The Obamican Flag

[SavageEagle]

Thank you much! I think I asked permission somewhere, but should have PMed you. I hope you don't mind!

Someone suggested we all use it, but I know many won't. I like the idea though! Our Country is in distress, Freedom under siege, I feel it's appropriate...

 

[finity]

I didn't say ANYTHING to that likeness and I resent you putting words in my mouth. You and David need to go bowling...

Anyway, I know it makes me a hypocrit for what I said, but that's fine. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PROSECUTING ANYONE!!! Get your head outta your keyboard, slow down, read, comprehend, stop, think about it, then respond.

You want to see where obama is removing rights? How about his servitude requirements for CHILDREN?!!?! Hmmm... Yea. That's UnConstitutional...

You claim to not support him, but you sure are defending him a lot. I don't think I need to do that research for you, but I will anyway because I'm tired of watching your doublespeak while you sit here and defend him.

Yes, I agree you never technically said to prosecute anyone. However, the tone of your post was such that Obama supporters placing his likeness on the flag was a violation of the 'Flag Code' while the INGO flag was not. One you had no problem with (IOW, condoned) the other you didn't. Your allowance for violation of the 'Code' was based solely on the political affiliation or intent of the actors, not on the act itself.

Here is the applicable portion of the 'Code':

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g) 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.
(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

As you can plainly see there in (g) there are no exceptions allowed for the intent of the person placing th mark. Therefore any mark is a violation of the 'Code'. Selective enforcement of a government rule, even if it carries no criminal penalty, based solely on the politics of the peopl involved is a clear violation of th First Amendment free speech clause. Fortunately the SCOTUS agrees with me on this point.

SUVCW--U. S. Flag Code (36 USC 10)

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

Looks like any person who has ever worn, displayed or sold parts of the flag for advertising purposes are also in violation of th 'Code'

Flag Rules and Regulations


About the 'requirement' thing see our other lively debate regarding my respone to that.

I am not defending HIM per se. I never said Bush or any other person who violated the code should be sanctioned either. I said the people who are vilifying Obama and/or his supporters are on the wrong side of the Constitution and American values.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Thank you much! I think I asked permission somewhere, but should have PMed you. I hope you don't mind!

Someone suggested we all use it, but I know many won't. I like the idea though! Our Country is in distress, Freedom under siege, I feel it's appropriate...

I don't mind at all, I think everyone should use the avatar for the next several weeks.

 

[finity]

Now, Now, the Messiah is the Chosen One (ACORN) and you'll be giving poor poor finity a heart attack

I in no way have ever said or implied that he is the messiah. No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it true. It seems honesty is not one of your strong points.

Burn it, **** on it, whatever. It's your right under the First Amendment.

 

[SavageEagle]

finity, see these quotes.

The difference in my mind relies on if you are acknowledging the flag and adding to it, rather than dominating it. Putting text unobtrusively on a flag is letting the flag be represented and adding to it. Putting something over almost all the flag is making sure that the flag is in the background, not the foreground. This is an Obama flag with an American flag background. That is why I find it offensive.

I'm of two minds on the subject as well. My opinion, though, is that the INGO flag was treated with respect and is being given with respect, code violation notwithstanding. The Obama flag, however, is more like a marketing ploy. Forgetting the subject matter for a moment, it just seems like a way to sell the product.

I can't put it any better than this. I will say that because the flag being give to Fenway is from our soldiers out of respect for our support and determination to preserve freedom just as they are doing, it would be utterly disrespectful and a disgrace to "dispose" of said flag. Chances are that it will never fly, but if it does it will be proudly flown and all respect should be given if not more because of what this particular flag stands for.

As has been said between many of us here, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Sometimes the letter of the law isn't so black and white, as I believe you once said.

Edit, he never said you called him that. MSM revers him as such so that's what we mockingly call him. You worry me sometimes.

(We may have an infiltrator!!!) J/K

 

[SavageEagle]

I don't mind at all, I think everyone should use the avatar for the next several weeks.

52 x 4 = 280 weeks
280 x 7 = 1,980 Days
1980 x 24 = 47,040 Hours
47040 x 60 = 2,822,400 Minutes

Kinda depressing huh?

 

[finity]

Jeff, are you really saying you served all that time to defend the "right" of people to defy our laws, and this is something you currently support? Last I checked, 4USC is still a law, even if it has no defined penalty.

I served to defend the Constitution. If there is a 'law' in violation of the Constitution or any part thereof, I reserve the right to not enforce that 'law'. As a matter of fact, I think I was given permission under the UCMJ to violate any unlawful order. I would hope that any military or LE would be brave enough to stand against any enforcement of any law that violated the Constitution. Every person has the 'right' to defy laws that violate the Constitution. If no one ever violated these bad laws there would never be a mechanism for SCOTUS review of any of them.

As I said in my other post that the enforcement of any sanctions under the 'Code' has been found unConstitutional by the SCOTUS. That is the reason there are no penalties in the first place.

 

[MilitaryArms]

It's going to be a VERY long 4 years.

We'll have gays in the military.

Getmo will be shut down this week probably, and all the terrorists will be imported in to the country to stand trial as if they were citizens. We'll be paying for their defense (tax payers).

The deficit will double, or more, over the next 4 years with the new bailouts. It took us 40 years of the Cold War to rack up almost 10 trillion in debt, we'll double that in 4 years. The Peso will be valued higher than the dollar in 4 years.

Our troops will still be on deployment, but their funding will be cut and their missions will be screwed with... it will become another political war where they will have strict rules of engagement and be given ******** missions... think Vietnam.

Our economy will continue to tank, and taxes will go up. We'll not only make less, but our retirements... what's left of them... will be decimated.

We're so screwed it's scary.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I would hope that any military or LE would be brave enough to stand against any enforcement of any law that violated the Constitution. Every person has the 'right' to defy laws that violate the Constitution. If no one ever violated these bad laws there would never be a mechanism for SCOTUS review of any of them.

When is the last time you saw any LEO organization stand against an unlawful law? They have upheld illegal gun bans in California, Illinois, DC, and elsewhere in the country. They have imprisoned Americans who are only guilty of exercising their Constitutional rights.

If some pinhead in a suit signs a law, no matter how unConstitutional it is, 99.9% of the LEO's out there will enforce the law. They don't want to lose their income, they have families to feed... so you're going to jail. Principals don't pay the bills...

 

[jedi]

where is this ingo flag that every talks about.
only 1460 days more to go!

 

[ATM]

where is this ingo flag that every talks about.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...rs_on_the_way_to_fenway_from_afghanistan.html

 

[finity]

It's going to be a VERY long 4 years.

We'll have gays in the military.

We already have gays in the military. You know what they say about denial...

The deficit will double, or more, over the next 4 years with the new bailouts. It took us 40 years of the Cold War to rack up almost 10 trillion in debt, we'll double that in 4 years. The Peso will be valued higher than the dollar in 4 years.

The debt stayed almost constant under Carter at around 1trillion. The debt increased fom ~1trilliion to almost 5 trillion under Reagan & Bush I (almost a 5 times increase). The debt was fairly constant under Clinton from ~5trillion to a little over 6 trillion. Under Bush II & 6 years of a Republican Congress the debt has grown from a little over 6 trillion to almost 10trillion (almost double). The majority of the increase in the national debt has occured under Republican administrations.

The deficit was eliminated under Clinton. We were actually operating on a surplus. Man, what a difference 8 years under Bush & the Republicans has made.

Our troops will still be on deployment, but their funding will be cut and their missions will be screwed with... it will become another political war where they will have strict rules of engagement and be given ******** missions... think Vietnam.

proof? or hyperbole?

Our economy will continue to tank, and taxes will go up. We'll not only make less, but our retirements... what's left of them... will be decimated.

We're so screwed it's scary.

When is the last time you saw any LEO organization stand against an unlawful law? They have upheld illegal gun bans in California, Illinois, DC, and elsewhere in the country. They have imprisoned Americans who are only guilty of exercising their Constitutional rights.

If some pinhead in a suit signs a law, no matter how unConstitutional it is, 99.9% of the LEO's out there will enforce the law. They don't want to lose their income, they have families to feed... so you're going to jail. Principals don't pay the bills...

Sad but true.

I think it is disingenuous of people to complain about the possibility of an Obama administration violating the Constitution but the people who are in the position to actually enforce those infringements (military, LE, lawyers, judges, etc.), including the many that have already occured, do so even though they know it is wrong.

 

[SavageEagle]

I think it is disingenuous of people to complain about the possibility of an Obama administration violating the Constitution but the people who are in the position to actually enforce those infringements (military, LE, lawyers, judges, etc.), including the many that have already occurred, do so even though they know it is wrong.

And those people will be held accountable just as members of Congress and the Prez will be.

You must be Democrap because you are obviously not Republitard. Oh and if you haven't been paying attention, obamatard plans to increase the National debt by another 2 trillion at least in the next YEAR. Oh but Clinton was such a good President though. He could have stopped 9/11 THREE TIMES if he had cared to kill Osama when he had the chance. AWB anyone? He about destroyed our military forces. But, yea, Clinton was a GREAAAAT Commander in Chief... Oh did I forget to mention Hillary demanded and required soldiers to NOT be in uniform whilst at the White House unless necessary? If you don't believe me on that stuff I'll find the book you should read. It's called "Dereliction of Duty". Written by the very guy who carried the "Football" for Clinton and was by his side EVERYDAY. But he's probably not a reliable source or anything....

 

[fullauto 45]

Is this abusive use of the flag???????

 

[MilitaryArms]

We already have gays in the military. You know what they say about denial...

I never said they weren't there.

They will now be able to enlist and serve while being openly gay. That's a problem for most servicemen. Have you served in the military?

The debt stayed almost constant under Carter at around 1trillion. The debt increased fom ~1trilliion to almost 5 trillion under Reagan & Bush I (almost a 5 times increase). The debt was fairly constant under Clinton from ~5trillion to a little over 6 trillion. Under Bush II & 6 years of a Republican Congress the debt has grown from a little over 6 trillion to almost 10trillion (almost double). The majority of the increase in the national debt has occured under Republican administrations.

I don't recall saying anything about who was responsible. You see things in black and white (republican / democrat). I don't. I'm neither. I think... no, I KNOW, they both suck and there is VERY little difference between the two groups.

The deficit was eliminated under Clinton. We were actually operating on a surplus. Man, what a difference 8 years under Bush & the Republicans has made.

Complete and utter ********.

IF Woody Allen was right that 90 per cent of life is just showing up, then Bill Clinton has a stellar fiscal record. The federal budget deficit has tumbled from $255 billion in 1993 to a projected $117 billion this year. And Clinton was there when it happened. But that just about covers the extent of his involvement. For evidence of this, let's review the Clinton record over the past three and a half years:


-- In February 1993 President Clinton announces his new Administration's first economic program: a $16-billion "fiscal stimulus." The spending package is later abandoned by the Democratic Congress as too fiscally irresponsible.



-- In February 1993 President Clinton wins passage of his $250-billion tax hike -- which New York Sen. Pat Moynihan accurately describes as "the largest tax increase in world history." It passes both houses of Congress without a single Republican vote. The package contains approximately $2 of new spending for every $1 of new taxes.


-- In September 1993 the Clinton White House lobbies to defeat the bi-partisan Penny - Kasich deficit-reduction bill, which would have cut federal spending and the deficit by $90 billion over five years.


-- In January 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton unveil "ClintonCare." The proposed hostile federal takeover of one-seventh of the U.S. economy would add at least $75 billion to the deficit over the next six years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).


-- In September 1994 the President furiously lobbies liberal Democrats in Congress to oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment -- a measure supported by 75 per cent of the American public. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a little too honest when he confirms most Americans' suspicions about this Administration: "The President is against simply balancing the budget."


-- In October 1994 the President signs into law his $30-billion "crime bill." The Los Angeles Times describes the legislation as a "once-in-a-lifetime federal spending bonanza" containing "a vast array of new social programs" including federally funded exotic-dance classes, sensitivity-training courses, and midnight-basketball leagues. The cost of the Clinton bill has to be shaved after the Democratic House of Representatives rejects the original version as too expensive.


-- In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for $12 trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder blasts the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is projected to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it will, for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget."


-- In March 1995 Clinton again helps torpedo the Balanced Budget Amendment -- this time by strong-arming five Democratic senators, who had campaigned as champions of the amendment -- to flip-flop and vote no.


-- In June 1995, under pressure from the GOP Congress, Bill Clinton submits a new, revised budget proposal. It still doesn't balance the budget by 2002.


-- In July 1995 the Clinton White House begins its successful "Medi-scare" strategy to undermine public support for a GOP plan to rein in stampeding Medicare costs. Even the Washington Post editorializes that the Clinton Administration has become a gang of "medagogues." On Medicare and Medicaid, the White House is "engaged in an irresponsible campaign based on distortion and fear."


-- In October 1995 Bill Clinton confirms what most of the public is already painfully aware of: "I raised your taxes too much."


-- In December 1995 Bill Clinton vetoes the historic balanced-budget legislation enacted by the Republican Congress --listing 82 reasons why it cuts too much spending. He complains of cuts in everything from foreign aid to corporate welfare.


-- Later that month Bill Clinton releases his unprecedented third and then fourth budget proposals of the year. But they still don't balance the budget.


-- In February 1996 Bill Clinton releases a $1.65-trillion 1997 budget that calls for $360 billion in added spending, or $3,100 per American household, over the next seven years. Then with a straight face he tells the nation that "the era of big government is over." Oh, and the proposal still doesn't balance the budget by 2002.
-- In April 1996 Clinton signs the GOP budget after the Republicans capitulate to his demands and add back some $10 billion of deficit spending.


WHEW! This really is a pillar of fiscal integrity we have in the White House. The point of this demoralizing three-and-a-half-year budget odyssey is this: The Clinton Administration cannot credibly claim credit for the reduction in the deficit unless the nation is suffering from a severe case of fiscal amnesia.


On at least three separate occasions in 1993 and 1994 -- the fiscal-stimulus package, ClintonCare, and the crime bill -- the Administration attempted to make the deficit situation worse, but amazingly was constrained by a Democratic Congress. On four other instances, bipartisan deficit-reduction initiatives were rebuked by Clinton.


SOURCE

Some additional info:

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

SOURCE

proof? or hyperbole?

It's hard to prove what has yet to happen, don't you think? You should realize this is a "prediction". If it's right or wrong is yet to been seen. Let's touch base in 2 years and see if I was right or not.

Sad but true.

I think it is disingenuous of people to complain about the possibility of an Obama administration violating the Constitution but the people who are in the position to actually enforce those infringements (military, LE, lawyers, judges, etc.), including the many that have already occured, do so even though they know it is wrong.

At least we agree about something.

 

[Scutter01]

Since this thread has now drifted way off topic, can we please get back to the original discussion of the flag in the OP? If you want to discuss government budgeting philosophies, please start a new thread.

Thanks

 

[SavageEagle]

Is this abusive use of the flag???????

Flag? There's a FLAG in there? oh, yea. Ok. Carry on.

Isn't that INDY????

And nope, no flag desecration there....

 

[JetGirl]

Is this abusive use of the flag???????

First, nope - nothing going wrong with the flag there.
Second, I'm certain that guy has never met that kid's mom...'cuz it looks like his junk may still be intact.

 

[SavageEagle]

First, nope - nothing going wrong with the flag there.
Second, I'm certain that guy has never met that kid's mom...'cuz it looks like his junk may still be intact.

Met the mom? I think he could be "daddy"!

 

[JetGirl]

Met the mom? I think he could be "daddy"!

Hmm...doubtful, he's still got arms instead of bloody stumps.