38 replies to this topic

[bouncer]

"A group of veterans angered by an American flag bearing the image of President Barack Obama descended on the local Democratic party headquarters in central Florida and demanded it be taken down.

It was, but not before heated words were exchanged between the two sides, media reports say".

"It's a cult of personality to show his face, like Stalin or Mao," John Masterjohn, a former Marine and retired schoolteacher from Leesburg, told the Orlando Sentinel. "It's despicable. They don't realize how sick they are."

http://usnews.msnbc....lag-angers-vets

[Leonardo]

To the vets I would say, "freedom of speech/expression works both ways."

While I respect the fact they fought to protect that freedom, their reaction suggests their motivation was not towards an 'all-encompassing' freedom, but simply the 'freedom' to think as they think.

Edited by Leonardo, 16 March 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[bouncer]

Leonardo, on 16 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

To the vets I would say, "freedom of speech/expression works both ways."

While I respect the fact they fought to protect that freedom, their reaction suggests their motivation was not towards an 'all-encompassing' freedom, but simply the 'freedom' to think as they think.

OK so we are both UK men. How would YOU feel having our flag with Cameron on it?  I wouldn't feel good for sure.

[and then]

I wonder sometimes if those who staunchly stand up for the rights of others to be free to offend the majority truly treasure that freedom or is it that they've simply never known anything they would fight for?

[Leonardo]

bouncer, on 16 March 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

OK so we are both UK men. How would YOU feel having our flag with Cameron on it?  I wouldn't feel good for sure.

I would question why the picture was there in the first place, and yes, I would be uneasy about it, but what really does the flag represent?

Can universal, inclusive and fluid concepts such as personal liberty and freedom of expression be represented through a static symbol? Isn't there a dissonance there between what is believed and how that belief is symbolised? And does not the symbol then eventually overtake the belief until the believer becomes rigid and uncompromising in their belief of their own 'rightness', and so "freedom of expression" becomes "freedom to express what I believe"?

and then,

Quote

I wonder sometimes if those who staunchly stand up for the rights of others to be free to offend the majority truly treasure that freedom or is it that they've simply never known anything they would fight for?

It is a cliche that I have seen written here on several occasions...

"I may not agree with what you believe, but I'll fight for your right to believe it."

What does that really mean to the speaker?

Edited by Leonardo, 16 March 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[preacherman76]

Expressing outrage over this isnt trying to take away anyones rights.

[Rafterman]

preacherman76, on 16 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Expressing outrage over this isnt trying to take away anyones rights.

Very true.  They have a right to express outrage just as the DNC has a right to fly the flag.

[Leonardo]

preacherman76, on 16 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Expressing outrage over this isnt trying to take away anyones rights.

Rafterman, on 16 March 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Very true.  They have a right to express outrage just as the DNC has a right to fly the flag.

I agree completely. The vets have every right to express their outrage. Do they have the right to demand the flag be removed?

[Taun]

In the US there is no actual law to prevent 'desecrating' the national flag... There are standards of 'flag etiquette' and there are societal norms for flag usage - but no actual laws...

In the Military (remember these are vets) there ARE regulations (laws) very clearly outlining the usage of the national flag... These vets are trained to react to the flag in accordance with Mil Regs and that (therefore) drives their 'outrage'... (they are plainly upset but I think outrage is a bit of an overstatement...)

For myself (also a vet), It doesn't 'outrage' me but this coupled with a few other things the current administration has done in the past, it does raise the question as to whether this could be the beginning of a 'cult of personnality'...

I don't trust any politician that feels the need to plaster their image over national symbols... They are employees, hired to do a job - and they are temps at that... We need to make sure they stay that way...

edit: I didn't mean 'we' as in vets... everyone should keep an eye on elected officials...

Edited by Taun, 16 March 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[Robbie333]

Taun, on 16 March 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

In the US there is no actual law to prevent 'desecrating' the national flag... There are standards of 'flag etiquette' and there are societal norms for flag usage - but no actual laws...

In the Military (remember these are vets) there ARE regulations (laws) very clearly outlining the usage of the national flag... These vets are trained to react to the flag in accordance with Mil Regs and that (therefore) drives their 'outrage'... (they are plainly upset but I think outrage is a bit of an overstatement...)

For myself (also a vet), It doesn't 'outrage' me but this coupled with a few other things the current administration has done in the past, it does raise the question as to whether this could be the beginning of a 'cult of personnality'...

I don't trust any politician that feels the need to plaster their image over national symbols... They are employees, hired to do a job - and they are temps at that... We need to make sure they stay that way...

edit: I didn't mean 'we' as in vets... everyone should keep an eye on elected officials...

         Good post and I agree 100%.

[Leonardo]

Taun, on 16 March 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

In the US there is no actual law to prevent 'desecrating' the national flag... There are standards of 'flag etiquette' and there are societal norms for flag usage - but no actual laws...

In the Military (remember these are vets) there ARE regulations (laws) very clearly outlining the usage of the national flag... These vets are trained to react to the flag in accordance with Mil Regs and that (therefore) drives their 'outrage'... (they are plainly upset but I think outrage is a bit of an overstatement...)

For myself (also a vet), It doesn't 'outrage' me but this coupled with a few other things the current administration has done in the past, it does raise the question as to whether this could be the beginning of a 'cult of personnality'...

I don't trust any politician that feels the need to plaster their image over national symbols... They are employees, hired to do a job - and they are temps at that... We need to make sure they stay that way...

edit: I didn't mean 'we' as in vets... everyone should keep an eye on elected officials...

Did 'the politician' (Obama) "feel the need to plaster their image over national symbols"?

I don't see it reported that US flags nationwide are being replaced with one's picturing Obama, all I read was that one flag, on a flagpost in the grounds of a Democrat Party building, was a combination US flag with Obama's picture on it. I did not read that it was Obama's idea to do this, nor that he ordered it.

So, which 'elected official' are you suggesting "we keep our eyes on" regarding this incident?

And not everything, nor any behaviour, can be justified by the "they are military/veterans" trope. I respect those who serve, but that respect does not extend to the point that they can do no wrong.

Edited by Leonardo, 16 March 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[Dredimus]

The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions.

Presented by the Congressional Research Service.

Page CRS-7, Section 8-G.

Quote

The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to
it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any
nature.

Senate.Gov

[Robbie333]

Dredimus, on 16 March 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions.

Presented by the Congressional Research Service.

Page CRS-7, Section 8-G.



Senate.Gov

            Atta boy soldier. Salute.

[Leonardo]

Dredimus, on 16 March 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions.

Presented by the Congressional Research Service.

Page CRS-7, Section 8-G.



Senate.Gov

Which means very little in light of the ruling by the US Supreme Court that any burning or desecration of the flag is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

So, I ask again, what is it the flag actually means?

[preacherman76]

Leonardo, on 16 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

I agree completely. The vets have every right to express their outrage. Do they have the right to demand the flag be removed?

Of course. But that doesnt mean they will get what they want.