Waldo Jaquith

Not only is this (clearly) humor, but my apologies to those Republicans who actually believe in the small-government ideals of conservatism and oppose this perennial flag-burning amendment proposal. I couldn’t fit a proper caveat in the blog entry title, hence the oversimplification of writing “Republicans.”

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 27 June 2006 @ 8pm

Good thing you put that comment in there…I was almost all over your ass.

However, I think your #24 was a bit over-the-top. I wouldn’t want to have been in the shoes of those Marines in Haditha at that time to save my life. Thank God they were and are.

Posted by Jim Hoeft on 27 June 2006 @ 9pm

Well done … pun intended.

Posted by F.T. Rea on 27 June 2006 @ 9pm

I consider myself a small-government conservative, who most often dislikes governmental interference in the daily goings-on of life, but I still want to know how actions are considered speech?

Posted by CR UVa on 27 June 2006 @ 10pm

I believe you’ll have to take that up with two century’s worth of Supreme Court rulings, CR. :) The law is entirely certain on that front. Witness yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on the Vermont campaign finance law that subjects candidates to spending caps. That law was struck down because free expression ain’t free — candidates have to buy ads, and limiting their ability to spend money likewise limits the freedom of their speech.

Remember, the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to “freedom of speech” but, rather, “freedom of expression.” And there are many, many ways to express yourself. Consider why you oppose burning the flag. Is it that you hate to see fabric wasted? Or that you find the expression offensive?

Thankfully, we don’t have a right to be free from feeling offended.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 27 June 2006 @ 11pm

Waldo:
It personally would offend me to see someone burn the National Flag.. It actually pained me to see you list the flag of Virginia…

Now burn the US Constitution?(framework for Fed gov.) all but the Bill of Rights, which sets the rights of the individual above the rights of the Federal Govt. (so I do emphathize with your argument, which you say the 1rst amendment is at risk?)

Do you see my dilemna? Individual Rights, States Rights, Love of Nation, (even after the War of Northern Aggression, which was really about $$, tariffs)

I appreciate the humor… but in the long run…. If you were living in 1861 and a bunch of Johnny Rebs were reported to be “burning the Stars and Stripes”, and shaking their “private parts” at Abe Lincoln in the same ceremony…. Would you have been inclined to “take up arms”… or send a strong letter of protest?

I think the Dem’s as usual are on the wrong side of “National Pride”…(politics of the issue), heck I’m barely “reconstructed”, and it would really offend me to see our National Flag desecrated by a US Citizen or foreign national…

For instance, even in the “dark days” of the Clinton Administration, when the US gov, and its agencies were seen as out to confiscate our guns, (destroy 2nd Amend), and nationize healthcare, give away our military secrets to the Chinese, The common people “rallied to the flag”.

Does that help? (can you tell this is not a pivotal issue for me?)

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 27 June 2006 @ 11pm

Whew that was close failed by only one vote. It’s good to see lots of moderate Republicans voting against this stupidity. Oh wait that didn’t happen, never mind (only 3 Republicans against).

In two years when this comes up again and passes it is going to be really hard for me not to burn some flags. I mean there would be seven years until it would be illeagal to do so, that would make for a lot of flags I think ; )

Also Virginia’s flag is so entirely badass it blows my mind. More Virginians should fly that thing — I do.

Posted by MaxPower on 28 June 2006 @ 8am

I do understand the dilemma, Chris. The reason that I listed things like the the Constitution is to make the point that it (and others) are so much more fundamental to our nation and its people, and are no less offensive to see desecrated.

I think you’d agree, though, that one of the things that’s great about America is that none of us have the right to not be offended. I think you’d find that a great many people are offended by seeing many of the above items burned in protest. I’d be offended by seeing people burn, say, Linux’s “Tux” penguin mascot. But none of us have the right to not be offended. The fact that we’re so offended seems to indicate that this is, indeed, just the sort of powerful form of expression that require protection as envisioned by the founding fathers.

After all, expression that offends nobody doesn’t need protection. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 June 2006 @ 10am

Spank,

Lincoln was the biggest enemy of civil liberties in America since we chased the British out. This Democrat would have been right there in the front row, giving him the finger. I don’t know that a lot of other Dems would be with me on that particular scenario, but generally Democrats nowadays are more interested in having freedom to be proud of then we are in freely waving that pride around.

Why is it that Republicans these days hate freedom so much? Every idea that comes out of y’all’s mouths is about taking away one freedom or another. Freedom to burn the flag, the freedom of consenting adults to enter into contracts with each other, freedom from search and seizure, the right to a fair trial even if the government says you’re a terrorist. I can’t think of a single thing your party has pursued in the last 6 years with the goal or effect of making America more free.

Posted by ATA on 28 June 2006 @ 10am

Waldo:
I guess what I mean to say is that if someone is so “insulted or they feel oppressed” by The Federal Government, that they protest by burning our National Standard… I guess they should have the right to do so… as long as it’s their own private property (bought in a store). It is just so “classless” of a display of political discourse, and could easily cause civil disturbances, wouldn’t you agree?

I did not like Sadaam Hussein, or Moamar Quadaffy (when he was a badA$$), and I really detest the socialists in france, but I can not ever envision myself burning their flags…. (I print t shirts mocking them of course)

ATA:
A Majority of Democrats want first and foremost to strip the 2nd Amendment rights from the people, how is that promoting freedom? The Republican leadership promotes defense spending, and sees the logic of instituting democracy in the Middle East, which frees millions there, and in the long term will make America more secure. Democrats are famous “regulators” of everything, to include speech, and promote political correctness” upon speech and then deride all who disagree with them, in a very personal way.

Democrat freedoms are all “talk based”, Pub freedoms are “action based”.

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 28 June 2006 @ 12pm

It is just so “classless” of a display of political discourse, and could easily cause civil disturbances, wouldn’t you agree?

Oh, absolutely. I’m reminded of the bill submitted (by a Democrat…*sigh*) to the General Assembly last year making it a crime to wear low-riding jeans. Yes, doing so is totally without class, and may yet cause a civil disturbance, but that doesn’t merit making it illegal. The difference being that low-riding jeans are not, to my knowledge, making any sort of an expression other than “look at my nasty little back tattoo.” :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 June 2006 @ 12pm

Well put Waldo, but of course those showing us their “underwear and tatoos” are probably more inclined to be in revolt against their parents than their Government.

The Legislator, who if I remember correctly was a Democrat.. was probably more concerned with delivering a dose of “parenthood” to the “exposers” than delivering a blow of Government tyranny upon the immature.

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 28 June 2006 @ 10pm

STD:
Regarding Repuplican freedoms: their tax cuts and spending hikes have effectively turned future generations into indentured servants for the government. BushCo’s imperialistic march into Iraq basically neutered US foreign policy–we are the evil empire that other countries fear and hate (so we’ve lost the freedom of policy choice that the first GeoBush had in Iraq and the World). The list keeps growing. When questions are raised about such issues, the individual/candidate/group/newspaper is at best labelled unpatriotic or, in the worst case, put in jail or out of business.

We have more soul-searching issues than flag burning. The flag is a symbol. Denying the people the freedom to express their thoughts and emotions with a symbol seems a rather pointless waste of time. Shouldn’t there be enough pride and confidence in our country that it could withstand flag burnings without any help from constitutional amendments? Or is that the point? When the pride and confidence goes, we fall back to protecting our symbols?

Posted by Steve on 29 June 2006 @ 9am

Okay, since the subject is flags…

Last night I drove past the Arby’s on Route 29 North in Charlottesville. They had an American flag flying that is nothing more than a tattered rag. It’s a disgrace. If these guys are trying to use our country’s flag to promote their business, it’s been a horrible failure.

It’s one thing to burn a flag to make a political statement, but it’s a far worse thing to display a shredded American flag for commercial purposes because you’re too cheap, lazy or inattentive to replace it.

So put that in your stinkin’ Constitutional amendement…

Posted by Harry Landers on 29 June 2006 @ 1pm

I look forward to visiting Arby’s with my camera ASAP.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 29 June 2006 @ 2pm

Steve:
You are a propagandist “blinded by your hatred of “W”, and the United States itself.

Let me tell you what two flags would be flying over old europe the home of hopeless socialists, if it were not for the determination and blood of the United States! The Nazi swatskika and the hammer and sickle… period. quit whining, and please read this post before responding…

http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2005/12/12/why-bush-43-is-right-on-iraq.html

It’s the bottom line on world history…

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 30 June 2006 @ 9pm

Erm. I don’t know what we need to bring Nazis into this.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 30 June 2006 @ 10pm

STD:
Sorry, the ‘propagandist’ label is way off the mark. And it’s ironic that, because my love for this country leads me to question the policy, the direction, and the propaganda that this, or any, president would rather have me blindly follow, I am slandered as such. Why regress so early in the discussion?

Speaking of the discussion, can we stay on topic? You’re all over the map here, my friend. Why are we talking about Nazis or Communists now—other than they too banned flag burning? And, for the record, our grandparents fought that war to rid the world of tyranny far greater and more threatening than any Osama Bin Laden, Sadam Hussein, or Kim Jong-il. Our grandparents weren’t fighting for a symbol of freedom, they were fighting for actual freedom and survival. What are you fighting for?

Posted by Steve on 2 July 2006 @ 2am

Steve you say “W” has “neutered” our foreign policy by invading Iraq. Then you go on to label the United States as an evil empire? Do you work for Al Jazeera? (propaganda) Oh, and you might want to look up the definition of slander, and propaganda for that matter.

You are wrong on both counts of your argument. We are showing the same leadership as Woodrow Wilson, and FDR Truman & JFK in projecting our military power to advance freedom in the world. (WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam)

I love to watch Libs in denial over the millions in Iraq and Lebanaon who have directly benefited in terms of freedom from overthowing Hussein. Women are voting, and participating in government… Had a Democrat followed the same course of action… Ya’ll would already have a memorial site picked out for em’ on the National Mall.

Waldo, obviously I mentioned the Nazi’s only to “illustrate” my point that we spilled blood to rid Europe of them.

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 2 July 2006 @ 12pm

ATA wrote:Lincoln was the biggest enemy of civil liberties in America since we chased the British out.

The president who reversed the worst and most horrible abuse of civil liberties in America’s history…

I never cease to be amazed… Truly you raise the bar.

Posted by Hans Mast on 4 July 2006 @ 1am

STD:
I, like you, demand justice when individuals/groups take action to attack and weaken our country. I too respect the blood spilled to protect our country and our freedoms—perhaps more than you’d care to acknowledge. However, whereas I myself respect the flag and all that it stands for, I also believe that allowing others the freedom to burn the flag does not weaken our country.

We have a stronger country when we allow people to disagree and share their viewpoints so long as it doesn’t endanger lives or the nation. For example, blowing up a Federal Building=very bad. Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater=very bad. Belaboring that ‘liberals’ are destroying the nation=not bad at all. You have yet to convince me that burning flags as a form of expression does either. While flag burning may be offensive, is it really worth altering the Constitution for?

By the way, all bickering aside, Happy Independence Day.

Posted by Steve on 4 July 2006 @ 8am

And a Happy Fourth to You Steve. Check out these cartoons, The Last one is pretty appropriate to our discussion here. http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2006/7/4/fourth-of-july-political-cartoon-round-up.html

Posted by Spank That Donkey on 4 July 2006 @ 12pm