How do you feel about this illegal act?

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Like it or not, these emotions are associated with the flag, any flag. Having strong emotions about something that symbolizes so much is natural. Because a KKK member holds up my flag and screams "white power" I don't feel any differently about it. It is a shame that flags are associated with racism. I don't think that ruins the flag for everyone.

It just depends on whether someone feels strongly about flags in the first place. A lot of people just don't. Others don't trust a flag to truly and adequately symbolise their thoughts or emotions in a way that isn't going to be misconstrued by someone else. And lastly, in places where a flag can be flown, it is a choice to fly it or not, and people make the judgement call and act accordingly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher I will paraphrase what you said in a recent thread, "I am a firm believer in the fact that just because you can doesn't mean you should." If you are a guest in another country you should respect it's traditions and mores.

Respecting a tradition is not the same as taking part in that tradition. It's someone else's tradition - not yours. If you are a 'guest' - as in, not an immigrant seeking permanent domicile - then it could be construed as rude at best or disengenous at worst to take on traditions that you cannot claim as your heritage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Going into another society, expecting to live there, and enjoy all the advantages that entails while simultaneously griping about it's nationalism is rude and wrong. If I were visiting Italy, Korea, Turkey or Tunisia I would expect to respect their societies. And if I were in England I would bow to the flag and salute the Queen, not because I have to, but because it is right and respectful of me as a guest.

Well, if you're an American and you bow to another flag or salute a monarch, you automatically are disrespecting your own nation. Funny how you can't win either way, if you take it from that point of view.

For example, living as an American in Scotland, I personally find it extremely amusing to see Americans coming over and buying/wearing kilts in an attempt to connect with their heritage. Most Scots find it rather amusing or annoying, depending on who you talk to. "Respecting the local tradition" is an awfully ambiguous statement. Some may prefer that you not take part in the local tradition in order to properly respect it. Certainly one should make sure that the locals aren't going to be offended by your behaviour. But you are absolutely wrong to say that as a guest in the UK you should bow to the flag and salute the queen. The average Brit doesn't do either, and would not expect or ask a foreigner to do it in some vain attempt to respect the local culture.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I love when people talk about defense spending cuts. That generally means that people who, with families, are already at Public Assistance level of income, are going to make even less money. It also means, generally speaking, that soldiers' housing on post is going to continue being outdated and underkept because the funding isn't there to update it every decade or so. It also means that civilian doctors working for the military stand to make less money, therefore potentially compromising care for civilian dependents. It also means that my brother, while rattling around in the sandbox in a 30 year old HMV is'nt likely to get new material protective gear. He can keep wearing vietnam era LBEs etc. I love defense spending cuts. They're great.

Well, in my family it meant that my grandfather's contribution as a Merchant Marine meant nothing until 1995. He served for four years in WWII, below the waterline; the MM's had one of the highest percentage of casualties throughout the war, where 1 out of 24 died, and no one wanted to serve below the waterline in the boiler rooms because if the ship took a hit, those in the boiler room were basically dead. Anyway, after the war they told the MM's that since they earned a bit more than the average soldier did during the war, they did not qualify for the GI bill and their years of service did not count, they were not veterans, and anything set aside specifically for veterans (healthcare, pensions, even military funerals, etc) did not apply to them. Therefore, they could and were drafted into Korea. My grandfather has never forgiven the US government for this betrayal, and the years of hardship my family went through are testament to the ability of the government to forget about a soldier's sacrifice just as soon as spout off about how much soldiers mean to them. He wasn't even given veteran status until the late 1980s.

So yes, I have a decent understanding of some of what I'm talking about. It means I don't automatically trust that the government takes care of its troops or that it isn't responsible for failures that take the lives of our troops, undermine our position in world politics, and generally make us the most hated country in the world. To me, supporting the troops means making sure all those things you mention above are funded. To the government, defense spending often means pork barrel projects like Star Wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by both the House and the Senate. I'm not going to debate whether we *should* be there or not. That's pointless. We can armchair quarterback until pigs fly, but it's not going to change the fact that we ARE there. Protester's energy would be better spent finding solutions to pull the troops out of Iraq that won't be harmful to Iraq as a nation or our interests. Bitching and moaning about what is already done isn't going to solve anything.

I wasn't debating the war. I was merely stating that those that dissent against war (and everything else I listed) aren't necessarily unpatriotic f*ckwits. Some of us are quite patriotic indeed.

 

[frocher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist It just depends on whether someone feels strongly about flags in the first place. A lot of people just don't. Others don't trust a flag to truly and adequately symbolise their thoughts or emotions in a way that isn't going to be misconstrued by someone else. And lastly, in places where a flag can be flown, it is a choice to fly it or not, and people make the judgement call and act accordingly.

Yes it does, my point is that one shouldn't be afraid to fly their flag because it is associated with some unsavory group.



Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Respecting a tradition is not the same as taking part in that tradition. It's someone else's tradition - not yours. If you are a 'guest' - as in, not an immigrant seeking permanent domicile - then it could be construed as rude at best or disengenous at worst to take on traditions that you cannot claim as your heritage.

I didn't say take them on I said respect them, there is a big difference.



Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Well, if you're an American and you bow to another flag or salute a monarch, you automatically are disrespecting your own nation. Funny how you can't win either way, if you take it from that point of view. For example, living as an American in Scotland, I personally find it extremely amusing to see Americans coming over and buying/wearing kilts in an attempt to connect with their heritage. Most Scots find it rather amusing or annoying, depending on who you talk to. "Respecting the local tradition" is an awfully ambiguous statement. Some may prefer that you not take part in the local tradition in order to properly respect it. Certainly one should make sure that the locals aren't going to be offended by your behaviour. But you are absolutely wrong to say that as a guest in the UK you should bow to the flag and salute the queen. The average Brit doesn't do either, and would not expect or ask a foreigner to do it in some vain attempt to respect the local culture.

Perhaps your definition of respect is very different than mine. By respect I meant live by the laws and realize that their traditions may not necessarily be your own. If everyone else stood up during the national anthem or when an important figure came in, I would as well, regardless of what country I was in. I believe the average person in any country would respect that more than me not doing so. I don't believe that is disrespecting my own country or flag. Respecting local traditions does not mean aping them or acting foolish.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Yes it does, my point is that one shouldn't be afraid to fly their flag because it is associated with some unsavory group.

Then let me be clearer. In the UK, you get a choice of flags you can fly. The flag of Great Britain represents the four countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within each country you can fly that country's flag, or you can fly the flag that represents the union. This is akin to flying the State flag and/or flying the American flag.

In some southern US states, the Confederate flag is still used by local people. It can and does offend some people - of all colours. However, the Confederate flag represents a part of history to some people, and for others its very personal because of family ancestors involved in the Civil War. It's also obviously appropriated by racist groups. So do you have the right to fly the Confederate flag, even if it might make you look like a stereotypical white supremacist to all that do not personally know you? I would argue you absolutely have the right to fly it, so long as it's not on federal or state government property. But equally, people have the right to be offended by it, and make instant judgements about you that you may find to be totally at odds with who you are and what you believe.

In a nutshell, the Confederate flag issue is an analogy for the problem faced by some English people living in certain areas of England. Accordingly, many choose not to fly or display on themselves the St George's Cross unless England's national football team is playing. Others don't give a damn and do whatever they want regarding flying the flag, whenever they want, as is their right. Others choose not to fly it until they feel more secure about what it means in Britain today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Perhaps your definition of respect is very different than mine. By respect I meant live by the laws and realize that their traditions may not necessarily be your own. If everyone else stood up during the national anthem or when an important figure came in, I would as well, regardless of what country I was in. I believe the average person in any country would respect that more than me not doing so. I don't believe that is disrespecting my own country or flag. Respecting local traditions does not mean aping them or acting foolish.

Whether you're a 'guest' or an immigrant, you are obliged to adhere to that country's laws whether you want to or not, or face the consequences. As to everything else you say, I don't disagree. For example, if you were in the average Brit's house on Christmas Day, at 3:00 on BBC1, the queen gives her annual Christmas Day Speech. It is usually one of the only speeches given on terrestrial television during the whole year. In my husband's family (and everyone else we know), no one bloody watches it. In fact, many people take great delight in making sure there's something else far more interesting on to watch. If you were staying with us, you would end up not seeing the speech. If you were at someone else's, and they were watching the speech, you probably wouldn't dare ask to change the channel because it isn't your tv - not because it's not your queen. Does that mean you're respecting local tradition? Probably.

 

[Dizzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist No, that's the assumption made about people who burn the flag, or don't treat it with the deference that others believe it should be treated. Furthermore, I do not believe that when someone burns the American flag they are desecrating the nation. They are expressing themselves and they have a right to do that. Whether or not that right was bought by someone in the military, the military and the families of the military do not dictate what a non-military person can and cannot do to the flag, outside the boundaries of the law.

They can express themselves as they please, but they are not entitled to express themselves and not expect repercussion. I've seen, more often than not, those of us who are somehow connected to someone in the military will remind them that their rights were given to them by a serviceman.

And you may not believe that burning the flag is desecration of the nation, but I beg to differ. The flag is a symbol of a nation, and by desecrating it I feel it's desecration of a nation.


Quote:

Here's another unpopular fact: what you're saying is not necessarily true for a lot of people who serve in the military. There are a lot of reasons why people serve. Many of my friends are doing it because they want to have a chance at a college education and have no other way of finding the money. Others are avoiding jail by doing time in the military. And still others like the military lifestyle or want a military career for themselves - the patriotism espoused is useful here, but not necessarily a prerequisite. My brother is being offered defense jobs all the time - and is constantly being asked to join the military despite his health conditions - and the only reason why he considers it is because the money offered is extraordinarily high. Defense - which I just call 'war' in my mind, is a very good business indeed.

Never said that every single member who joined did so due to pride in the nation. But you can't negate the fact that there ARE people who have joined (in years past) the military because they were asked to defend their country. Just because we, at one time, did not have a standing military doesn't mean that the men & women who gave life, limb, etc. haven't sacrificed. That doesn't mean that the families who were separated by the first Gulf War didn't suffer the effects of it- my parents are proof enough of that.

People don't join the military to get rich, I don't think people expect to. My father certainly never got rich after 20 years AD, and my brother is far from it with 6 years AD. They have to have some incentive to get people in and keep them there since it's a hard life, a hard job, and not everyone can do it.

Quote:

The point is that there are many people who believe that whatever the military is or isn't, the administration in charge of the military has to be carefully examined every single day so that soldiers do not die needlessly and our country isn't embroiled in politics of which we should not be involved. Support the troops by all means, but being supportive means you still have the right to state your opinion and debate issues openly and honestly.

I couldn't agree with you more, but that opinion doesn't need to involve our flag- which is the topic here.

Quote:

My thoughts on this: I think it's heartbreaking for soldiers who begin to think their sacrifice was ultimately in vain because those that were in charge were arrogant, self-seeking and ultimately disregarding the Constitution by sending troops/money/weapons/etc where they never should have been in the first place. The choice left to a soldier (especially veterans for example) is to either cling to the patriotism and not question those in charge, or to get very hurt and angry and start calling for accountability. I truly believe the administration has less regard for the soldiers and their feelings than the average member of the public. My mother worked in a Veterans Administration Hospital and saw the "loving" neglect of the government every day.

There are more choices for the serviceman than cling to blind patriotism or blind anger. My brother, currently AD, has taken it upon himself to get involved. I've been with him for a good amount of events he's gone to or helped organize, and I can say that he never once took it out on our flag.

We realize that for as much as we may hate what our Congress Critters are doing, that doesn't in any way involve our flag or our patriotism. Which means, we have never seen the reason in burning, flying improperly, or otherwise desecrating it. Marches, protests, letter writing campaigns, threats of not electing said Representative, forums, speeches, grassroots organizations, etc. are all absolutely wonderful ways of getting your message through better, quicker and more effectively. That's my entire point.

I have my own issues with gov't healthcare (which is why I hate universal healthcare, but anyway), but this is not the thread for it.

Quote:

It may be extremely difficult to see love and patriotism in the eyes of someone who is dissenting and choosing to show that dissent by burning a flag, or going on a march advocating the withdrawal of troops, or being involved in organisations that seem to be undermining the military by advocating peace and non-violent change. But that does not mean that it isn't there. And it doesn't mean that those protesting haven't thought about the issues or are somehow ignorant of the feelings of the soldier or military families. It just means that they look past the feelings to find the real issues that need to be resolved.

No, I don't question the patriotism of those who dissent. I firmly believe that dissent IS patriotic. But flag burning- to me and my family- will never be anything more than people crying for attention in the wrong way.

Protesting= Wonderful.
Flag burning = Not Wonderful.

 

[frocher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Whether you're a 'guest' or an immigrant, you are obliged to adhere to that country's laws whether you want to or not, or face the consequences.

Here is the crux of this thread's argument, at least for me. If I understand correctly, hanging that flag above the American one is illegal but there is no punishment for it. Therefore there are no consequences. However, if you live in a country, shouldn't you respect the laws and traditions even if you will not be punished?

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy They can express themselves as they please, but they are not entitled to express themselves and not expect repercussion. I've seen, more often than not, those of us who are somehow connected to someone in the military will remind them that their rights were given to them by a serviceman. And you may not believe that burning the flag is desecration of the nation, but I beg to differ. The flag is a symbol of a nation, and by desecrating it I feel it's desecration of a nation.

But it is not, nor should it be, illegal.

I believe it is distasteful. But I also believe it should stay legal, as it clearly falls under freedom of speech. In a nutshell, "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." (Justice William Brennan: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)).

I'm curious as to which side of the legality line you'd choose.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frocher Here is the crux of this thread's argument, at least for me. If I understand correctly, hanging that flag above the American one is illegal but there is no punishment for it. Therefore there are no consequences. However, if you live in a country, shouldn't you respect the laws and traditions even if you will not be punished?

Absolutely.

But that does not mean you abandon your brain and international standards for human rights if you feel the local laws and traditions are wrong.

 

[frocher]

.........

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy Never said that every single member who joined did so due to pride in the nation. But you can't negate the fact that there ARE people who have joined (in years past) the military because they were asked to defend their country. Just because we, at one time, did not have a standing military doesn't mean that the men & women who gave life, limb, etc. haven't sacrificed.

All of this - while passionately argued - is immaterial against the fact that the veteran in the film stole and damaged someone else's private property and essentially broke the law. If he really loves his country's laws, he could have:

1. Spoken with the owners of the shop and explained to them that they were breaking the law. They may not have known they were breaking the law - even the news media didn't bother to get the other side of the story.

2. If the owners persisted in breaking the law, the veteran could have spoken with local law enforcers.

At no point should he have taken the law into his own hands and then hypocritically pointed out that the flag's owners were in fact in breach of the law.

Only a few people in this thread have mentioned the veteran's actions. Others take refuge in what is essentially emotional blackmail in the form of misty-eyed patriotism in order to defend this man's actions. You can explain his actions all you want, but he is acting hypocritically and unlawfully, and is ironically pissing all over the laws he thinks he's defending.

All of that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he may be a veteran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy Marches, protests, letter writing campaigns, threats of not electing said Representative, forums, speeches, grassroots organizations, etc. are all absolutely wonderful ways of getting your message through better, quicker and more effectively. That's my entire point.

And that I agree with.

EDIT: I should say, the reason why I'm a little bit testy about this is because of statements like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy He's a vet that handled the situation in a non-violent way and rectified it. Too many people would have walked right on by and wouldn't have done a thing about it; I'm glad he fixed it.

 

[Dizzy]

I don't understand why it irks you though. It's a fact. He fixed the situation (the flag is no longer being flown improperly), he is a vet by his own admission, and many people probably did walk by and not say a damn thing to the owners or authorities.

I never said he didn't steal it. I never said that there weren't other ways of handling the situation.

I'm glad the situation is fixed. He, however, gets to deal with the repercussions (whatever they may be) of his actions, but that doesn't change that I like the fact that my flag is no longer being flown under another nation's in my own country.

Quote:

But it is not, nor should it be, illegal. I believe it is distasteful. But I also believe it should stay legal, as it clearly falls under freedom of speech. In a nutshell, "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." (Justice William Brennan: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)). I'm curious as to which side of the legality line you'd choose.

I never said that it was illegal.

My government has passed MANY pieces of legislation that I do not agree with. It is my opinion that desecration of the flag is pointless, rude, useless, and a multitude of other things. In short, I hate the fact that people do it, and although I see the reason WHY the gov't says they can do it, I don't have to like it, I don't have to agree with it, and I do neither. I fully believe that it is desecration, and it very well may be depending on whose opinion you follow, but that doesn't mean it is illegal.

But that doesn't mean that they can't do it.

I hate it, but as I've said, dissent is patriotic.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist 1. Spoken with the owners of the shop and explained to them that they were breaking the law. They may not have known they were breaking the law - even the news media didn't bother to get the other side of the story.

Do you REALLY think they were not doing it on purpose and had NO idea of the symbolism and patently obvious intent and offense behind their actions?
Really?
It was, more than likely, an intentional sign of disrespect to the US based on the current situation with immigration in this country.

 

[Beauty Mark]

You'd be surprised how ignorant people are. I personally didn't know it was illegal to fly another flag over the US one, with the said exceptions. To me, it's not an obvious wrongdoing, like killing people.

What should've happened is that they should've been told to take the flag down. It's polite. It's offensive if they intended for it to be symbolic that they value one country over the US, but until they were given an official warning, I don't think it was appropriate action for the vet to do that. God knows people put enough things in their windows/yards that offend me, but even if I were to find out it's illegal, I would go through proper channels and not take it into my own hands.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Do you REALLY think they were not doing it on purpose and had NO idea of the symbolism and patently obvious intent and offense behind their actions? Really? It was, more than likely, an intentional sign of disrespect to the US based on the current situation with immigration in this country.

Even so, it doesn't legally justify the vet's actions, and I think it's a huge stereotypical leap of faith you're taking there. Are you sure you don't just want to assume that? I would be very cautious about assuming maliciousness where ignorance is just as likely.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy I don't understand why it irks you though. It's a fact. He fixed the situation (the flag is no longer being flown improperly), he is a vet by his own admission, and many people probably did walk by and not say a damn thing to the owners or authorities.

I honestly think the veteran in question set it up so that he could vent his frustrations in his 15 minutes of fame for the camera. I find it a bit too coincidental that he happens to be there to do this when the media camera is right there waiting to see it happen, and by the media anchor's own admission, they were informed by some member of the public - probably the veteran himself.

Is it possible that others walked by and didn't know it was illegal? Perfectly possible!

Is it possible that others saw it and did know it was illegal and didn't do anything about it? Sure!

Either way, whoever could phone the local television news could phone the police. I'd bet it was the veteran. It honestly looks most likely that he was looking to get this brought up to stir up a stink on local broadcast news, waited until the cameras showed up and cut the flag at that point to make the point to the whole damned local area. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, so long as the news presents a non-biased report that explains that flying a foreign flag above the nation's flag is illegal, highlights the fact that a local passerbys - particularly the veteran - found it offensive, and then gets the other side of the story from the store owners or, if they didn't get a response, report that they tried to get a comment and were unable to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy I'm glad the situation is fixed. He, however, gets to deal with the repercussions (whatever they may be) of his actions, but that doesn't change that I like the fact that my flag is no longer being flown under another nation's in my own country.

Great. But my issue wasn't about your feelings or his feelings. My issue is that if one wants to see one law be upheld - especially if it's related to the honor of all service men and women who have sacrificed so much to defend all of our laws - one should be equally dispassionate about any other law, most especially if someone's actions are something you privately agree with but you know are actually illegal.

 

[lipstickandhate]

The more I think about this, the more embarassed I am about the entire situation. While I almost never agree w/ Justice Brennan (thats for that ratmist), I think he makes a very valid point: if we value free speech, we have to value all free speech including the more unsavory aspects of what our fellow citizens may be saying or doing.

I don't know why he had to cut the flag down- he could have sent letter to the local newspaper or news station to publicize it and I'm sure the community would have made quite clear that they found it inappropriate and pressured the owners to take it down.

Personally, I thought the flag was inappropriate but not as offensive as many other members on the board considered it to be. I also, however, do not come from a military family and I'm the first member of my family born in America, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.

I understand the power of flags though. My mom is from Derry and goes crazy everytime she sees a Union Jack. She is extremely anti-British to an absurd end and we weren't allowed to wear orange as children. As a result, I always viewed patriotism as a double-edged sword. I am proud to be American, but I'm more proud of our country's tolerance and other values than I am of our flag.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lipstickandhate The more I think about this, the more embarassed I am about the entire situation. While I almost never agree w/ Justice Brennan (thats for that ratmist), I think he makes a very valid point: if we value free speech, we have to value all free speech including the more unsavory aspects of what our fellow citizens may be saying or doing.

Cool. That's the only point I was trying to make with flag burning, though it doesn't really apply to the case of a clear violation of the law by having the Mexican flag flying above the American flag on the same flagpole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lipstickandhate I don't know why he had to cut the flag down- he could have sent letter to the local newspaper or news station to publicize it and I'm sure the community would have made quite clear that they found it inappropriate and pressured the owners to take it down.

Well, my question is why is it so damned hard to just *talk* to the people in question. Is it really so hard to do? Are our communities so divided that we can't even talk to each other anymore and work out our differences civilly? Does it really take a knife and an overly dramatic, obviously coordinated stunt? Isn't community relations and public peace worth at least a short chat, or a quick interview from the news station so their side could be given?

 

[Beauty Mark]

If he didn't want to directly talk to the people, couldn't he have called the police or someone like that? God knows I sometimes avoid direct confrontation, because I've had crazy neighbors and other people who go ballistic about people telling them they're wrong, so I *could* understand that. But this guy had no problem with letting his feelings known.

 

[Dizzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist My issue is that if one wants to see one law be upheld - especially if it's related to the honor of all service men and women who have sacrificed so much to defend all of our laws - one should be equally dispassionate about any other law, most especially if someone's actions are something you privately agree with but you know are actually illegal.

I never said "I'm glad he stole it". I'm saying I'm glad it's fixed.

It could have been fixed through other means.
He did not have to take it.
I'm not for favoring one law over another.

I'm glad it's fixed. Simple. I don't understand how you can equate me being glad that the situation is fixed with condoning illegal means of fixing it.

I said, he has to deal with the repercussions. I gave my opinion on flag desecration and how it differs with that of the Supreme Court's ruling. I gave my reasons why. I never said burning was illegal.

I never condoned flag stealing.

 

[SparklingWaves]

It appears that more focus is on how the vet should have corrected the issue than the what the people did. Old Glory is being attacked as worthless.

Do some agree with the following:
"Yeh, that flag is just a piece of woven polyester. Hey, it doesn't mean anything and neither does the Mexico old flag. I could just care less. Yeah, who needs a flag anyway? I don't need a symbol. I can do and say whatever I want.

Oh, those people didn't know what they were doing, they were so innocent having their Mexico flag flying over the American flag outside that nice bar.

It's that bad old vet's problem. He should have gotten on a computer and typed up a very well worded letter to his representatives and the bar owner. He needed to send it return receipt too. He needed to properly wait for a reply. I say at least 3 months. If they didn't reply, he needed to start all over again. If they still didn't reply, he needed to make an appointment with his representative and dress up nicely. He need to arrive early. He needed to have his papers showing he was a vet. He should have the law handy and an outline of why this was against the law. Maybe, he needed to have it typed in Spanish too just in case. He could go to the bar with an interpreter too. I mean just in case. ((What?))

Point the finger at the instigator.


The above ridiculous scenerio reminds me of how people chop a woman from every angle after she has been attacked by a perpetrator. They don't chop up the perpetrator. No No No. He is always innocent. They make excuses for him. He did not hurt her that bad or he had a bad childhood. Hey, he is even an alcoholic too. He is a man, so he can't control himself. She egged him by wearing that skirt at night. She should know better than to go to the mall by herself. ((What?))

I am sure some will not agree with that analogy either. That's okay too. Ignorance is never an excuse on this topic of the flag. Think about what people have to go through to become a US citizen. They learn this - "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America (NOT Mexico) and to the Republic for which it STANDS...-

I feel bombs are on my way. I am a dead.

opout: