Trump believes burning the US flag should warrant loss of citizenship or year in jail.

He's quite old, maybe he'll die of natural causes soon.

If you know how to read, they gave their reasons: Flag burning is protected speech. And the flag, while a symbol, is just a flag. Our freedoms are what define us, not a piece of cloth. It's not weird or strange to protect freedoms and realize that banning speech has its consequences, especially when there is ambiguity involved. Patriotism isn't defined by waving some flag around, it's defending those freedoms of ALL Americans, even if it's offensive.

I don't agree with flag burning just as I don't agree with the confederate flag, but if people want to burn their own flags and wave confederate flags, go for it. Don't hurt anyone or burn anyone else's property, just your own. As for a majority supporting it, it's irrelevant. The supreme court ruled it unconstitutional before and will do so again for the same reason stated above.

Also, for someone who is intent on calling others "special snowflake," you can't even make a proper argument other than that a "majority supports it." For someone who is intent of supporting such a flag burn ban, you're pretty much a conservative snowflake.

@Jacanuk:

If you know how to read, they gave their reasons: Flag burning is protected speech. And the flag, while a symbol, is just a flag. Our freedoms are what define us, not a piece of cloth. It's not weird or strange to protect freedoms and realize that banning speech has its consequences, especially when there is ambiguity involved. Patriotism isn't defined by waving some flag around, it's defending those freedoms of ALL Americans, even if it's offensive.

I don't agree with flag burning just as I don't agree with the confederate flag, but if people want to burn their own flags and wave confederate flags, go for it. Don't hurt anyone or burn anyone else's property, just your own. As for a majority supporting it, it's irrelevant. The supreme court ruled it unconstitutional before and will do so again for the same reason stated above.

Also, for someone who is intent on calling others "special snowflake," you can't even make a proper argument other than that a "majority supports it." For someone who is intent of supporting such a flag burn ban, you're pretty much a conservative snowflake.

If we ban flag burning in spite of the first amendment but continue to allow unlimited political spending in order to preserve it, that would present a wonderful microcosm of the current political environment.

Even a President (elect) is entitled to is own opinion. Flag Burning has already been ruled on and protected so his opinion(s) will not change a thing and for as wrong of an act as it is, it should be protected.

I am so sick of these NON-ISSUES coming up again and again.

Even Scalia, who conservatives have now all-but-deified as the standard to be upheld and replaced, said that burning the flag is OK.

We've been over this territory before. Again and again.

Abortions, Same-sex marriage, and, you guessed it...burning the flag. ALL OKAY!

You people that object and think people need to be punished need a lesson in "while I object to what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"

You people that object to it only, well, that's all right.

Just stop it.

It's already been tried (Flag Protection Act) and was overruled by the Supreme Court. Sorry, Mr. Trump. However, with new Supreme Court justices... such decisions can be overturned.

......... Comp_atkins neglected to mention the last major push was the Flag Protection Act of 2005.. A act that outlawed flag burning and stated it as inciting violence or as a act of terrorism.. A act that enforced at least a year of jail time and a massive fine.. A act that was co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton. In fact the original cosponsors of the act were all democrats..

Holy shit guys.. The last push to ban flag burning in the country was co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton.. The DEMOCRAT candidate of the most recent general election..

I don't recall that being a topic of her campaign for the last two years.

lol of course.. A person who has a history of not just talking about it, but literally SUPPORTING LEGISLATION of the exact thing that is being heavily criticized here is given a pass.. How bout condemning both sides on this kind of shit instead of being a partisan parrot? I see so the whole grabbing a woman's crotch talk happening around the same time is undeniable proof he is a cretin now.. But Hillary supporting a legal law at the same time period is completely different, she's a different person now!

Who's calling for a flag ban now and stripping citizenship? Trump.

Who was calling for a flag ban back then but hasn't said a thing? Clinton.

There's your difference. There are times when Democrats should be called out but you're trying too hard.

Not really seeing as I am calling both sides repugnant.... Times? Yeah like pointing out the absolutely fucking hypocrisy here.. Showing absolute "terror" of seeing what big bad "tyrant" Trump is while completely ignoring the other candidate freaking supported a legislative bill to do the VERY THING.. And just like Trump here, the same shit will happen.. If Congress doesn't stop it, the supreme court will.. I mean the freaking co-sponsors of the entire bill were ALL DEMOCRATS.. But no, you're right its the god damned Republicans! But no clearly I am reaching.. I mean clearly tweats vs actual in law legislation where a candidate officially supported it.. I am trying too hard? No trying to hard would me pointing out a questionable conspiracy like question.. No point out the main co-sponsor of the last god damned bill was the democrat candidate..

Yeah the difference is the fact that Hillary officially voted for and sponsored law.. The other one is a guy shooting his mouth off with absolutely no real say.. At best they are equal.. At worse, Hillary is more damning, because it isn't just rhetoric she voted and cosponsored a official act. Both sides should be thrown under the bus here.

pretty much

inb4 "lock her up!"

@mrbojangles25: Partisan hypocrisy here is astonishing.. I have no problems with condemning Trump on this, but the fact of the matter is the other candidate has a actual history of not only talking about this but voting for said act.. I mean what the hell? This is the kind of partisan bullshit that got us to this point to begin with, in having two of the worse candidates in presidential history running against each other. I am all for condemning Trump on this, but don't come here and act like the other candidate didn't have a ACTUAL HISTORY of legislation in doing this very same thing.. Where the **** was the outrage about this during the primary if this was such a huge concern? Where was the outrage of this during the general? I mean Trump only recently after the election really starting talking about this.. Meaning if this was on your radar, you would think you guys would have given Hillary tons of flak during the primary.. You guys deserve Trump.

Hillary agrees, she proposed the flag-burning ban with a penalty of $25,000 or 2 years in prison!

Trump tweets a little comment (doesn't propose anything)...liberal brain meltdown. It's as if the liberals are puppets and Donald Trump is the puppet master. Donald Trump is pretty much ElPresador.

Honestly, I thought burning flags was illegal and punishable by law. Was pretty surprised to find out it wasn't.

... Its like these fools don't realize that it's this kind of hypocrisy that got us to this point to begin with, in seeing two of the worse candidates in history running against each other. These people deserve Trump.

Okay. And? No one is perfect nor am I going to agree with everything they have to say on every key issue and/or past actions. I don't agree with Clinton's past actions nor the Democrats who did vote for it. As for Trump, he's the president-elect and threatened stripping citizenship. It's like your boss going around yelling obscenities and suddenly says he's going to bash the secretary's face in. Oh yeah, there's security and HR but he could bash the secretary's face in.

Clinton has her issues and you can point out partisan hypocrisies but it doesn't take away the criticism of Trump's comments and the ignorance of so-called constitutional conservatives who support such a measure, and it should be criticized.

So honestly, I don't get your rants.

Well he is the president-elect and did say he support stripping citizenship. Also, generally liberals don't support banning flag burning. It's usually conservatives. But that's generalizing. You do have your Blue-Dog Democrats and liberal Republicans who are all over the place. Clinton is no exception.

@drunk_pi: Because it was a response to some one insinuating that the other candidate would be better in this regard.. A candidate with a ACTUAL HISTORY OF SUPPORTING and VOTING for the very thing that some guy TWEETED.. You want democrats to win next time? Don't support this kind of bullshit hypocrisy.. You would think one of the biggest landslide victories for Republicans in a long time would have people rethinking things, but clearly not the case.

And that flag burning act? It was not only co-sponsored by Hillary, but all the co-sponsors were in fact democrat.. This is why the democrats got their asses kicked.. They claimed to be the moral superiors, when in actuality we have evidence they are as shitty as the other side. "We are the ones that want to stop wars!" Gets involved in several more wars, increases drone program exponentially.. "We will be the most transparent out there!" Is in fact the most secretive, massive leaks out that the government had a massive spy program on the US citizens.. "We are for the environment!".. Pro fracking, pro coal, takes tons of funds from fossil fuel industries..

Yeah you're totally right. I'm just going to ignore what the Republicans are doing and from now on I should flog myself when Democrats do something stupid. Oh wait, Clinton supported the Iraq War but Bush started it, mishandled it, and caused an economic recession? Oh, doesn't matter, *flogs myself* Democrats did it too *flogs myself* Oh look Republicans elected an authoritarian populist threatening the very freedoms of this country, oh wait Democrats did it too *flogs myself* This feels good *flogs myself again* OH YEAH.

I don't care. There were Democrats who opposed gay marriage. A majority don't oppose gay marriage now and most have flipped on the issue either out of convenience or they actually did have a change of heart. The same with the GOP although at a small number. Again, I'm not doubting that the GOP has its problems, it's just not relevant today.

It's like you have blinders on.. I specifically said to condemn them BOTH.. Your damned right Clinton is partially responsible for the Iraq War, the entire establishment is.. Instead of being a partisan hack and trying to defend one side, how bout you actual defend the freaking values you claim to defend? You guys deserve Trump, the whiny partisan moral superiority complex you have is the reason why he won.. Keep whimpering, it's like you haven't learned a damn thing after the democrat party suffered one of it's biggest defeats in modern history.. You guys have been saying this shit for a year now, it didn't work, it has had the opposite effect.. Keep crying out how he is a authoritarian with tweets as evidence, while propping up a candidate that freaking cosponsored and voted for a act doing the very same thing..

Because I can tell you what will happen.. The people who voted for him because of this rhetoric support it.. The liberals will not change their mind.. The people in the middle will freaking look at the fact that the other side did the very same thing before this.. Pretty much solidifying the conclusion with Clinton to begin with, that she was morally bankrupt, and the Democrats are corrupt.. Must hurt losing to one of the most horrible candidates in history? Looking to blame some one? Blame the DNC for putting forward one of the worse candidates in history.. Blame Hillary Clinton for pushing media in giving Trump free coverage to give him the advantage in winning the Republican Primary.. The establishment played chicken with the country, expecting to choose the most corrupt candidate in history over the wild orange haired orangutan.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now regardless of political affiliation. Despite voting Democrat, I'm well aware of the problems the Democrats have, even prior to the massive defeat.

Both parties have their issues and hypocritical moments. There's not much you can do except elect liberal-minded leaders who are more united in their goal in bringing in more progressive goals. Fine, point out the hypocrisies but what good does it do now other than help the other side who are working towards repressive policies?

Also, the authoritarian has said pretty anti-constitutional stuff at his rallies and has appointed officials with similar views regarding the registry. Again, if some maniac says he's going to bash someone's face in, I'm taking them seriously unless otherwise.

I don't care. When you are going to be PRESIDENT of the US you should uphold American rights and freedoms. Not whine about them. Though I think he does this so no pays attention to what the ass is actually doing.

You are mistaken.

What was overruled in 1989 was a law put in place in 1968 at the top of the vietnam protests. What The flag desecration amendment or "the flag protection act" is on the other hand is a newly formed amendment to the constitution which makes it legal to put flag desecration laws in place.

And no a decision made by a previous supreme court cannot be heard again there is a reason why it´s the highest court in america , that decision is final and done for. Flag burning became protected under the 1st amendment

So the only way to "bypass" that is to make an amendment which requires 2/3 of the senate to pass. And here is where it has been halted.

@sSubZerOo: I hate Clinton too, and was also outraged when she did this as well. I recall the exact incident you are talking about.

Don't get me wrong, man, I get exactly what you are talking about but Clinton is pretty much irrelevant now (relevant to the incoming President-elect, that is), so you will have to excuse me if I place more concern onto Trump than I do onto Clinton.

It's not hypocrisy, it's priorities; the guy who is about to lead our country and who's party controls the congress AND controls senate AND might "control" the supreme courts just said he wants to deport or imprison flag burners.

Yeah I think I'm going to worry about that instead of Clinton.

Perfectly fine to believe in banning flag burning. Perfectly fine to say you want to ban flag burning. Not perfectly fine to actually do it.

I'm referring to the law which was overturned by the Supreme Court decision, not the amendment.

The Supreme Court can overrule itself.

Somebody needs to change Trump's Twitter password behind his back and not tell him what they changed it to. He is the president elect and needs to watch what he is saying. The media is still sore that they were wrong about him losing the election in a landslide, and they are putting him out there every chance they can get.

While it disgusts me when people burn the flag, and I thought it was stupid when some Trump-haters were burning flags during their post-election riots on November 9, I don't think it should be illegal. That is something we have over many other countries, which is the right to disrespect our country in protest.

You goofs do realize that Hillary supported this very same bill 10 years ago, right?

Yep, but unlike her, he is going to be the president, and is a narcissistic little bitch who knows nobody on earth takes him seriously. I can see him attempting, in the face of American and enlightenment values, a US version of lese majeste laws. He is that much of a bitch.

By far his best tweet.

@uninspiredcup said:

@perfect_blue said:

His Twitter timeline is a gem.

By far his best tweet.

I bet if you gave him a photograph of Pablo Escobar, and said this was your dad, who was nicknamed El Chapo, Trump would tell everyone about how great of a cook your dad is.

More like the Conservative Justice Warrior.

Or Patriotic Justice. Either way, there is no official term just yet. But I have seen distain towards the CJW grow and grow, hopefully the CJW will be called out on their crap sooner rather htan later. And we get a proper term for it soon.

There would be a lot of muslims in UK in jail if that was over here. Saw on the news a couple of year back Muslims screaming and cutting up and burning the English flag but demanding more benefits. lol.

:)

Once their numbers are sufficient enough they'll be burning the country down instead. Guaranteed. Muslim immigration = suicide.

@Wickerman777: In a town not so far from where I live a sign post said. We now own the UK. Its been taken down since by the police but it was up for quite a bit. I live in Northern England so not London.

@Wickerman777: a True Patriot!! Lol that video is gold thanks for sharing :p

was there a need to mention it in my post? a stupid idea is a stupid idea regardless of what the political affiliations are of the people who propose it.

Muslim majority = <insert a Islamic county> copy-and-paste in new host country.

For the progressive left, Islam is not limited to a single race.

On one hand you support free speech (flag burning) yet on the other hand you do not support free speech (Trump's opinions). Either you support protected free speech or you don't. Which is it?

I have to ask again because I do not believe I received an answer when asked a while back: Were you one of the PA guys who was practically guaranteeing a Trump loss in the state?

It doesn't work like that. No one is criticizing Trump's right to say what he said, they're criticizing what he said. Supporting free speech doesn't mean that people can't call someone out for saying something stupid.

I mean, hell...right now you're criticizing people for criticizing Trump. Does that mean that YOU don't support free speech? No, what it means is that you're USING your right of free speech to criticize what someone else said. Where the hell are you getting this idea of "they don't approve of what I said, therefore they don't support free speech"? I don't see LJ saying that it should be ILLEGAL for Trump to say that, he's merely saying that Trump shouldn't say that. Supporting free speech has NEVER meant that people shouldn't be called out for stating their stupid-ass opinions.

Its amazing how such simple concepts confuse some people.

Oh I agree completely, I am merely pointing out Bojangles hypocrisy that the other candidate was any better in this regard.

You guys really don't understand how much I'm appreciating your meltdowns.

Please continue.

Yeah it is quite amazing indeed. Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from scrutiny. In fact, scrutiny is arguably the most interesting part that the sandbox that is free press provides.

Anita Sarkeesian was not infringing on anyone's free speech, when she criticized what she saw as sexism in video games.
Anita Sarkeesian was however infringing once she tried to get the UN to censor those who abused her.
Sargon of Akkad was not infringing on free speech when he criticized Anita's videos.
Sargon of Akkad was infringing on free speech when he tried get courses banned from universities.

Actually it does work that way at least according to the individual whom I first quoted. Trump's opinion is an example of free speech and, according to his (person I quoted) own words, doesn't care. You have conveniently ignored a more important part of his post where he doesn't want Trump complaining. That too is free speech. The guy doesn't need to say something should be illegal in order for it to be an example of not supporting Trump's right to free speech. You can try and sculpt it into a better picture but he's clearly against free speech depending on the position and the person offering it.

I'm criticizing an individual for being subjective when it comes to supporting free speech. You either support it or you don't. There isn't an in between.

Sigh... to make it simple for you to understand.

• I shouldnt have answered false on a calculus question (concerning theory). The answer was clearly true, and had I reread the question I would have known that.
• I shouldn't have insulted that guy. It set off a very rocky relation between the two of us.
• Trump shouldn't have made that flag burning comment. It is a stupid thing to say, and reflects poorly upon him.

Note how LJS did NOT say that he shouldn't have the right to say that or that he shouldnt be allowed to say that. There is a huge difference between the two.

Sigh all you want. His own words are there to interpret. He doesn't want Trump to "whine" about freedoms. For the Homers of the board, that translates into wanting him to stay silent.