Thread: More on Flag Burning

Originally Posted by Decker

WASHINGTON - The House moved Wednesday toward approval of a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well. Source: AP

Good to see Congress take the initiative on something really important.

When buddhist monks were short of firewood, they burned statutes of the Buddha.

The magic is not in the symbol. Symbol minded.

Does this mean I won't be able to wear my American Flag boxer shorts?

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Does this mean I won't be able to wear my American Flag boxer shorts?

Your ass won't do the flag any favors, so I'd probably answer that question in the affirmative.

When the Republicans own the Congress, you have to put up with crap like this (and I agree it's crap.)

When the Democrats are in charge you have to worry about affirmative action laws, gay rights laws, wealth transfer initiatives....

I'll take the former any day.

A retired CPA friend of mine told me once "We are going to hell in a hand basket with either party. I vote Republican because they will get us there slower"

Originally Posted by Pepper

When the Republicans own the Congress, you have to put up with crap like this (and I agree it's crap.)

When the Democrats are in charge you have to worry about affirmative action laws, gay rights laws, wealth transfer initiatives....

I'll take the former any day.

A retired CPA friend of mine told me once "We are going to hell in a hand basket with either party. I vote Republican because they will get us there slower"

Yeah it's crap alright. I don't think either party is harmless when it comes to inflicting over-the-top ideological horseshit.

Incidentally, I do believe that battling the establishment of a new artistocracy (wealth transfer) with taxation--progressive and estate--is a good thing, lest we have too many Paris Hilton and G W Bush types milling around; fucking things up...you know rich and clueless.

Originally Posted by Decker

Yeah it's crap alright. I don't think either party is harmless when it comes to inflicting over-the-top ideological horseshit.

Incidentally, I do believe that battling the establishment of a new artistocracy (wealth transfer) with taxation--progressive and estate--is a good thing, lest we have too many Paris Hilton and G W Bush types milling around; fucking things up...you know rich and clueless.

Your views are wealth transfer are fundamentally "un-American."

People who acquire wealth should be able to pass it on to their children. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Decker

Incidentally, I do believe that battling the establishment of a new artistocracy (wealth transfer) with taxation--progressive and estate--is a good thing, lest we have too many Paris Hilton and G W Bush types milling around; fucking things up...you know rich and clueless.

how many times does the same money have to be taxed ?

Originally Posted by LAM

how many times does the same money have to be taxed ?

The money is taxed when it changes hands. Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville saw the benefits of fighting aristocracy through progressive taxation, why can't you?

For all of you 'rugged individualists' out there, how does it feel knowing that by accident of birth, some lame fuck JR never has to work a day in his/her life.

Which leads me to answer Pepper's charge that such taxation is un-american. You have it reversed Pepper. It is entirely American to expect a US citizen to be a productive citizen, to be a working citizen and not an aristocratic fop having everything handed to him on a platter.

BlueBlooded people can pass on wealth, it should be taxed and a portion of that redistributed. Otherwise the result is a monopoly of the richest of the rich...only these type paid the estate tax to begin with.

Plutocracies are fundamentally unamerican...don't you think?

So long for tonight guys. Work's over for me.

I was not dissing progressive taxation. I can accept that and see merit in it.

Confiscating wealth as it moves from one generation to another is what I called un-American.

Originally Posted by Pepper

Your views are wealth transfer are fundamentally "un-American."

People who acquire wealth should be able to pass it on to their children. PERIOD.

Uh...except the gays with children, of course. Then it's supposed to be legally transferred to the closest heterosexual non-nuclear family member, in keeping with proper moral law.

Originally Posted by Pepper

Your views are wealth transfer are fundamentally "un-American."

People who acquire wealth should be able to pass it on to their children. PERIOD.

I agree with you to a point. Multi Billionaires who wield their power through their amassed wealth in the political arena of this country are un American as well. When you have a capitalistic system with 1% of the people possessing over 50% of the wealth, and a political system that relies on $$$ for re election, then you have no justice at all. The proper way to solve this problem is extremely complex.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Uh...except the gays with children, of course. Then it's supposed to be legally transferred to the closest heterosexual non-nuclear family member, in keeping with proper moral law.

Um...when did gays lose the right to write a will and leave their assets to whoever they want? Was this a recent bill or are you just making stuff up again?

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

I agree with you to a point. Multi Billionaires who wield their power through their amassed wealth in the political arena of this country are un American as well. When you have a capitalistic system with 1% of the people possessing over 50% of the wealth, and a political system that relies on $$$ for re election, then you have no justice at all. The proper way to solve this problem is extremely complex.

I've read your posts in other threads. How about I just say "you're right" and walk away?

Originally Posted by Decker

The money is taxed when it changes hands. Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville saw the benefits of fighting aristocracy through progressive taxation, why can't you?

the last time I checked it was 2005 not the mid 1800's I think the times have changed a little.

For all of you 'rugged individualists' out there, how does it feel knowing that by accident of birth, some lame fuck JR never has to work a day in his/her life.

I know plenty of trust fund babies. some people are born into money and others are not, that's life.

BlueBlooded people can pass on wealth, it should be taxed and a portion of that redistributed.

why should the same monies that are passed on from generation to generation be constantly taxed time and time again ?

Originally Posted by Pepper

I've read your posts in other threads. How about I just say "you're right" and walk away?

Do whatever you think is right.

Originally Posted by Pepper

Um...when did gays lose the right to write a will and leave their assets to whoever they want? Was this a recent bill or are you just making stuff up again?

While I'd like to pretend for a moment that you have this amazing list of resources involving contractual rights of same-sex couples around the nation, we both know that is certainly not the case.

Wills can be contested, particularly in matters related to children who are not recognized as legally adoptable by the non-child bearing parent (that would be Florida's law). . .and those next-of-kin laws which you jealously protect as "incidents of marriage" weren't designed to provide special rights for married persons, but to enable the state to support its real interest in enabling smooth transfer of money and property within a family unit. If wills were so ironclad, what would be the reason for special statutes providing rights for straight married people anyway? Are you saying that one type of family can only be protected by one will...but the other kind needs a special law for no reason other than to be coddled?

Then we have the case of Virginia, which outlawed contractual rights for all same-sex couples - again, in ardent defense of statutory provisions that were never created as special rights for marriage. That means such mundane things as power-of-attorney can be challenged (which often happens anyway)...and is quite the moral undertaking when a hospital refuses to recognize a medical decisionmaking agreement and the partner has to wait to file suit in a court of law to settle the matter. Naturally, the partner (or child) in the hospital might be dead by then, but hey. . .what's reality when we have "marriage" to protect for those poor, persecuted "normal" people?

As far as making things up. . .after all the years of professional experience in journalism, I know the difference between people who just spout off some dogma and those who have examples to support their statements. And since these are just examples of the "gay rights" you so completely abhor, those incidents should be displayed every time a situation occurs so that people like you know exactly what you supported.

Originally Posted by Pepper

I've read your posts in other threads. How about I just say "you're right" and walk away?

Good call Pepper

Originally Posted by Rocco32

Good call Pepper

Rocco is still mad.

Why is that law good for anything? I mean, americans don´t burn their flag. I think.

It happens more in foreign countries in Asia or something.

Originally Posted by Vieope

Why is that law good for anything? I mean, americans don´t burn their flag. I think.

It happens more in foreign countries in Asia or something.

It really isn't good for anything....it's just another symbolic attempt at pretend patriotism by a Congress which can't accomplish anything of substance. There was one report of flag burning last year. . .whoa. . .better rush to amend the federal constitution.

Meanwhile, people will likely continue to wear the flag as clothing, decorate their Fourth of July picnic tables with it as a tablecloth, use flag napkins, eat off the stars and stripes paper plates and forget to lower it when it storms.

But when you have a Congress that can only manage special sessions to pass special rights legislation for a braindead woman or meet for a fast late night voice vote to (almost) repudiate themselves for neglecting to pass anti-lynching laws decades ago, then you get the picture of how impotent our government has become. Even with the lynching legislation, they couldn't get all of the Republicans to sign on as co-sponsors...

This is, of course, an important constitutional amendment...why, as necessary as those that granted women the right to vote, or established our freedom of speech. It is a pointed example of just how much esteem our current government holds toward the document establishing our republic.

If I want to smoke my joints with American Flag Zig Zag papers thats my right.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Meanwhile, people will likely continue to wear the flag as clothing, decorate their Fourth of July picnic tables with it as a tablecloth, use flag napkins, eat off the stars and stripes paper plates and forget to lower it when it storms.

Yeah and the ones cheering for this are the same ones with the old tattered, mangled, sun faded antenna flag from September 13th 2001 who haven't the forethought that they're disrespecting it just as much. If one can be jailed/fined/whatever for burning then one should be jailed for keeping a weather-beaten flag on their property.

If I were poor, I would still think anything socialistic is wrong. Those who are even ridiculously rich, though some may have that without being a result of their own efforts, should still be treated the same as anyone else. Getting taxed at a greater % just because you have more is not right. Many who are rich worked VERY hard to get there, and many who are poor just are not willing to do what it takes. Hard work shouldn't be rewarded with the losing more money to the government.

I think ForemanRules should just run the world. He clearly knows everything. EVERYTHING.

well...well....

Jail for this one too. . .?

Or how bout...

And...

Or maybe...