<p>
</p>
<p>That’s rediculous.</p>
<p>
This is naive. Every nation has its share of positive and negative contributions to the world. The United States government, for example, is responsible for the merciless genocide of 99% of Native Americans. And “humankind’s greatest progresser” is the only developed nation to still employ the death penalty, and one of the few that has not had a minority or female chief executive.</p>
<p>Now, I’m not saying I hate America, by any means. It’s just that the moment a majority of people stop criticizing the government, autocracy begins to develop.</p>
<p>^ None of those things whether the American geonicide or death penalty matter in those two statements I said - liberator and progresser/advancer of humankind. The Death penalty and the native american plight have NO Relation to that. It is your statement that is naive. I am extremely educated about all these anti-us arguments, and in the end they all rattle down to the same “Native american geonicide World imperialism latin american dictatorships indoensia suharto geonicide death penalty economic stratification inequality rich rule over the poor rararar” </p>
<p>The history of a country and the small aspects of a country are UNIMPORTANT in the face of the future of the country and the world. What does it matter in the end if the death penalty exists or the geonicide? Obviously America’s history and current plate is dipped in blood, but so is that of every other country in the world. You don’t see people hounding mongolia do you? Mongolia destroyed almost all western/eastern civillization along with over countless millions of people. The same w/ the female chief executive - it’s a MINOR point, that isn’t important at all in the face of the greater actions America has stood for and led througout the world. America’s defeat of Nazi Germany and the Communist Empire give it enough heroic crededance to justify it’s current position. If either those had spread without the united states there to block the way, no one would be speaking about the death penalty, female presidents or such.</p>
<p>It’s protected speech and it should stay that way. I would only burn a flag if they outlawed it, because that would be a quintessentially un-American thing to do. If you don’t like it, counter-protest. Limiting speech that is at worst hurtful and disrespectful is an irresponsible thing to do.</p>
<p>I am totally for flag burning. While I would never do it, I think everyone should have a right to.</p>
<p>
They have every relation to it. You claim that the United States is a liberator/“progresser” (which, by the way, is not a word) of mankind. While that may be true in some instances, the Native American genocide and the continued use of the death penalty show that the US is also a destroyer, or, following your formula for word creation, “regresser” of mankind.</p>
<p>
So you are saying that genocide doesn’t matter? If so, what exactly made Nazi Germany so much more evil than America? Is it because the SS wore black uniforms? Is that it? Or because they preemptively attacked another country? Oh wait, the US did that too. Oops.</p>
<p>
Hahaha…
How old are you? Seriously? Please complete sixth grade before trying to respond again.</p>
<p>
And if you had your way with the First Amendment, no one would be speaking about the death penalty, female presidents, or such either. I’m just glad that we don’t have people like you on the Supreme Court. I’m glad that our judges love our Constitution more than they love our flag.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with it, but it’s protected symbolic speech. </p>
<p>After all, isn’t the 1st amendment all about protecting the views/opinions of the minority – especially when those views aren’t palatable?</p>
<p>I heavily disagree with flag burning. I believe it is an insult to the nation and the people that work so hard for it whether it be those in the military or any citizen for that matter.</p>
<p>I have no reason to want to burn the flag, but it’s ridiculous to call this country the land of the free and then try and ban flag burning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our Judges are reasonable people - they understand when issues of national interest/security trump minor infractions upon civil liberties. I’m not supporting a fascist America if that’s what your hinting at, I’m simply saying that to openly allow actions that border on treason is not how any functional country should operate as.</p>
<p>It’s not at all borderline treason.</p>
<p>There is one crime defined, to my knowledge, in the Constitution: Treason.</p>
<p>Article III, section II(or III, I forget, to be honest.)</p>
<p>In short, it defines treason as either starting an insurrection or giving aid to the enemy. It was alone defined so that actions against the mainstream but not hurting others would not be called treason and corrupt the principles the country was founded on.</p>
<p>It is not treason. It is not borderline treason. It is, in fact, emphatically not treason.</p>
<p>Actually it’s Article III Section III</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure burning a flag gives comfort to the Iraqi insurgents, but I see your point that it is not ‘outright’ treason, even though if in the right circumstances it could quickly become so.</p>
<p>Comfort, I’d say, was not meant to be “feeling good” but to provide lodging for enemies.</p>
<p>Yes a liberal literal judge might agree with you, but they are not quite as common as any other type, and it’s honestly doubtful that most anyone cares if an American burns an American flag. Doesn’t mean a thing. Ergo, it really isn’t comfort. </p>
<p>Also, it says one must be adhering to the enemies. Burning a flag to (somehow) destroy the United States at the urging of Sadaam would be both treason and extremely unlikely.</p>