ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
"The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." -US Flag Code Section 4(g)
Still not arguing politics with you people anymore, but here's your fact of the day.
But it's OK for some smelly bastard from Frisco to burn it and trample it.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
No I don't like Bush. I voted for him in 2000 but not in 2004. But that doesn't mean I'm going to not use my brain in making some judgement. I don't have to automatically think he's Satan just for breathing like some people.
And, no, it's not defacing.
Invisible ink??? A special proclmation?? Wrong for Bush..wrong for Clinton, wrong for Kennedy, wrong for ANYONE to in anyway write on a flag. It is that simple.. I think other Presidents knew it was wrong..not sure why Bush would do something where it is so oviously wrong.
Do not call it defacing or get hung upon that word, without regard it is wrong for GWB to sign a flag pure and simple, he is wrong, wrong, wrong... if Clinton did it it would be the same. Some things you do not do without regard for the reason.
Well this would be my opinion whether Bush, Clinton or any other President did it.
Like I said, by the letter of the law it is wrong. Although I stand by my feelings on the side issue of defacing. I just like to be a realist sometimes and I really don't think banning a President's signature is the intent here. But I do agree that it is a violation.
Came across this article in Newsweek, which is pertinent to this argument, do not dismiss the source.. bottom line is all of these things are election talking points, gay marriage, troop withdrawal from Iraq and flag burning. So come the fall during the elections, the incumbent can say this is what I voted for and the other person can say why the vote was bad.
For those who do not have the time or attention span to read the entire article, I will highlight.
Actually, even during the Vietnam War, flag burning was rare. By one count, there have been only 45 such incidents in 200 years, and fewer than half a dozen since it was outlawed in 1989. Should the Constitution be amended, however, the incidence of flag burning is expected to surge as a form of civil disobedience. What began as a phony issue designed to prove patriotism (usually on the part of those who never served, the primary sponsors) could become a real concern.
....Banning flag burning, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, â€śdilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered.â€ť
To make matters worse, the amendment is vaguely worded, which led to fatuous debate in the Senate over whether a woman wearing a skimpy bathing suit patterned with stars and stripes was guilty of desecration. Bloggers wondered the same thing about President Bushâ€™s new habit of autographing flags when he shakes hands on rope lines. Unconstitutional? With a war on and a hundred other pressing problems, itâ€™s nice to see our elected representatives focused on what really counts.
The usual litmus testsâ€”abortion, gun control, Iraqâ€”shouldnâ€™t be. Reasonable and sincere people can disagree, with at least one or two principled arguments on each side. The flag burning amendment is in a category by itself: the only argument for it is based on pure emotion. But ours is supposed to be a government of reason, not emotion, especially when it comes to the most precious repository of our rights. The American Constitution, the apogee of reason in the history of self-government, is real; the American flag, for all of its beauty and deep meaning, is symbolic. For more than 200 years, weâ€™ve occasionally used the amendment process to expand rights. This would be the first time we would enshrine their restriction. Polluting the Constitution is far more dangerous than burning the flag.
“We like to say that dependability is more important than ability,” Bill Belichickism....