(12-01-2016 12:37 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  \

1. Your first paragraph is the logical equivalent of saying there are lemons, therefore there are no lemons. You're wrong in assuming that disproves my point in any way. Yes, there are a variety of ways that non-issues are used to distract the masses from their losses. That truth doesn't mean that the flag burning "controversy" isn't one of the ways. Quite to the contrary, other non-issues are a proof of a willingness to exploit others.

Not even remotely close. You once again continue to fail to understand my point. I don't assume it disproves yours.... because I don't care about yours. If you don't care about mine either, that's fine... but continuing to ignore what I'm talking about and continuing to scream yours even louder is not constructive... or adult.

Your analogy isn't good. I'll try and use it because It makes a funny comparison, but it's not good.

We have laws against lemons. Nobody has EVER denied that. Since the original lemon law, we have written additional laws that make it an extra or SPECIAL crime if the car is a hybrid, or a crossover or has 3 wheels as opposed to being a traditional 4 door sedan. I've tried repeatedly to point out the inherent lack of 'fairness' to 4 door sedans, and it has fallen on deaf ears... so I'm done trying that. In your example, these are the powers that the government has taken... I can't get them to give them back, so my alternative is to lobby for the inclusion of trucks, and sedans, and sports cars and motorcycles... such that the now everyone has those 'special' crimes. The net impact is that the original law against lemons applies equally to all cars again.

If you don't understand, I suggest you read "Star-Bellied Sneeches' by Dr Suess. It's essentially the same argument... or myth, power value by Dr Gilbert Cuthbertson. Among its many points, it notes that the difference between communism (where the state owns everything and the people own nothing) and socialism (where the people own everything and the state owns nothing) is fundamentally nothing.

Quote:2. Your second paragraph isn't overly coherent. It's my understanding that you see yourself as some kind of warrior fighting against the moral decay of the United States as embodied by some group of unnamed individuals bent on burning American flags for some equally unknown reason. If that's how you see yourself, then I can almost guarantee that you're being fleeced. Someone (whoever is propagating this as an "issue") is taking something (money) from you with one hand while you stare at their other hand (or, more accurately, focus your attention on this "issue"). And yes, all government policies have winners and losers, but, no, not all policies are shamelessly (and thinly) whitewashed money grabs from the masses by the few elite.

These heavy-handed and obvious ploys are the stuff of poorly-run 2nd and 3rd world countries. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but it won't change the reality of what's happening. Yes, there are people who really, really want this to go through. But me wanting a lemon to not be a lemon doesn't make a lemon not a lemon.

Yeah... that's all completely in your head. When your only weapon is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail... and this seems to be what you're doing.

I don't care that much about this particular issue. I actually agree with what I think you're saying and that is that the government way oversteps it boundaries. I believe this 110%. What I take issue with is that you seem to be content to sit back and claim some sort of moral superiority because you're 'above' these sorts of arguments, ignoring that those arguments are taking place, regardless of your disdain for them.

I've tried that. It doesn't work. In fact, it actually exacerbates the problem because there is little support for ACTUALLY reducing government, and instead we merely have competing lists of 'special' rules.

My only hope is that I can convince enough of those people that FAIRNESS has to apply to everyone in every situation, otherwise it can't possibly be 'fair'. I think it far easier to ask people why THIS OTHER group of cars shouldn't get the same treatment under the lemon laws as THAT group of cars... rather than arguing that THEIR cars shouldn't get special treatment.

You can disagree with me... and that is fine... but your disagreement doesn't make me 'wrong'.

I took a similar position on gay marriage. The problem there is that at some point in our past, the government decided that it needed to 'encourage' marriage... so it defined it and assigned benefits to it. Now we're having to re-define marriage... and i can think of numerous other 'family units' that are deserving of the same 'encouragement'. One solution is to keep adding to the original list.... but all that does is keep the debate going forever and causing the problems you're against. Instead, i think the better answer is for the government to stop defining marriage and assigning benefits based on those definitions.

Flag burning makes no sense to me as a way to bring attention to whatever cause the protestor is supporting. It doesn't make people want to engage in conversation. It generally makes them want to kick the protestor's ass; which seems counterproductive. Still, it shouldn't be illegal.

You know, something that puzzles me. We have all these idiots, Libturds, gays, even illegals burning American flags and there's no beating of heads with bats and such. But can you imagine the noise, anger, if one of the Mexican flags that some of these idiots carry was burned. You would hear it all the way to Mexico City. As for me if the Mexican government made a fuss over this then all they have to do is repatriate their people then they wouldn't have to worry about it.

The American Press would cry foul and xenophobia all year.

(12-01-2016 09:14 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  Flag burning makes no sense to me as a way to bring attention to whatever cause the protestor is supporting. It doesn't make people want to engage in conversation. It generally makes them want to kick the protestor's ass; which seems counterproductive. Still, it shouldn't be illegal.

This. It is probably the most ineffective from of civil protest one could engage in. What should happen is people should ostracize the hell out of anyone they see doing such nonsense. Make their lives miserable as punishment.

(12-01-2016 09:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  You know, something that puzzles me. We have all these idiots, Libturds, gays, even illegals burning American flags and there's no beating of heads with bats and such. But can you imagine the noise, anger, if one of the Mexican flags that some of these idiots carry was burned. You would hear it all the way to Mexico City. As for me if the Mexican government made a fuss over this then all they have to do is repatriate their people then they wouldn't have to worry about it.

The American Press would cry foul and xenophobia all year.

You bring up a good point. I can't say I've seen any right wing Mexican flag burning.

(11-30-2016 07:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Like I said in the other thread I like the answer our Fire Marshall has for flag burning. If he catches someone burning a flag he will write them two tickets: one for a violation of the county burn ordinance and another for a violation of South Carolina open burning regulations.

The two tickets call for around $2600 in fines. If the flag they burn does not belong to them you get into other criminal statutes and additional charges.

Ah, the good ol' Capone method. I like it. Want them for one thing, get 'em for something else.

(12-01-2016 07:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 12:37 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  \

1. Your first paragraph is the logical equivalent of saying there are lemons, therefore there are no lemons. You're wrong in assuming that disproves my point in any way. Yes, there are a variety of ways that non-issues are used to distract the masses from their losses. That truth doesn't mean that the flag burning "controversy" isn't one of the ways. Quite to the contrary, other non-issues are a proof of a willingness to exploit others.

Not even remotely close. You once again continue to fail to understand my point. I don't assume it disproves yours.... because I don't care about yours. If you don't care about mine either, that's fine... but continuing to ignore what I'm talking about and continuing to scream yours even louder is not constructive... or adult.

Your analogy isn't good. I'll try and use it because It makes a funny comparison, but it's not good.

We have laws against lemons. Nobody has EVER denied that. Since the original lemon law, we have written additional laws that make it an extra or SPECIAL crime if the car is a hybrid, or a crossover or has 3 wheels as opposed to being a traditional 4 door sedan. I've tried repeatedly to point out the inherent lack of 'fairness' to 4 door sedans, and it has fallen on deaf ears... so I'm done trying that. In your example, these are the powers that the government has taken... I can't get them to give them back, so my alternative is to lobby for the inclusion of trucks, and sedans, and sports cars and motorcycles... such that the now everyone has those 'special' crimes. The net impact is that the original law against lemons applies equally to all cars again.

If you don't understand, I suggest you read "Star-Bellied Sneeches' by Dr Suess. It's essentially the same argument... or myth, power value by Dr Gilbert Cuthbertson. Among its many points, it notes that the difference between communism (where the state owns everything and the people own nothing) and socialism (where the people own everything and the state owns nothing) is fundamentally nothing.

Quote:2. Your second paragraph isn't overly coherent. It's my understanding that you see yourself as some kind of warrior fighting against the moral decay of the United States as embodied by some group of unnamed individuals bent on burning American flags for some equally unknown reason. If that's how you see yourself, then I can almost guarantee that you're being fleeced. Someone (whoever is propagating this as an "issue") is taking something (money) from you with one hand while you stare at their other hand (or, more accurately, focus your attention on this "issue"). And yes, all government policies have winners and losers, but, no, not all policies are shamelessly (and thinly) whitewashed money grabs from the masses by the few elite.

These heavy-handed and obvious ploys are the stuff of poorly-run 2nd and 3rd world countries. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but it won't change the reality of what's happening. Yes, there are people who really, really want this to go through. But me wanting a lemon to not be a lemon doesn't make a lemon not a lemon.

Yeah... that's all completely in your head. When your only weapon is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail... and this seems to be what you're doing.

I don't care that much about this particular issue. I actually agree with what I think you're saying and that is that the government way oversteps it boundaries. I believe this 110%. What I take issue with is that you seem to be content to sit back and claim some sort of moral superiority because you're 'above' these sorts of arguments, ignoring that those arguments are taking place, regardless of your disdain for them.

I've tried that. It doesn't work. In fact, it actually exacerbates the problem because there is little support for ACTUALLY reducing government, and instead we merely have competing lists of 'special' rules.

My only hope is that I can convince enough of those people that FAIRNESS has to apply to everyone in every situation, otherwise it can't possibly be 'fair'. I think it far easier to ask people why THIS OTHER group of cars shouldn't get the same treatment under the lemon laws as THAT group of cars... rather than arguing that THEIR cars shouldn't get special treatment.

You can disagree with me... and that is fine... but your disagreement doesn't make me 'wrong'.

I took a similar position on gay marriage. The problem there is that at some point in our past, the government decided that it needed to 'encourage' marriage... so it defined it and assigned benefits to it. Now we're having to re-define marriage... and i can think of numerous other 'family units' that are deserving of the same 'encouragement'. One solution is to keep adding to the original list.... but all that does is keep the debate going forever and causing the problems you're against. Instead, i think the better answer is for the government to stop defining marriage and assigning benefits based on those definitions.

What are you talking about? Honestly, read what you wrote.

"I'm talking about and continuing to scream yours even louder is not constructive... or adult."

The above quote is A) not coherent and B) has no readily apparent nexus to anything that I wrote.

That said, your following paragraph did actually clarify your point, but it really doesn't speak to the issue. All it means is that you're drinking the Kool Aid. But that doesn't change the fact that you're picking up someone's tab.

Just like I said earlier, you can really, really want a car to not be a lemon. But if it's a lemon, it's a lemon.

You really, really want this issue to matter because you apparently see yourself as some kind of America-loving defender of morality (although you don't seem to want to admit it). But, even though I genuinely believe your heart is in the right place, someone is taking advantage of you. You're no different than the crackpot Russians who are blinded by nationalism and feel victimized by the rest of the world (especially the USA), but not their own government (see the Russian soccer brawls in France earlier this year).

And it's not that I'm above the fight. Quite to the contrary, I'm the one fighting the fight. You're the one who is getting lost on the way to the battle.

Like I said earlier in this post, Putin is using this tactic in Russia right now, and like I said in an earlier post, the Romans used it thousands of years ago. This is a very old, very effective trick.

Disagreeing with me isn't what makes you wrong. Denying that you're getting screwed while you're getting screwed is what makes you wrong. If you really don't care to open your eyes, then you are ignorant. I don't know what else to say.

I also don't think that there's anything that anybody on the planet could say to change your mind, but for your own sake, think about the fact that you're getting worked up at the prospect of some over-privileged teen punk in some upscale suburb burning a piece of cloth.

Does that really sound like a real issue to you?

(12-02-2016 08:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 09:14 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  Flag burning makes no sense to me as a way to bring attention to whatever cause the protestor is supporting. It doesn't make people want to engage in conversation. It generally makes them want to kick the protestor's ass; which seems counterproductive. Still, it shouldn't be illegal.

This. It is probably the most ineffective from of civil protest one could engage in. What should happen is people should ostracize the hell out of anyone they see doing such nonsense. Make their lives miserable as punishment.

Anybody who is burning American flags is probably already miserable as heck and ostracized.

Seriously, find one modern example of someone who burned an Anerican flag in the US that wasn't at least one of the two.

[EDIT: However, I agree w/ your general sentiment.]

(12-02-2016 08:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Like I said in the other thread I like the answer our Fire Marshall has for flag burning. If he catches someone burning a flag he will write them two tickets: one for a violation of the county burn ordinance and another for a violation of South Carolina open burning regulations.

The two tickets call for around $2600 in fines. If the flag they burn does not belong to them you get into other criminal statutes and additional charges.

Ah, the good ol' Capone method. I like it. Want them for one thing, get 'em for something else.

Yup.

Flag burner "You can't write me a ticket for burning the flag"

Fire Marshall "I'm not. I'm writing you tickets for burning nylon which is prohibited by state and local ordinance. You have the right to burn the flag, but not to burn nylon."

Kaplony, have you guys ever had to wear polyester pants for work? I don't know how much noise we made when we found out that the city wanted to order poly pants for us. Man, that stuff really sticks to you when it burns. The biggest mistake in the world for firefighters.

(12-02-2016 05:10 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Kaplony, have you guys ever had to wear polyester pants for work? I don't know how much noise we made when we found out that the city wanted to order poly pants for us. Man, that stuff really sticks to you when it burns. The biggest mistake in the world for firefighters.

We did for about the first year I was there, then we went to cotton rip-stop blue BDU style pants and cotton polos. Not only safer but both a whole lot more comfortable and durable. I have several sets of BDU pants that are over 10 years old that I still wear. They are faded of course but still in great shape.

(12-02-2016 04:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  What are you talking about? Honestly, read what you wrote.

"I'm talking about and continuing to scream yours even louder is not constructive... or adult."

The above quote is A) not coherent and B) has no readily apparent nexus to anything that I wrote.

Maybe because that's once again not what I said. But you're proving what I said to be true. What I said was:

continuing to ignore what I'm talking about and continuing to scream yours even louder is not constructive... or adult."

and you are only proving that you aren't paying attention to my responses and just screaming about your own point.

You do it again later....

Quote:That said, your following paragraph did actually clarify your point, but it really doesn't speak to the issue. All it means is that you're drinking the Kool Aid. But that doesn't change the fact that you're picking up someone's tab.

It speaks to MY Point, just not yours.

Drinking WHAT kool aid? We seem to agree on the issue of an over-bearing and manipulative government, and just have different approaches to fixing it.

Quote:Just like I said earlier, you can really, really want a car to not be a lemon. But if it's a lemon, it's a lemon.

And just like I said, this is a horrible analogy. We're not talking about 'lemons'. We're talking about different laws for 'hybrid' lemons vs 'sedan' lemons.

Doesn't have anything to do with not wanting a car to be a lemon... merely with wanting 'all lemons to be treated equally'.

Quote:You really, really want this issue to matter because you apparently see yourself as some kind of America-loving defender of morality (although you don't seem to want to admit it).

This is the second time you've made this claim... What part of
I don't care that much about this particular issue. I actually agree with what I think you're saying and that is that the government way oversteps it boundaries. I believe this 110%.

or

it's far from the top of My agenda, but it's also not a particularly politically divisive one either.....

I'd be very happy for the government to not be involved at all in things like this...

is not clear to you or comes across as it being a big deal?

Once again you ignore what i write in favor of things you want to scream.

Quote:And it's not that I'm above the fight. Quite to the contrary, I'm the one fighting the fight. You're the one who is getting lost on the way to the battle.

Once again, you ignore what I say... to make matters worse, you accuse me of being a 'warrior' of some sort, as if it's a bad thing, yet you also claim to be one here yourself.

I've tried your way. IMO it doesn't work. If you think my way doesn't work either, that's fine. That doesn't prove that it doesn't... It's just your opinion.

And I never said you were above the fight over the issue, I said you are trying to be above 'the debate'... which is precisely what you're doing by ignoring what I say and continuing to spout demonstrably untrue comments about 'what I believe'.

It's as if you think that continuing to accuse me of caring that much about burning of a flag over my repeated corrections is constructive debate. You may as well say "I know you are but what am I?"

It's not about the flag/cars that are lemons. It's about whether people (hybrids or sedans using your example) are treated equally under the (lemon) law or not.

Let me make it MORE clear.

Make it so that calling someone 'gay' or 'the n word' or refusing to cater their wedding is offensive/insulting, but not a hate crime or a defense to assault and I could care less if you burn a flag. What I don't like is that this isn't currently the case. That was the essential premise of the OP. He didn't talk about burning the American flag.

Clear?

Quote:Like I said earlier in this post, Putin is using this tactic in Russia right now, and like I said in an earlier post, the Romans used it thousands of years ago. This is a very old, very effective trick.

Great. When we install an Emperor or someone who leads through fear and brutality, I agree that your way will be extremely effective.

Quote:Disagreeing with me isn't what makes you wrong. Denying that you're getting screwed while you're getting screwed is what makes you wrong. If you really don't care to open your eyes, then you are ignorant. I don't know what else to say.

You might start by acknowledging that I've repeatedly said we ARE getting screwed. That would be step 1. I've repeatedly tried to agree with you on this... and you ignore me.

Quote:I also don't think that there's anything that anybody on the planet could say to change your mind, but for your own sake, think about the fact that you're getting worked up at the prospect of some over-privileged teen punk in some upscale suburb burning a piece of cloth.

Does that really sound like a real issue to you?

No, hence my 'I don't care that much about this issue' comment. Once again, you ignore what I say in favor of your false narrative.

It's not about the burning of a flag.

It's about 'equal treatment under the law'. The legality of burning of the American Flag relative to the likely 'hate crime' charge of burning a 'rainbow' flag suggested by the OP is what I'm talking about.... or the fact that beating someone up for calling you a name might be a defense to assault, IF the name were on a special list. Even that isn't the 'issue'... they are merely examples of 'the issue'. THE ISSUE is equal treatment under the law... which is important enough that there are probably a dozen references to it in the Constitution.

If you don't care about THAT, then feel free to stop responding. Nobody is putting a gun to your head...

If you just want to keep pretending that I'm all worked up about flag burning, then I'll stop responding.