Real Thought

Comment by T.L. Stanley

June 29, 2006 @ 10:58

Burning the American flag in protest is disrespectful and should be condemned as inappropriate. What would happen if someone went into a black church and burned a picture of Martin Luther King in protest? Or, what if someone went to a Mexican-American Heritage celebration and festival and burned a Mexican Flag?

The person burning the picture of Martin Luther King or the Mexican flag would probably get a black eye or worse. And, the news media would portray the person burning a picture of Martin Luther King or the Mexican flag as an evil person, not a person exercising his free speech rights. Free speech has limits.

When I got back from the Korean DMZ in 1968, flag burning was the “in thing” to do everywhere. I started college on the GI bill. I rode to school with other GIs. A group of GIs put the campus Commies on notice that if they started pulling the college flag down or burned it, we would kick the living hell out of them. We did not have much flag burning at my college. Good golly, maybe this is the answer to the flag burning debate.

Comment by J. Love

June 29, 2006 @ 12:27

Just how can this stupid ruling this morning be overturned? I suggest that Bush emulate Lincoln and simply ignore the court. That is what he did during war.
In spite of Douglas’ dislike of amending the Constitution, the only way to keep the Supremes noses out of things is to put it in the Constitution.
Joe

Comment by Doug

June 29, 2006 @ 14:45

TL. My answer would be that people have as much right to burn a Mexican flag or a picture of MLK as they want. I agree that flag burning is disrespectful and offensive but do we really need a constitutional amendment banning it? My father and I disagree on this issue. I suggest that we simply ignore the Supreme Court when it’s decisions are useless. Andrew Jackson did it, Jefferson did it, Lincoln did it. People seem to for get that the Supreme Court only has asa much power as the executive lends it.

As far as the Guantanamo ruling is concerned, I have yet to read it. Early reports called it a “defeat” for the Bush administration. I don’t see it that way. I see it as more of “there has to be some sort of ‘due process’” statement by the court. That I agree with. We have to give some due process rights to the detainees at Guantanamo otherwise we become just as barbaric as they. Remember how we treated German prisoners of war? Much better than they treated Allied prisoners. That was to prove a point, that we are not barbarians and I believe we may have to do the same here, even if the Geneva Conventions and United States laws do not apply.

Comment by betmo

July 1, 2006 @ 13:16

i agree with doug. my personal belief is that the constitution should be left alone. there is absolutely no reason to put something like the gay marriage thing or the flag burning thing in the constitution. neither is a significant issue and both are being used as a smokescreen because there is no actual work being done in washington. don’t let yourself get caught up in a non-issue and keep your eyes open to what is really going on here. my mother is reasearching the american presidents and their policies- and it is very curious that out of the repub administrations most of them started a war. granted- she is in the early presidencies yet- but i will keep you posted.

Comment by Doug

July 3, 2006 @ 6:55

Betmo,

Most of the wars in our modern history, say from 1900 on began under Democratic presidents. Remember that the current Republican party didn’t start until 1850.

Comment by Damon

July 4, 2006 @ 8:41

W doesn’t care what the issue is, he just wants a constitutional ammendment credited to him. The Presidency is, and has been more of a status thing for him than wanting to lead the country. Whether it be Gay Marriages, Abortion, Patriot Act, or Flag burning; Bush has been after ammendments his entire term. He does not care as much about the citizens of the US as he does about leaving a legacy.