You and I are actually in agreement then, TBH. I'm not overly happy with our government at the moment either, but like I said, the flag doesn't represent our darkest hours (at least not to me, and it sounds like not to you either). I'm pissed about the borders, and the treatment of our vets. I understand the "big picture" that the administration has for Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm getting sick of all the "unexpected" set backs. As to "doctoring the Constitution", I feel a little differently about it than you do (but not virilently so). If enough Americans feel that the flag is sacred enough to protect from ill treatment that they can push through an amendment, I'm OK with that. I don't support flag burning and I sure wouldn't miss it. Having said that, is it as urgent as any of the other issues you listed? Hell no! Of course, you have to realize that the arguement that's often used against that logic is that you could pick literally any time in our history and point to items that would be more pressing. If the legislators didn't make a conscious effort to bring it up, it would never see the light of day...and both sides would miss the chance to rally the base during election season. Still, just because the pols are demagogues on the issue doesn't mean that the issue itself doesn't have validity (which is probably why so many of us outside of government get so fired up whenever the issue rolls around again).
ctal: Sorry, lbb. I guess I got under your skin (again). Hardly that, son; you've got exactly zero ability to stop me should I ever wish to burn a flag, and your attitudes against flag-burning are of the milder sort, hardly anything that would "get under my skin". First, you're right. The article itself wasn't exactly stellar. Still, it was just the starting point for the discussion that followed. The article was the piece of shit from which a beautiful garden might grow? Oh my. I don't think so, but again, you feel free if you want to. Now, you wanted examples so I'll oblige as best I can. I often surf the cable news channels, but I don't keep a log of times and channels. What I can tell you from memory is that, in the month or so leading up to the Senate vote, I saw Susan Estridge (I think on O'Reilly), Christina Vanden Huevel (I believe on CNN, don't recall the show), Alan Colmes (on Hannity & Colmes), and Terry Mc Auliffe (I think it was on MSNBC with Chris Matthews). All of them expressed the general feeling that it was abhorent that anyone would even consider restricting free speech in that way and, while screaming may be too strong a term, they were all pretty energetic about defending the rights of flag burners. Whoa up right there. You haven't answered my question. What I asked was as follows -- I'll add emphasis to try and keep things on track this time: So, please, if you're going to keep talking about the methods and motives of flag-burners, please come up with some actual examples, plural. Otherwise, will you concede that the bleating, hysterical reaction to the idea of flag-burning overwhelms the actual burning of flags by several orders of magnitude? ...in response to your statement: I didn't say they'd be right to scream about being denied their first amendment rights, only that they would do it. Clearly, the first amendment rights of which you speak are the first amendment rights of the flag-burners. You made a statement about flag-burners protesting an incursion on their freedom of expression; you made statements about what flag-burners would and would not do by way of protest. I responded to ask you WTF flag-burners you were speaking about, and asked you for examples of same. You responded with the names of people speaking in defense of the right to burn a flag. You are now talking about a different matter altogether, and you are not answering my question. It just bothers me to see so many people who are downright eager to come out in support of an action that so many Americans find to be extremely objectionable. Like men sleeping with other men? A lot of Americans find that "extremely objectionable". Some Americans find it "extremely objectionable" that other Americans eat meat. I find it "extremely objectionable" that some Americans drive SUVs and that other Americans assault my senses by advertising of SUVs. Get used to it. I think what it boils down to is that there are two very polarized points of view. No, there aren't. There are many different points of view, and a failure to see shades of gray that thus reduces them to black and white. If you look at the flag and see a design on some material (and that doesn't mean that you don't love the country or aren't patriotic, just that you don't attach those feelings to the flag), why would you care if someone wants to burn it? If I'm not a gay man, why would I care if someone wants to discriminate against gay men? On the other hand, if you look at the flag and see something that is the embodiment of all the lofty concepts and immeasurable sacrifices that have brought us to the present day, why wouldn't you be very angry if someone wants to burn it? Because how can I be "very angry" about someone burning the flag and not be "very angry" over American flag underwear or American flag beach towels or American flag stickers on someone's SUV? Because how can I be such a dunce as to believe that burning a flag in any way negates or harms these "lofty concepts and immeasurable sacrifices"? That's what the flag represents to me, and I know I'm not alone (because I've heard the same thing from others and because many of the comments in this discussion have been in the same vein, but please don't make me go get you examples). Oh, arrgh, if you're gonna debate, please follow the debate. I never asked you for examples of people who feel as fervent as you about the actual physical embodiment of the flag; god knows there are a metric buttload of 'em and they're all up in everyone's face telling us all how they feel about the flag, as if we asked. I never asked you for examples of people who support the concept of flag-burning, either, but you gave me those. I asked you for examples of flag-burners. I don't think the flag represents America's darkest hours any more than the cross represents pedophile priests. Guess you never listened to the words of the Star-Spangled Banner, then. It represents the best of our history and aspirations for the future. To you. But you do not and never will own what that symbol means to others. Unless there's an amendment passed, burners have the right to light up Old Glory to their hearts' content...but remember, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. A statement that applies equally well to politically-motivated dufus-ass legislation to curtail fundamental American liberties. So once more, I'll ask: where are these flag-burners? Stack 'em up, and we'll see how they measure up in numbers to those who would deny the right to burn the flag -- and then we can talk about which represents the greater threats to this nation's "lofty concepts".
lbb, the only reason that I mentioned getting under your skin was because you seem to have zeroed in on me. This isn't the first time that we've had a less than pleasant exchange. That wouldn't be a big deal except that it always seems to start when you respond to a comment I put up by slamming it, even though there are a half dozen or so comments from others that are similar to mine. I'm not saying that you only go after me, but it's starting to feel like you don't miss an opportunity to either. That's why I figured that I must have done something to really tick you off, but I have no idea what it was. I assure you, whatever it was, I didn't mean to make an enemy of you. I've disagreed with a lot of people on this site, but it's usually just a reasoned give and take with an effort to persuade. With you, it feels personal, and I don't get that. It's like being in a knife fight instead of a discussion. There are a few things I could say in response to your last comment, but I don't think it's wise. We kinda went over the edge on this one and we aren't going to help matters by keeping it up. We each misunderstood a couple of things toward the beginning (and, I admit, they were both my fault), but I have a sneaking feeling that we'd have ended up in the same spot, misunderstandings or no. Maybe I'm off base here and you don't have a target painted on me. It could be that I just happen to be the one to have set you off recently, or maybe you just like to play hardball and I gave you a good opportunity. I could indulge in pointless speculation all night, but if I did piss you off somehow, I'm truly sorry. I'd really appreciate a heads up on what I did, just so I can try not to repeat it.
ctal, at this point, instead of continuing this line of inquiry here, perhaps you should go to l_b_b's profile, get her email address, and take care of it there.
Maybe I'm off base here and you don't have a target painted on me. You're off base here, dude. I'm not sure how many times I'm gonna have to tell you that, so I'll say it one last time, and you can take it or leave it. Damned if I can figure out how you interpret someone saying, "Right, but that's not the question I asked; can you answer that question, please?" as being "set off" or "playing hardball" or being "pissed off" or being "zeroed in on [you]" or any of the various other out-to-get-me scenarios that you've come up with. I will close with the thought that there's quite a bit of irony in your belief that I've somehow got it in for you. Half a dozen people disagreed with you and made the same points I did, so how is it that you chose to respond to me in this way? From our first interaction you decided that I had it in for you -- based on what? I don't know who you are, where you live, what you look like, how you vote, and I really don't care. I don't make assumptions about any of that! I don't have some mental profile of you, and I'm sure not saying, "ooh, here's that jerk ctal again, time to give it to him again, uhhhh letsee what he's saying so I can give him shit about it." I'm responding to your words, dude; I don't know who you are! If anyone's got a target painted on 'em in this exchange, it ain't you. Sheesh almighty, I am done with this.
Thanks for the reply, lbb. I promise you that I have no intention of targeting you. I take you at your word that the same is true in reverse. I guess I mistook intensity for animosity, and I'm sorry for painting you with that brush. As I said earlier, in rereading the chain of comments, I see two areas where we each misunderstood the other. In the first instance, you misinterpreted my meaning, but it was because the sentence was poorly written and the meaning was unclear. In the second instance, I was already getting defensive and I failed to read one of your responses properly. I rushed through it and went right into reponse mode. If I HAD read it thoroughly, it would have been obvious to me that you had misunderstood my earlier statement. Instead, I thought your questions were an attempt to steer the discussion away from what I'd said and into a similar vein that favored your arguement. As it turned out instead, I shot off a reply and got a little smart assed about it to boot. Both misunderstandings were my fault, then I decide to get snarky. All in all, my bad. You seem pretty fed up with all of this, so I didn't want to go into detail on where things went wrong on this one. If you're curious about it, I'd be happy to explain, but if you'd rather just drop it, consider it forgotten.
