… Okay, I’m not pleased, generally, that Clinton, being president, signed the flag. On the other hand, the case could be made that it was political speech. He didn’t try to get that sort of political speech outlawed, so I’m not all that annoyed, it’s not hypocritical.
Again, the members of an army unit signing a flag? It’s speech. “We were here. We served, we died for what this stands for.”
Again, under the amendment Bush favors, it’d be outlawed.
ooooo let me get out my good pitch forck and torch, it looks like another witch hunt.
Ohhh, so that statement was from the Clinton White House, not the G. W. Bush White House.
Goddammit Buckner don’t do that to me. I nearly crapped my pants. For a minute I thought the world as I know it had been turned on its ear.
I think “relativism” is rearing its ugly head here.
In the real world, there’s nothing wrong for burning or writing on a flag, and there is something wrong with prosecuting someone for doing so.
In the religious world, regarding the flag as something sacred that can descrated is a serious violation of the 2nd Commandment.
In the patriotic world, writing on a flag desecrates it more seriously that imporperly displaying it but less seriously than burning it.
You do realize, newcrasher, that the primary thrust of this thread is hypocrisy, don’t you?
It is American tradition (and yes, Americans have some admittedly pretentious flag-related traditions) to dispose of flags that are worn-out or muddied beyond cleansing or otherwise damaged beyond the point that they can be displayed with dignity by burning them.
This burning is generally done, I believe, by placing the flag in a container and burning flag and container together.
Many American protesters, upon feeling that the honor of our nation has been dragged through the mud and shredded and damaged beyond dignity, have expressed this sentiment by burning the flag.
This burning is of course done in public, because the intention is to make a political statement, not to dispose of a piece of worn-out cloth. Note, however, that the underlying motivation here could be characterized as patriotic. It could also be characterized as anti-patriotic, depending on your view of patriotism. Does one say “My country, right or wrong” and remain loyal and uncritical of one’s leaders even when they are embarrassing the fuck out of the nation and ruining its reputation? Or does one take responsibility for the wrongness of one’s country by saying “My country, right or wrong, and current wrong as all get-out, and I think it sucks”?
(There are also people who burn the flag as a way of saying they reject the country and everything that they believe it stands for. Theirs is also a political statement and should also remain legal.)
The funny thing is that if everyone agreed that there was no big deal about burning the American flag, it would lose its value as a shocking political statement and few people would bother doing it.
Anyway, as is the case with most American posters to this thread, I see nothing wrong with Bush signing the flags, and it certainly isn’t illegal; but I note with wry amusement and a sprinkling of minor-league indignation that he is among those who have pushed for a stupid amendment that would make both flag-burning and flag-signing an illegal and punishable act.
God help us if this is the only stupid or inconsistent thing he’s done that sticks in people’s minds though.
Battle Streamers aren’t affixed to the flags themselves. They’re affixed to the pole on which the flag is carried.
The United States Armed Forces have distinguishing flags for various units and do not have the names sewn onto the national ensign.
Well I meant the eye roll in a more figurative sense, and also non-Americans when with each other or alone. I know that most folk are polite enough not to be rude to someone’s face like that.
Assuming that it is -
Those on the Right would be hypocritical if they criticized Clinton for signing the flag, but not Bush.
Those on the Left would be hypocritical if they criticized Bush for signing the flag, but not Clinton.
No one on the Right has criticized Clinton for signing the flag, but not Bush.
Reeder (and others on the Left) have criticized Bush for signing the flag, but not Clinton.
Do the math.
Regards,
Shodan
I think i’m more appalled at the fact that our President is giving out autographs.
So you’re using the old Prussian system with streamers now?
I seem to recall that, during the civil war, units used two flags; the regimental flag (usually the blue one with the eagle) and the national flag (stars and stripes) with unit name + battle honours.
When did that practice change?
Hypocrisy, like all these, is a relative thing, Shodan.
Of the two groups, which is the more likely to exploit patriotic fervor in support of thier political agenda?
Take your time, I know you got this one…
So, it’s not what’s done to the flag but the intent or meaning of what’s done to the flag?
Me? I couldn’t care less if he signed a little trinket probably made in Taiwan, or if he signed a real one. I will care if he actually tries to ammend the constitution to prohibit any desecration.
Thats like saying that someone who doesn’t hang their flag correctly, or accidently drops it on the gound is “crapping” on this country.
This thread sucks.
For the record, I’m a registered Republican, Shodan. I’m just real ticked at the party since the Religious Right hijacked it, and trying hard to claim it back. If this means I have to vote for Dean to break their backs, so be it.
100% correct. Its one thing to do it specifically to offend, and another to offend by accident. There are always people out there lwaiting to be offended anyway.