Bush Desecrates the Flag

[Spence]

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. --Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, U.S. Code. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/8.html)

Why does George W Bush hate America? :D

[Skinzaholic]

Yeah, you're right... let's hang him!

(Anyone seen Monica lately?)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Yeah, you're right... let's hang him!

(Anyone seen Monica lately?)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I don't want him punished, Skinz, I just like to laugh at him. Fortunately for me, he provides me with lots of opportunities to do so. [When I'm not in despair over the state of the economy and the state of our finances, that is.] I was just having a bit of fun. Rest assured that unlike you conservatives, we liberals have a sense of fairness and proportion when it comes to judging official misbehavior.

[Skinzaholic]

Come on Spence... you know me better than that by now!

I cant be classified as a "conservative" because I probably lean more toward a "Liberalist"... I think the conservative government is too involved as well (on the other side of the issues). They both suck and need to let the states do their jobs... and let the people rule (instead of the money).

The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is...


A Democrat blows and a Republican sucks!
:D

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
Rest assured that unlike you conservatives, we liberals have a sense of fairness and proportion when it comes to judging official misbehavior.


Im gonna let this one pass my friend... it is too easy. You must have not gotten much sleep last night in order to open the door THIS wide!:eek:

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
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. --Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, U.S. Code. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/8.html)

Why does George W Bush hate America? :D

Interesting link.
He hates america probably like every olympic athlete does (when they wear the flag), or every judge in america (attaching yellow tassles to court room flags).
I also think they were referring to actual flags of displaying nature, not the toys in which these children had.

I do understand it's a joke, but it just wouldn't be me if I didn't fire back! ;)

[BigCountry]

Ok now I think everyone has been looking at this Cltinton/Mo0nica thing the wrong way. He made a human mistake when he sucomed to his urges and taste in not something that's up for debate. The thing that I'm criticizing Bill about is this: He thought he was gonna get a bj from a jewish chick and then go about his life as if nothing happened??!!! This is the PRESIDENT for heavens sake, they say he shouldda known better, and that's what he shouldda known. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

I crack me up...

[NamVet4]

Originally posted by jsarno
... or every judge in america (attaching yellow tassles to court room flags)....


Perhaps to enlighten you a bit about the "tassles":

The quote below concerning gold fringe on the Flag is from the book "So Proudly We Hail, The History of the United States Flag" Smithsonian Institute Press 1981, by Wiliam R. Furlong and Byron McCandless. "The placing of a fringe on Our Flag is optional with the person of organization, and no Act of Congress or Executive Order either prohibits the practice, according to the Institute of Hearaldry. Fringe is used on indoor flags only, as fringe on flags on outdoor flags would deteriorate rapidly. The fringe on a Flag is considered and 'honorable enrichment only', and its official use by the US Army dates from 1895.. A 1925 Attorney General's Opinion states: 'the fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the Flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.'"

The gold trim is generally used on ceremonial indoor flags that are used for special services and is believed to have been first used in a military setting. It has no specific significance that I have ever run across, and its (gold trim) use is in compliance with applicable flag codes and laws.

my 2 cents

[jsarno]

namvet, thanks for the info.

However, that was in response to Spence's post. Here is a direct quote from it
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.
It also makes it quite clear that ONLY red White and blue be on the flag...not gold.

There has been quite a debate about this in this area. People are getting away with not recognizing this flag in court rooms because of the tassles. They site certain laws which I am unaware of.
I personally don't care, but this is a debate amongst certain people. (especially those that legally get away with not paying taxes and getting rid of their SS#)

[BigCountry]

Ok wait what I said was funny, we're missing the point.!

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Ok wait what I said was funny, we're missing the point.!

Sad part is, I'm sure there were hundreds of others.

I mean, I can understand dipping my cigar in a glass of fine port, but THAT?

[dalpumpkin]

Spence

I am glad you get a laugh out of him signing a flag.

So what! Did you laugh when Clinton was part of a rally burning the flag when he was young?

What is not a laugh is how a die hard Lib like you spends his time finding in your face things to trash a guy you don't care for.

Don't like Bush? Great. But instead of comming with a debate on a issue to help things. You bring a whole lot of how Bush is not perfect to rub people in the mud.

I think both sides have enough blind supporters to carry on the Bush is that, and Clinton did this thing.

Fact is Bush and Clinton go play 18 holes of golf and have a drink after it is over.

Do we all treat politics like a football game more than we should?

If I bring up Bush when talking my tax money, then I lose. If you bring up Clinton when talking war then you lose.

Bottem line is most people don't like war, but it happens, and it is not a one sided thing. Fact is people pay alot of tax, and they should have the right to ask why so much goes to things that are waste.

A perfect world is not blind support for Bush, a perfect world is not blind support for Clinton. A perfect idea is all debateing as people not attacking or defending one man.

If only Clinton or Bush is to blame, then we the people have created the king our country was born to not have.

That means we all should debate what we don't like, and never just throw blame at what we dont like. That is monkey simple.

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Ok wait what I said was funny, we're missing the point.!

I thought it was funny bud.:D

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin

Bottem line is most people don't like war


Actually almost 60% agree with the "war" we have with Iraq. And Bush approval rating is around 57%...it may have dipped but it's still over 50%. So the majority agree with what's going on.

[Green-Is-Good]

Are you serious? 57 percent?! I have not met one person who was pro-war. jsarno, did you see in Adbuster magazine a few months ago what they did to that statue of Saddam?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Actually almost 60% agree with the "war" we have with Iraq. And Bush approval rating is around 57%...it may have dipped but it's still over 50%. So the majority agree with what's going on.

JS:

Clear the crumbs out of your eyes. The quote you responded to was "Bottem line is most people don't like war" which I think is true whether or not one supports the current one.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Green Is Good
Are you serious? 57 percent?! I have not met one person who was pro-war. jsarno, did you see in Adbuster magazine a few months ago what they did to that statue of Saddam?


GIG... that may depend on where you look. I listen to a talk radio station in Harrisbrug which is flooded with supporters for Bush and the war. I also Pastor a church filled to the brim with "those" people.

This country is very big... and many many people for each side.

[Green-Is-Good]

I listen to npr. I guess that explains everything:D

[Spence]

If you listen to Rush, you're for the war. [Rush, by the way, missed out on Vietnam because he had a gigantic boil on his ass. Too many obvious jokes there so I'll just let it go.] If you listen to NPR, you might be against the war. NPR stations tend to be more conservative in conservative areas of the country and more liberal in liberal areas.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
GIG... that may depend on where you look. I listen to a talk radio station in Harrisbrug which is flooded with supporters for Bush and the war. I also Pastor a church filled to the brim with "those" people.

This country is very big... and many many people for each side.

opinions are like du....uh hum, like a-holes, everyone has one! :D

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by jsarno
Actually almost 60% agree with the "war" we have with Iraq. And Bush approval rating is around 57%...it may have dipped but it's still over 50%. So the majority agree with what's going on.

I never said I don't think the war should happen, I am in the % that is for it.

But I said I and many are not for it because we like war. But we support it because we understand there is no other option.

Bush does not like war, but he had to choose it because there was no other option.

Come on man, war is not a thing anyone should like, but we must choose it when it comes.

Don't let the people who cause war by not addressing its realty ever let you like it because they are to weak to face it.

We fight and support this war to avoid war down the road, nothing more, nothing less. Are boys fight now to avoid a bigger fight later, and thats what most see, and thats why most support it. Not many and I hope not you want war because it seems cool, it is not. Don't ever let a person who doesn't like it for politics, turn you into someone who argues it for politics to face them.

My thoughts anyway

[dukeuch]

I think that most who opposed this war did so not as an absolute, but rather with the belief that other avenues were available first, and that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the US, and that war would always be an available option at a later date. If Iraq did not have WMD (which all evidence seems to indicate) then where was the immediate threat, and what would have been the problem with issuing more UN resos toughening up inspections? So what if it took some more time?

The only way I could have seen "preventative war" is in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence of an imminent threat. In such a case, I would expect there to be detailed proof presented, which the administration did not do. In fact, they had to justify the threat by promising that it existed without showing it, and claiming that there were proven ties between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. To date there is no proof of either WMD or the Hussein/terrorist connection. Whether or not you believe they had WMD, you have to admint that there is no proof, which at least seems a bit odd given the certainty and promises of proof once held forth.

So where are we now? Now we have to follow up because we are in too deep. It is going to be massively expensive, dangerous, and time consuming, all of which were denied back when the admin first pitched the war. Further, we went into it with assurances that we could do it alone, there was no reason to wait until we could gain a real coalition's support, which again turns out ot be false.

I'm glad Hussein is gone, but am very concerned that our actions, definately in the short run and probably in the long run, have fueled the terrorist fire and made the US more vulnerable to attack. A vacuum was created in Iraq which is sucking in AL Qeada operatives who were not previously there.

As I have said before, we were either out and out lied to, or the administration made colossal miscalculations. I personally think it is the former, that the admin truely thought it was the right thing to do, so justified falsifying info in the name of the ends justify the means. Either way, don't you think someone should be held responsible?

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I think that most who opposed this war did so not as an absolute, but rather with the belief that other avenues were available first, and that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the US, and that war would always be an available option at a later date. If Iraq did not have WMD (which all evidence seems to indicate) then where was the immediate threat, and what would have been the problem with issuing more UN resos toughening up inspections? So what if it took some more time?

The only way I could have seen "preventative war" is in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence of an imminent threat. In such a case, I would expect there to be detailed proof presented, which the administration did not do. In fact, they had to justify the threat by promising that it existed without showing it, and claiming that there were proven ties between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. To date there is no proof of either WMD or the Hussein/terrorist connection. Whether or not you believe they had WMD, you have to admint that there is no proof, which at least seems a bit odd given the certainty and promises of proof once held forth.

So where are we now? Now we have to follow up because we are in too deep. It is going to be massively expensive, dangerous, and time consuming, all of which were denied back when the admin first pitched the war. Further, we went into it with assurances that we could do it alone, there was no reason to wait until we could gain a real coalition's support, which again turns out ot be false.

I'm glad Hussein is gone, but am very concerned that our actions, definately in the short run and probably in the long run, have fueled the terrorist fire and made the US more vulnerable to attack. A vacuum was created in Iraq which is sucking in AL Qeada operatives who were not previously there.

As I have said before, we were either out and out lied to, or the administration made colossal miscalculations. I personally think it is the former, that the admin truely thought it was the right thing to do, so justified falsifying info in the name of the ends justify the means. Either way, don't you think someone should be held responsible?

There is alot to what you say here, and it was a great honest post.

My man I really can't tell you what I don't see with this admin today. But I can say for me my answer is to look to my base to make it right.

Bottem line is I am a republican and you may be a demecrat. We both may not agree with our parties at all times, but we are the base to make them better.

This Iraq thing can be a debate forever on either side. I ask do we look at it as indivduals, or do we look at it to make a point againts the other side like it is a football game?

If me and you where at the table going over facts on Saddam and this whole problem, what would we do? It really is a hard thing to answer, it is not like this guy is not a threat or is all together. They have put a fight to our nation that plays into are politics and selfish ways, and it is working.

Fact is even if all of use in the U.S. want peace, can we get it when somany suffer in places like Iraq and such? Can we honestly exspect our economy to be strong without understanding the heart of our way of life does come from oil to keep us going. I wish we could just have solar powered this and that, but it is not real, unless you are rich. So what do we do?

After 19 men brought fear and a change of life in how we think or how we live is so easy, then what do we do? That was not hard to figure out on there attack. What would happen if they sent 20 men with bombs into 20 big malls in Dec.? It would drop our economy in one 3 hr span.

I don't want war to remove Saddam because of what a goverment says, I want his butt removed because he lost a war to us and the allies and has not upheld his end. I want him removed because I have seen by leaveing men like him in power gives reason for Al Cada to recruit. I want him removed because he has used WMD's and has never showed the stockpile the U.N. recorded being destroyed.

Facts are facts, and exspecting 50,000 troops to find things in a country the size of California is insane.

I would bet my life on this, you will get your proof that I know they already have before the election. That is wrong. It saddens me that the proof must wait, because it harms are troops. But you shall see, the proof will be public at election time. Sad thing is there has been enough proof to support this anyway. But you know the game, one side knows the proof, one side doesn't beleave even if they do, and the middle is what matters. When it comes you will call it a plant job, but the middle won't, and thats politics and exsactly why people should discuss more on politics, and not make it a football game.

My thoughts anyway, another rant.lol

Jimmy

[dukeuch]

Dalpump:

This administration would have surely, by now, brought up any proof they had. WIll they bring up something come election time? Maybe, but as sure as we are debating this, it will be at a time close enough to the election that the veracity will be debated for months, swing voters having enough faith in the government to think "at least some of it must be true" and ultimately disproven after the election is won. At that point, Bush will not care, just like they are not all that concernend that they mislead the public prior to going to war (except to the extent it might hurt re-election chances), because they accomplished their mission: invading Iraq.

Even well intentioned missions such as ridding the world of a tyrant (which we have not done yet) needs to be examined in terms of costs and benefits. In this case, we were sold a war on the basis of an imminent threat to the US, victory would come at the end of a quick war, followed by widespread acceptance of democracy from a greatful Iraqi populace at a relatively cheap cost. None, except a quick initial victory, has happened. There are not 50,000 troops in Iraq, I think it is more like 125,000. The $87 billion, on top of the price of the initial war, will end up being only a part of the total cost of rebuilding. A question must be asked, what are we foregoing by spending the money in Iraq? Besides any number of domestic programs where the money could have been spent, how about finally finding Osama Bin-Laden, the acknowledged leader of the 9/11 attack, and the securing of Afghanistan? We have alienated a number of our allies (not even including France) who probably would have supported the war if we gave weapons inspections and other UN Resos a little more time first. There is undeniably more Islamic terrorism fomenting in Iraq than before, and more hatred towards the US. We are more vulnerable to attack then before as a result.

In my opinion, this administration caters to the worst fears and ambitions of the public. Yeah, a $600 tax refund is nice, but they are really buying us cheap to agree to massive refunds for the wealthy at a tremendous cost to our long term economy. The head of the General Accountring Office, the non-partisan government agency responsioble for reviewing government fiscal policy, yesterday said that "Our projected budget deficits are not manageable without significant changes". The guy, David Walker (a former Reagan administrator) said the administration's projected deficits "far exceed the costs associated with with Iraq, the global war on terrorism and any incremental homeland security costs...It is time to admit we are in a fiscal hole and to stop digging." Further, he said "

I also noticed that Bush said yesterday that there is no evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11, but that the admin had never directly said that he did, only that he had supported terrorist organizations. Man, to imply that they did not support the notion that Hussein was in some way involved is worse than CLinton saying he didn't have sex with that woman becuase oral sex is not sex. Hell, 70% of Americans think Hussien was involved in 9/11. WHere did they get that idea? They kept trying to link Hussein with AL Qaida, just by saying so, not by presenting evidence, until the public reached that conclusion and supported the invasion.

I'm tired of being lied to. One can say, well, every politician does it, but I don't beleive that. And even if it is so, there is always a matter of degree, and I think this administrations will do or say ANYTHING to garner support.

[Skins57]

I have been reading a new book that is coming out soon to book stores (have no idea when) but it has a lot of info about Bush's whoppers(as he calls them in hte book(his lies))

I would recommend this book to anyone who has any distrust at all of Bush and his loyal supporters could read it too but they will noit want to believe it

The book is called. Dude where is my country by Michael Moore. I am fairly new to political books but I think this is a very interesting read

[jsarno]

HAHAHA, ANYONE...and I do mean ANYONE that trusts ANY politician is a complete moron.
Every single one of them has some sort of skeleten in the closet! Bush is no different.

[Skins57]

Hey Jsarno, I agree every body has some skeletens in the closet. Just that Bush is making them everyday, with all the lies he is telling.
Iraq has chemical weapons.... where are they ..thats right they in someone back yards under ground

Iraq has nuclear weapons...oh that turned out false too

Iraq has ties to Osama... wheres the proof...

We are there to protect the oil fields...oh wait that is true

Hopefully hte American people wake up and realize that under the flag waving president is something that just does not add up.