh, I know what Trump tweeted and that he is wrong.

Have you watched the network coverage that I have and what they have discussed?

[jonhowe]

The tweet is pretty clear. If it were the fact that property was destroyed that provoked Trump's orange hot ire, then the tweet might read,"consequences for destroying other people's $#@!." We would all of agree and be into page 4 of a circle jerk by now. And that isnt how it reads

Revocation of citizenship is an appropriate punishment for destruction of property? Not that he could make it so, but that IS what he said...


There will not be a law banning flag burning. Trump is trolling.

Also, because he is president, not 500+ members of Congress and 5 Supreme Court justices.


I think people are taking him too literal. I simply took it as Trump trolling the media and protesters, not as something serious. The protesters will now come out and start flag burning in protest to him, making them look anti-American and crazy. It gets them to protest the idea, then the revelation comes that Hillary supported what they're protesting against, making them experience cognitive dissonance. They fell right into Trump's trap. I find it hilarious.

How does protesting in support of the 1st Amendment, against someone who wants to ignore it as President, make one look "anti american and crazy"?


wow...you must be the only person i know who has NEVER lied...

amazing.

Did he say he never lied? Did he imply, in ANY WAY, he never lied? Oh, no?
That's weird. Why did you act as if he did?

Trumpster Strategy: Put words in the mouths of others and then attack them for "saying" them.

[Brian4Liberty]

The tweet is pretty clear. If it were the fact that property was destroyed that provoked Trump's orange hot ire, then the tweet might read,"consequences for destroying other people's shit." We would all of agree and be into page 4 of a circle jerk by now. And that isnt how it reads

And many are saying it was intentionally controversial to distract from his awful cabinet picks today. Mission accomplished.

[TheCount]

and yet Democrats will say burning the Gay Pride flag or the Mexican flag or displaying the Confederate Flag is hate speech and should be punished.

It's exactly the same position just mirrored. Trumpkins are equivalent to SJWs.

[Brian4Liberty]

While everyone was arguing about the flag, Goldman Sachs visited Trump today to tell him who his SecTreas will be. And hold on to your hats....it's an ex-Goldmanite!

Distraction 101. #MAGA (Make America Goldmans Again)

...


Treasury Pick Bet on Trump and Won
Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive turned Hollywood financier, was Trump’s campaign finance chairman
By Anupreeta Das and Rachel Louise Ensign - Nov. 29, 2016

Steven Mnuchin built his career sniffing out undervalued assets and converting them into massive profits. But perhaps his greatest trade just came in the political arena.

Mr. Mnuchin, a 53-year-old former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker turned Hollywood financier, parlayed a six-month stint as Donald Trump’s campaign-finance chairman into the president-elect’s pick to be Treasury secretary.
...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plans-to-name-steven-mnuchin-as-treasury-secretary-1480459950

[Dary]

...They are completely protected by the First Amendment if they want to burn a flag that they own.

Ah come on Brian. You know that slaves can't own property.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ah come on Brian. You know that slaves can't own property.

Damn. There goes flag burning. No big deal, EPA probably would send a SWAT team to your house if you tried to burn a flag there.

[jonhowe]

It's exactly the same position just mirrored. Trumpkins are equivalent to SJWs.

DING DING DING!!!

We have a winner!

[William Tell]

Oh, I know what Trump tweeted and that he is wrong.

Have you watched the network coverage that I have and what they have discussed? No I have not. I thought you were talking about the content of this thread. I guess that's the disconnect.

[silverhandorder]

This is exactly how the George W Bush supporters all sounded. You are supporting tyranny for no other reason than spite. You are on Trump's side so you will support whatever he tells you to while screaming at the top of your lungs that you can think for yourself.

Maybe. I was not old enough to follow politics for most of Bushes time. I am ready to accept that this may be a failed strategy. However people who were around during Bushes time think this is something new. So we will see what ends up being right.

I frankly can't stand leftists and now a days don't have time for them either. Trust in God emperor and everything will be alright.

[CPUd]

Yes I remember the GW people, though it died down quite a bit when the recession hit.

[Danke]

This is exactly how the George W Bush supporters all sounded. You are supporting tyranny for no other reason than spite. You are on Trump's side so you will support whatever he tells you to while screaming at the top of your lungs that you can think for yourself.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"

[oyarde]

If hes a trollin, id prefer the president elect not to troll. Haha. Itd be like me, standing in middle of the room with a flame thrower bein like, in monotone, "Im going to burn you all to death." And some of you bein like, "hes just trollin..." Also, such a ban is probably the one thing that would make me want to burn a flag. Such symbols usually dont interest me.

If I was president I would still Troll Danke .

[oyarde]

Shitty move on Trump's part, but who honestly did not see something like this coming?

Oh well, at least liberals now suddenly have a chance to support civil liberties again.

MAGA STILL ON TRACK!

Personally I do not believe in flag burning , but people can do it if they have nothing more productive to do , it is certainly a wasteful act that will change nothing . Once I secede and defeat all comers and have my own Empire I do not even intend on having a flag. Maybe just a battle flag , then people will know when they see it they are going to be kicked to the dirt, LOL . That is how to make The Land Of Indians Great Again :)

[Dr.3D]

Personally I do not believe in flag burning , but people can do it if they have nothing more productive to do , it is certainly a wasteful act that will change nothing . Once I secede and defeat all comers and have my own Empire I do not even intend on having a flag. Maybe just a battle flag , then people will know when they see it they are going to be kicked to the dirt, LOL . That is how to make The Land Of Indians Great Again :)
Would that flag be tied to a lance?

[oyarde]

Would that flag be tied to a lance?

Yes , it has a certain flair like that .

[Dr.3D]

Yes , it has a certain flair like that .
Yes, it certainly makes a statement.

[Ender]

Yes, it certainly makes a statement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVJQChTarqk

[enhanced_deficit]

This is a strange tweet out of nowhere. Morning Joe was speculating that last 5-4 SCOTUS ruling of 1989 could be overtturned by Trump SCOTUS picks.

Seems unlikely to pass anytime soon. One theory was that he is throwing redmeat to his hardcore GOP base (many of whom see BLM and by extension Obama as "flag burners") just before he announces that Romney will be SoS.


Real:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/flag-apple-rally-575x324.jpg



Doctored:
http://patriotretort.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Burning-the-Flag.jpg

[asurfaholic]

People didn't vote for Trump because he tells the truth. They wanted somebody they hoped would be "different". They are in for a big disappointment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/

"Of the 158 Trump claims that PolitiFact has checked out, 95 have been rated either "False" or "Pants on Fire." That's 60 percent of all Trump claims."

To be fair, that is NOT 60% of all trump claims. That is 60% of what PolitiFact has checked. They could easily skew opinions with little dishonest statements like that.

I believe the % number is actually much higher

[Weston White]

Oh yea, PolitiFact is definitely bipartisan, bollocks:


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-01-at-1.02.13-PM.png&w=1484

[John F Kennedy III]

I understand it far better then you. I understand that your strategy is the one that lost to precious snowflakes that Trump is destroying.

Lol a Trumpslurper pretending they know Liberty better than Gunny. That's hilarious.

[ProBlue33]

It should be legal to burn the flag and save the first amendment of freedom, I would just add a protection based law which says American citizens also have the right to stop it too. Assault charges when videoed of a person trying to stop it are void, if people have to risk their safety to do it, then they will be less likely to do it.

[Cleaner44]

Trump is wrong on this, and I am not, nor have I ever been a loony-left.

Agree. I remember when Republicans were stupid about flag burning in the late 1980s. To me it is very simple, the flag is supposed to stand for freedom and that includes the freedom to criticize the president or even burn the flag. If a person isn't free to burn a flag then it really is a meaningless symbol.

[helmuth_hubener]

Personally I do not believe in flag burning , but people can do it if they have nothing more productive to do , it is certainly a wasteful act that will change nothing . Once I secede and defeat all comers and have my own Empire I do not even intend on having a flag. Maybe just a battle flag , then people will know when they see it they are going to be kicked to the dirt, LOL . That is how to make The Land Of Indians Great Again :) This may be the best post you have ever written! My favorite, anyway.

Your Empire sounds like it will be The place to be -- how do I get citizenship?

[phill4paul]

Personally I do not believe in flag burning , but people can do it if they have nothing more productive to do , it is certainly a wasteful act that will change nothing . Once I secede and defeat all comers and have my own Empire I do not even intend on having a flag. Maybe just a battle flag , then people will know when they see it they are going to be kicked to the dirt, LOL . That is how to make The Land Of Indians Great Again :)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Black_flag_waving.png

[undergroundrr]

It's absolutely no coincidence this junk was posted to Twitter the same day Trump meets with Goldman, ostensibly being told who his SecTreas will be and appointing a billionaire SecCommerce (also a Goldman directive, I'm sure...from CNBC article: "Before starting his own firm, Wilbur Ross led Rothschild's bankruptcy practice for 25 years.").

And why does nobody point out that trump's Chief of Staff made all his fortune at Goldman Sachs and then was slipped smoothly into a thought leader position after the mysterious death of somebody who knew too much? Bannon went from Goldman Sachs to website editor to presidential appointee without a hiccup. Somebody has the savvy to cause a flag-burning uproar on the day Goldman Sachs & Rothschilds take over. And it's not trump.

[tod evans]

Freedom means something different to every person, just as the flag does.

The older I get the more I tend to look to history to help me define things.

It seems as though the here and now is fraught with too much drama from every faction.

In regards to the OP, this whole thread just seems like more drama to me given that flag burnin' has been addressed by the supreme court, quite recently in fact.

Might be a better use of time to question the cause of derision instead of some intimate object used to amplify said derision...

If flag burners upset Trump to the point he really wants to do something about it using his bully pulpit would be far more effective than trying to legislate.

[jllundqu]

I served in the military. I hold the flag as a symbol of my country, not of my government. I don't care if someone burns it. But I most definitely care if some authoritarian claims that he has the power to strip citizenship or throw in a cage the person who wants to do what they want with a flag. Rothbard already summed this up as a straight property rights debate.


Keeping our eye on property rights, the entire flag question is resolved easily and instantly. Everyone has the right to buy (or weave) and therefore own a piece of cloth in the shape and design of an American flag (or in any other design) and to do with it what he will: fly it, burn it, defile it, bury it, put it in the closet, wear it, etc. Flag laws are unjustifiable violations of the rights of private property. (Constitutionally, there are many clauses from which private property rights can be derived.)

On the other hand, no one has the right to come up and burn your flag, or someone else's. That should be illegal, not because a flag is being burned, but because the arsonist is burning your property without your permission. He is violating your property rights.

Note the way in which the focus on property rights solves all recondite issues. Perhaps conservatives, who proclaim themselves defenders of property rights, will be moved to reconsider their support of its invasion. On the other hand, perhaps liberals, scorners of property rights, might be moved to consider that cleaving to them may be the only way, in the long run, to insure freedom of speech and press.


https://mises.org/library/flag-flap

Anyone who thinks throwing someone in jail for exercising their property rights is a moron and an enemy of liberty.... shitposters on RPF included.

h/t Origanalist via twitter

[Danke]

I served in the military. I hold the flag as a symbol of my country, not of my government. I don't care if someone burns it. But I most definitely care if some authoritarian claims that he has the power to strip citizenship or throw in a cage the person who wants to do what they want with a flag. Rothbard already summed this up as a straight property rights debate.



https://mises.org/library/flag-flap

Anyone who thinks throwing someone in jail for exercising their property rights is a moron and an enemy of liberty.... shitposters on RPF included.

h/t @Origanalist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=40014) via twitter



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504754-Edit-Flag-Burning-Trump-going-after-the-first-amendment&p=6373526&viewfull=1#post6373526

[jllundqu]

It should be legal to burn the flag and save the first amendment of freedom, I would just add a protection based law which says American citizens also have the right to stop it too. Assault charges when videoed of a person trying to stop it are void, if people have to risk their safety to do it, then they will be less likely to do it.

What the hell are you talking about? Private property is private! If I want to buy a US flag or Russian flag or Mexican flag and take it outside and burn it... my fucking choice and no one is going to stop me! If someone forcibly attempts to stop me and it gets violent? Fuck them. God a lot of people here still don't understand the very basics of personal liberty and freedom. You want government to be your strongman....

[oyarde]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Black_flag_waving.png

That is what I use . Flag burning is for kids .

[TheCount]

Oh yea, PolitiFact is definitely bipartisan, bollocks:


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-01-at-1.02.13-PM.png&w=1484
Are you really disputing the fact that Trump says a ton of complete, unmitigated bullshit that has no basis in reality?

[fcreature]

Oh yea, PolitiFact is definitely bipartisan, bollocks:


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-01-at-1.02.13-PM.png&w=1484

Your graphic has zero meaning.

There is the possibility that Trump did say more lies than Hillary. In order for your graphic to have any meaning we would actually need a baseline to compare it to.

[ARealConservative]

I understand it far better then you. I understand that your strategy is the one that lost to precious snowflakes that Trump is destroying.

your lack of understanding of property rights is pathetic.

[JK/SEA]

would taking down a flag in front of a post office and burning it be ok?..

[jllundqu]

would taking down a flag in front of a post office and burning it be ok?..

To whom is your question directed? See post above re: property rights. If the flag belongs to the post office, then no. No one can take it down and burn it. Pretty simple stuff

[JK/SEA]

To whom is your question directed? See post above re: property rights. If the flag belongs to the post office, then no. No one can take it down and burn it. Pretty simple stuff

so me being a taxpayer that paid for that post office flag is off limits...got it.

[Pizzo]

so me being a taxpayer that paid for that post office flag is off limits...got it.

If he replied that you could burn it, would your response have been that you as a taxpayer who helped pay for that flag do not want the flag you paid for burnt and therefore there should be repercussions?

[tod evans]

so me being a taxpayer that paid for that post office flag is off limits...got it.

Dude!

You've got it all fucked up.......

Your "tax money" goes to Alabama not some federal post office in Wa.

[JK/SEA]

If he replied that you could burn it, would your response have been that you as a taxpayer who helped pay for that flag do not want the flag you paid for burnt and therefore there should be repercussions?


Boston Tea Party....

burp.

[JK/SEA]

Dude!

You've got it all fucked up.......

Your "tax money" goes to Alabama not some federal post office in Wa.

its all good....


burp.

[tod evans]

its all good....


burp.

Cheers!

Ain't life grand in 'Merica?

[JK/SEA]

Cheers!

Ain't life grand in 'Merica?

LOST IN AMERICA.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_pdhAx-aM&index=6&list=PLITTiSA_zoNIaa6wRlTliX-o06CY4wNUP


BURP.

[silverhandorder]

Too many people getting completely steam rolled by God emperor. He is getting idiots to come out and spend political capital they do not have. All for a price of a tweet.

[libertyjam]

I don't get it, what is all this hoopla about?

There is already a law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 33 › § 700
18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

(a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
(Added Pub. L. 90–381, § 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub. L. 101–131, §§ 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)

[AuH20]

He really may be an evil genius.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/watch-communist-losers-burn-american-flags-outside-trump-tower-video/

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Communists-burn-flag-575x420.jpg

[goldenequity]

Good dialogue.


Tucker Carlson vs. Flag Burner (11/29/2016)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj7pBrs8f_Y

[Sonny Tufts]

It should be legal to burn the flag and save the first amendment of freedom, I would just add a protection based law which says American citizens also have the right to stop it too. Assault charges when videoed of a person trying to stop it are void, if people have to risk their safety to do it, then they will be less likely to do it.

According to this "no one should ever be offended" reasoning, a Muslim shouldn't be punished for assaulting someone who ridicules Mohammed.

Flag desecration laws are nothing more than expressions of political correctness.

As far as "lefty loons" being the only ones opposed to such laws, who knew that term included Antonin Scalia, who joined the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, which struck down Texas' flag desecration statute?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Not only do I have a God given right to burn any symbol, I can do anything else with it that I would like (as long as I own it). What do you people think that piece of cloth is?? Something Holy? Is it alive?? Does it have magical powers?? NO! It's just an inanimate object that has no life and no rights.

In fact it's amazing how silly people sound when they get all puffed up thinking someone would "dis-respect" their holy symbol...

[libertyjam]

According to this "no one should ever be offended" reasoning, a Muslim shouldn't be punished for assaulting someone who ridicules Mohammed.

Flag desecration laws are nothing more than expressions of political correctness.

As far as "lefty loons" being the only ones opposed to such laws, who knew that term included Antonin Scalia, who joined the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, which struck down Texas' flag desecration statute?

So does that mean when the Texas statute was struck down that 18 U.S. Code § 700 was also rendered null? (If so , good) Everyone keeps saying it is not illegal to desecrate the flag but as I showed above it clearly was illegal at one time and if a law is struck out it is usually voided in the USC, which at least cornell.law has not reflected in their online copy.

[libertyjam]

I think I have found an answer:

1968: Adoption of Federal Flag Desecration Law (18 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) — Congress approved the first federal flag desecration law in the wake of a highly publicized Central Park flag burning incident in protest of the Vietnam War. The federal law made it illegal to "knowingly" cast "contempt" upon "any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it." The law defined flag in an expansive manner similar to most States.

1969: Street v. New York (394 U.S. 576) — The Supreme Court held that New York could not convict a person based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag. Street was arrested after he learned of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith and reacted by burning his own flag and exclaiming to a small crowd that if the government could allow Meredith to be killed, "we don't need no damn flag." The Court avoided deciding whether flag burning was protected by the First Amendment, and instead overturned the conviction based on Street's oral remarks. In Street, the Court found there was not a sufficient governmental interest to warrant regulating verbal criticism of the flag.

1972: Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) — The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with "contempt." The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally "void for vagueness."

1974: Spence v. Washington (418 U.S. 405) — The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could not convict a person for attaching removable tape in the form of a peace sign to a flag. The defendant had attached the tape to his flag and draped it outside of his window in protest of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. The Court again found under the First Amendment there was not a sufficient governmental interest to justify regulating this form of symbolic speech. Although not a flag burning case, this represented the first time the Court had clearly stated that protest involving the physical use of the flag should be seen as a form of protected expression under the First Amendment.

1970-1980: Revision of State Flag Desecration Statutes — During this period legislatures in some 20 States narrowed the scope of their flag desecration laws in an effort to conform to perceived Constitutional restrictions under the Street, Smith, and Spence cases and to more generally parallel the federal law (i.e., focusing more specifically on mutilation and other forms of physical desecration, rather than verbal abuse or commercial or political misuse).

1989: Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) — The Supreme Court upheld the Texas Court of Criminal appeals finding that Texas law — making it a crime to "desecrate" or otherwise "mistreat" the flag in a way the "actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons" — was unconstitutional as applied. This was the first time the Supreme Court had directly considered the applicability of the First Amendment to flag burning.

Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after he set fire to a flag while protestors chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Court first found that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech subject to protection under the First Amendment. The Court also determined that under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), since the State law was related to the suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be upheld if Texas could demonstrate a "compelling" interest in its law. The Court next found that Texas' asserted interest in "protecting the peace" was not implicated under the facts of the case. Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a "symbol of national unity," this interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify a "content based" legal restriction (i.e., the law was not based on protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others).

1989: Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute — Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it "content neutral" and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term "flag" so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.

1990: United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) — Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress' effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.

1990: Rejection of Constitutional Amendment — Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that "the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254–177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58–42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary).
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/desecration.htm

[phill4paul]

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M72bc916641de8940066c8aab84c88600o0&pid=15.1

[scm]

Not only do I have a God given right to burn any symbol, I can do anything else with it that I would like (as long as I own it). What do you people think that piece of cloth is?? Something Holy? Is it alive?? Does it have magical powers?? NO! It's just an inanimate object that has no life and no rights.

In fact it's amazing how silly people sound when they get all puffed up thinking someone would "dis-respect" their holy symbol...
I've decided my symbol of choice to display will be the Gadsden flag. I considered an upside down old glory, but I'm not really interested in making national news. I just want people to leave me the f alone. I LOVE my privacy. I put a Ron Paul 2012 sign at the end of my driveway. I was getting sick of the DEMONkRATS thinking the last owners (obvious DEMONkRATS) still lived here.

[jonhowe]

I don't get it, what is all this hoopla about?

There is already a law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/700
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 33 › § 700
18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

(a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
(Added Pub. L. 90–381, § 1, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291; amended Pub. L. 101–131, §§ 2, 3, Oct. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 777.)


United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 318–19, 110 S. Ct. 2404, 2409–10, 110 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1990)


"***Government may create national symbols, promote them, and encourage their respectful treatment.9 But the Flag Protection Act of 1989 goes well beyond this by criminally proscribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative impact.

**2410 We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), vulgar repudiations of the draft, see *319 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), and scurrilous caricatures, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Johnson, supra, at 414, 109 S.Ct., at 2545. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. The judgments of the District Courts are
Affirmed."

[Weston White]

Your graphic has zero meaning.

There is the possibility that Trump did say more lies than Hillary. In order for your graphic to have any meaning we would actually need a baseline to compare it to.

It is not my graphic; however, it does have significance because clearly Killary lies more than she tells the truth. Ergo,m how can one tell when the Clintons are lying?

Answer: When their lips are moving.

[phill4paul]

Hot Under The Blue Collar, Episode 11

Last night on the tee-vee, as I flicked back and forth between my most trusted sources of cable news, I saw a number a college students setting fire to the American flag. Some of the students said they were "angry." Others said they were "disgusted." But many others were anxious to explain why they had become “fearful” of the American Flag. Interesting.

At Hampshire College, The President, Jonathan Lash, has actually removed the flag from his campus, in response to students who expressed “fear and discomfort” when confronted by the sight of Old Glory. He offered this explanation: “Removing the flag permanently from our campus will better enable us to focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors.”

As I dropped one of those giant round ice cubes into a tumbler of Whistle Pig, I couldn’t help but wonder if President Lash was unaware that billions of people around the world are routinely subjected to horrific levels of racism, misogyny, and bigotry that far exceed any injustice in modern-day America. Furthermore, I was curious to know if President Lash really believed that removing our flag is a better way to assuage the fears of his frightened students, than simply educating them about the undeniable fact that no country on the planet affords its citizens more liberty than this one? Finally, I found myself wondering as to why the President of Hampshire College would allow his students to pay for their tuition with federal dollars – federal dollars provided by the same government whose flag was no longer suitable to fly at his school.

Here’s the problem. Tuition at Hampshire College is about $60,000 a year. That’s not a problem because it’s expensive – it’s a problem because 85% of Hampshire students qualify for some form of federal financial aid. http://bit.ly/2gsZxnk. That means that We the People are enabling schools like Hampshire to sell a liberal arts degree for approximately $250,000. With $1.3 trillion dollars of student debt currently on the books, I found myself thinking how nice it would be to hear a more persuasive argument from those who will happily take money from a country whose flag they despise.

I turned the channel, and watched another group of students dance around another pile of burning flags at another expensive university. I couldn't tell where they were, but occurred to me that wherever they were – it probably wasn’t a trade school. To my knowledge, no one has ever burned a flag at a trade school.

I wonder why that is?

I have no idea, but the thought reminded me that I had yet to post Episode 11 of Hot Under the Blue Collar. It features a graduate from one of those schools – a guy named Scott. Scott studied to be an electrician, and his comments, though not nearly as expensive as Daniel’s, are far more… illuminating?

Carry on,
and don’t play with matches.
Mike

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/videos/1349438011733005/?pnref=story

[devil21]

And why does nobody point out that trump's Chief of Staff made all his fortune at Goldman Sachs and then was slipped smoothly into a thought leader position after the mysterious death of somebody who knew too much? Bannon went from Goldman Sachs to website editor to presidential appointee without a hiccup. Somebody has the savvy to cause a flag-burning uproar on the day Goldman Sachs & Rothschilds take over. And it's not trump.

Not just website editor but big cheese (ahem) at Breitbart, whose original owner mysteriously suddenly died (ahem again...after making "cheesy" statements on camera about certain bigwigs....reminiscent of Russert's fate after asking Kerry and Bush about S&B on MTP). Subversion is the name of the game.

[otherone]

I've decided my symbol of choice to display will be the Gadsden flag. I considered an upside down old glory, but I'm not really interested in making national news. I just want people to leave me the f alone.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dCmwyQ3POGg/VXyiptBYIUI/AAAAAAAAEYY/ClK2Gmpp7T8/s640/rebellious-stripes-flag.PNG

[jmdrake]

If the only punishment is losing citizenship, this could actually effectively provide a much easier, cheaper, and hassle-free alternative method of renouncing US citizenship (and thus losing US tax liability)!

That would be great! A big help to many people!

You realize that non citizens pay taxes too right? I'm not talking illegal immigrants. People here on H1B visas, for example, pay taxes just like everyone else. If this laughable idea were to pass the gubmint would come up with a "Native born, tax paying but has no rights American" categor to put them in. Hell be 18 and have sex with a 16 year od and you are practically a taxpaying non-citizen. You can't vote. You can't get a job. You can't even have your door open on Halloween. But the gubmint still gonna git its (your) money.

[jmdrake]

I've decided my symbol of choice to display will be the Gadsden flag. I considered an upside down old glory, but I'm not really interested in making national news. I just want people to leave me the f alone. I LOVE my privacy. I put a Ron Paul 2012 sign at the end of my driveway. I was getting sick of the DEMONkRATS thinking the last owners (obvious DEMONkRATS) still lived here.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dCmwyQ3POGg/VXyiptBYIUI/AAAAAAAAEYY/ClK2Gmpp7T8/s640/rebellious-stripes-flag.PNG

This should be the new official flag of RPF.

http://cellar.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=48650&d=1405721486

[jmdrake]

Then good for you. But this is a reply to violence perpetuated against Trump people. It is for OP and those like him.

And when Michelle Obama becomes president she won't use some version of this law against Tea partiers. :rolleyes: Trump is the deliberate dumbing down of the liberty movement.

[jmdrake]

I could care less about flag burning. The reality is that the country is split and we are on a collision course for bad times. We don't even know who will win. But I like Trump's side and I like their chances under his leadership.

And who's side is Trump really on and which flag is he going to protect? Thiis is what conservatives think they are getting with team Trump.

http://cdn.pinknews.co.uk/images/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-16-at-19.20.53.png

This is what they are really getting.

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5818b1d9150000d80453109b.jpeg

and this....

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/08/05/National-Politics/Images/GettyImages-843167781438806851.jpg

Team Trump is sellots supporting a sellout. Alex Jones is the worst at this point. Now AJ is pimping Bilderberg supporters of Trump as proof that Trump is pro liberty. BIzarro world.

[helmuth_hubener]

You realize that non citizens pay taxes too right? I'm not talking illegal immigrants. People here on H1B visas, for example, pay taxes just like everyone else. If this laughable idea were to pass the gubmint would come up with a "Native born, tax paying but has no rights American" categor to put them in. Hell be 18 and have sex with a 16 year od and you are practically a taxpaying non-citizen. You can't vote. You can't get a job. You can't even have your door open on Halloween. But the gubmint still gonna git its (your) money. OK, I guess it wasn't just TheCount.

My comment was meant to be humorous, tongue-in-cheek. The process it refers to is officially renouncing US citizenship. This does indeed eliminate the special tax liability faced by US citizens, namely that the U.S. government continues to obnoxiously claim that you owe them taxes even if you are living abroad and have no US income! They tax your Swiss income that you earned entirely in Switzerland, or Chinese income, or Lesothoan income -- they don't care. Renouncing is the only way to legally escape. This is what Facebook co-founder What's-His-Face did, and moved to Singapore, as a prominent example.

It can be a lengthy, costly, and tedious process, though. If one could simply burn a flag instead, that would be an incredible shortcut and better by 1000 times! Again, this was meant as a joke, and some did get it and enjoy the humor, but it was kind of an inside joke, it's true. Sorry for the confusion! :)

[ChristianAnarchist]

Team Trump is sellots supporting a sellout. Alex Jones is the worst at this point. Now AJ is pimping Bilderberg supporters of Trump as proof that Trump is pro liberty. BIzarro world.

Fortunately for me I stopped listening to AJ 10 years ago after he called me a "communist" on his talk show. He's just another performer trying to increase his paycheck (which is certainly within his rights)...

[jllundqu]

Good dialogue.


Tucker Carlson vs. Flag Burner (11/29/2016)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj7pBrs8f_Y

Tucker is a moron. He doesn't understand basic individual liberty and he insults his guests.

[goldenequity]

The construct teaches the viewers regardless.

[Ender]

It is not my graphic; however, it does have significance because clearly Killary lies more than she tells the truth. Ergo,m how can one tell when the Clintons are lying?

Answer: When their lips are moving.

Same with Trump, my friend, same with Trump.

[JK/SEA]

Same with Trump, my friend, same with Trump.

lying is bad. We shouldn't promote liars....

next.

[silverhandorder]

Did all of you purist ever think that all the liberty people leaving you behind are the ones who are right? At some point you have to turn on your brain and give up on strategies that do not work.

[Ender]

Did all of you purist ever think that all the liberty people leaving you behind are the ones who are right? At some point you have to turn on your brain and give up on strategies that do not work.

Oohhhhh...... you mean like tweeting that flag-burners should go to jail or lose their citizenship? THAT kind of "strategy"?

How 'Murikan of you to agree.

And stop with the name-calling- it does nothing to advance people to your mindset.

[Ender]

lying is bad. We shouldn't promote liars....

next.

Mirror?

[JK/SEA]

Mirror?

never voted for a liar Ender?..

[silverhandorder]

Oohhhhh...... you mean like tweeting that flag-burners should go to jail or lose their citizenship? THAT kind of "strategy"?

How 'Murikan of you to agree.

And stop with the name-calling- it does nothing to advance people to your mindset.

You are an idiot. If you want respect show it first. Murican... Is name calling.

[Ender]

You are an idiot. If you want respect show it first. Murican... Is name calling.

Ahhh.... says he who has called names from the beginning. And no one called you 'Murican- it just seems a way of life here.

[Ender]

never voted for a liar Ender?..

Not unless Ron Paul is a liar.

[JK/SEA]

Not unless Ron Paul is a liar.

you saying Ron's a liar?...

[Ender]

you saying Ron's a liar?...

NO.

I'm saying he's the only man I have ever voted for, in answering you question about voting for liars.

SO. NO.

I have never voted for a liar, unless you consider Ron Paul a liar- but I am sure we can both agree that he is not.

Amirite? :)

[silverhandorder]

Ahhh.... says he who has called names from the beginning. And no one called you 'Murican- it just seems a way of life here.

Be a bigger man.

[Ender]

Be a bigger man.

You first.

And.....go!

[JK/SEA]

NO.

I'm saying he's the only man I have ever voted for, in answering you question about voting for liars.

SO. NO.

I have never voted for a liar, unless you consider Ron Paul a liar- but I am sure we can both agree that he is not.

Amirite? :)

so you have only voted once in your lifetime, and your first and only vote ever was only for Ron Paul....weird.

don't you vote in local elections?..

[JK/SEA]

You first.

And.....go!

i'll go.....

i'm 5 10...240...

[silverhandorder]

You first.

And.....go!

I dont want to be. It is you who is crying about it while being a hypocrite.

[undergroundrr]

so you have only voted once in your lifetime, and your first and only vote ever was only for Ron Paul....weird.

So you've been a member since 1/2008 and you've only voted for Ron Paul once?

[Occam's Banana]

I think people are taking him too literal. I simply took it as Trump trolling the media and protesters, not as something serious. [...] They fell right into Trump's trap. I find it hilarious.

I agree. Trump trolling the media and protestors like this is indeed hilarious.

In fact, it's almost as hilarious as when Trump trolls his own supporters and they fall for it, too ...

("Because you'd be in jail" ... BWA-HA-HA-HAAA!! ... "Drain the swamp" .... OOH-HE-HE-HEE!! ... etc., etc.)

[Ender]

so you have only voted once in your lifetime, and your first and only vote ever was only for Ron Paul....weird.

don't you vote in local elections?..

I'm only 26- haven't voted much. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate I have felt worth voting for. Locally, it's pretty cool where I'm at and since I am a minister, I spend most of my time helping and educating others- especially youth.

[Ender]

I dont want to be. It is you who is crying about it while being a hypocrite.

YOU call me an idiot and then call me names for calling names? Who's the hypocrite? Hmmmmm........

[silverhandorder]

YOU call me an idiot and then call me names for calling names? Who's the hypocrite? Hmmmmm........

I just said I am not the one complaining about name calling. To me it is all good. You are the hypocrite the complains about name calling and uses name calling in the same post.

There is a pattern with you. You are either playing dumb all the time to troll or you are just that. There is nothing else there.

[Ender]

I just said I am not the one complaining about name calling. To me it is all good. You are the hypocrite the complains about name calling and uses name calling in the same post.

There is a pattern with you. You are either playing dumb all the time to troll or you are just that. There is nothing else there.


Whatever.

Haters gonna hate- have at it.

[JK/SEA]

So you've been a member since 1/2008 and you've only voted for Ron Paul once?

i'm not old enough to vote...

[jllundqu]

muh flag!

[jmdrake]

OK, I guess it wasn't just TheCount.

My comment was meant to be humorous, tongue-in-cheek. The process it refers to is officially renouncing US citizenship. This does indeed eliminate the special tax liability faced by US citizens, namely that the U.S. government continues to obnoxiously claim that you owe them taxes even if you are living abroad and have no US income! They tax your Swiss income that you earned entirely in Switzerland, or Chinese income, or Lesothoan income -- they don't care. Renouncing is the only way to legally escape. This is what Facebook co-founder What's-His-Face did, and moved to Singapore, as a prominent example.

It can be a lengthy, costly, and tedious process, though. If one could simply burn a flag instead, that would be an incredible shortcut and better by 1000 times! Again, this was meant as a joke, and some did get it and enjoy the humor, but it was kind of an inside joke, it's true. Sorry for the confusion! :)

Oh. That's news to me. Thank you for the information!

[ChristianAnarchist]

OK, I guess it wasn't just TheCount.

My comment was meant to be humorous, tongue-in-cheek. The process it refers to is officially renouncing US citizenship. This does indeed eliminate the special tax liability faced by US citizens, namely that the U.S. government continues to obnoxiously claim that you owe them taxes even if you are living abroad and have no US income! They tax your Swiss income that you earned entirely in Switzerland, or Chinese income, or Lesothoan income -- they don't care. Renouncing is the only way to legally escape. This is what Facebook co-founder What's-His-Face did, and moved to Singapore, as a prominent example.

It can be a lengthy, costly, and tedious process, though. If one could simply burn a flag instead, that would be an incredible shortcut and better by 1000 times! Again, this was meant as a joke, and some did get it and enjoy the humor, but it was kind of an inside joke, it's true. Sorry for the confusion! :)

I hadn't thought of that... Now I'm all for taking away the "citizenship" of anyone burning the flag. I might need that out in the future when I want to stop paying income tax on foreign earned money...

[GunnyFreedom]

i'll go.....

i'm 5 10...240...

Well that's gonna leave a crater. :-/

[Ender]

i'll go.....

i'm 5 10...240...

LOL- just saw this-

I'm 6'1".......170

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL- just saw this-

I'm 6'1".......170

This, on the other hand, will have to compensate for any stiff breezes or risk getting blown off course. :p

[Ender]

This, on the other hand, will have to compensate for any stiff breezes or risk getting blown off course. :p

Which is why I'm a Black Belt in Haidong Gumdo- helps me stay solid. ;)

[CaptUSA]

h/t Bastiat Institute

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15337568_1260834630626886_7306096135721080032_n.jp g?oh=ce6ed1087014059e92c106bdde96e033&oe=58B25F76

[JK/SEA]

Well that's gonna leave a crater. :-/


with every step.

[JK/SEA]

Which is why I'm a Black Belt in Haidong Gumdo- helps me stay solid. ;)

just my mere presence instills a certain 'fear' in most people i meet. Call me 'mad dog' JK/SEA....

[Ender]

just my mere presence instills a certain 'fear' in most people i meet. Call me 'mad dog' JK/SEA....

I like dogs- even mad ones. ;)