Frankly I ignored most of bright's post. He projected a series of views on me that I don't have. I've been very clear that bright has the right to express himself in most any way and that turning the flag upside down is certainly one of them. I've also been very clear that it's a childish way of expressing oneself. It would be like walking up behind a veteran and shouting "Baby Killer!" It might, in fact, be true. He could have killed a baby. But you wouldn't find a jury to convict him if he turned around and knocked you flat.
Please explain how hanging the flag upside down, a symbol of distress, need of help whatever, is anything like calling a veteran a baby killer?
Ask the people you offend. You want to shock them into thinking and are shocked when they think of you with contempt.
Right. And in 2009 you can sit around mumbling, "But we were really, really, really right this time. Why can't they get it? Those people are so stupid."
See all you had to do was say that you couldn't explain how hanging a flag upside down was like calling a veteran a baby killer. Wasn't too hard was it?
Pointless as in you not being able to explain how the two are similar....I agree with you there. Seriously give it a go. Show everybody reading these threads that what you said actually had some kinda of point and wasn't you just spewing out the first stuff that came to mind. First it was a dirty lawyer trick that gets a guilty man off, now its like calling a veteran a baby killer. Anything else it is like? Do you have some sort of Mad-libs for symbols that you are using for this? Do you always find it this difficult to explain your line of thinking?
My point was that displaying the inverted flag was not intended to be used in the way jmeissen does here or the guy in Marin County. It had a much greater purpose. However, I don't see it as being illegal, just as using a legal loophole is OK to let a bank robber go free or maybe just a kid who stole a bicycle. As I said, "So be it." If someone wants to use their freedom of expression that way, it is their choice. They just must realize that it will offend as many people as it may attract.
You are proving my point. You see it as a polarizing event. I see all kinds of holes in your comparisons above but the bottom line is your message sounds like the little kid who tells his mother that "Jimmy messed his pants so why can't I?" If you truly want to take the high moral ground, you don't stoop to that level of debate. It is a loser.
Re: Seriously, why not Beckham now? Jim, some of what you say has merit, but seriously, climb down from that cross you have proudly perched yourself upon. It is painfull to see you up there. enough with the "hitler" BS.... It simply isn't true.
It doesn't make him look like a jerk or make him look stupid or idiotic or any of the other silly names you're calling him. It makes him look like a proud American who is concerned at the direction his country is headed. If that's not a patriotic act, I don't know what is.
To you, yes, I would guess it makes him look like a concerned citizen. To others that disagree with him, it's offensive. Democracy means talking to people with whom you disagree. Being offensive isn't helpful to democracy. It may make him feel better but it's just to satisfy himself. Yet again the Left choses to indulge itself rather than work for change.
He's not trying to be offensive. He's trying to communicate distress, which is all that an upside down flag represents. Why are you offended that he is upset? That's just silly.
I know what he's trying to communicate. That's fine with me. My point is that's not how he's coming across. I bet he knows it too. He should after 200 posts in this thread. The fact that he still does it is what makes him look so totally ignorant. This thread started on one topic but some people felt so strong about his avatar the thread got hyjacked and moved. I don't think that's what he wanted. Yet he still goes on and on. Eventually I have to conclude that he is just indulging his feelings. Again, that's fine, but he shouldn't whine about it.
What he's saying is, 51% of Americans are either evil or retarded and they're going to destroy this country. And he's using the American flag to say that. To the people he is calling retards, that is offensive. I think there are better ways to get his point across than using a symbol that I think should be something that unites the American people. (Wow, that was corny.) Also, can there be like a corollary to the Godwin Law that anyone who brings up the first amendment in their defense automatically loses the argument?
I agree as well. There are a lot of liberals that bitch and moan about how the country is going. There are also a lot of conservatives that bitch and moan about how the country is going. There are few people on both sides that are doing much about. I don't have a problem with people using symbols to express their feelings. I do have a problem with people just slapping a symbol on a car or avatar and then call it a day.
jesus christ. never has the internet been defined so well. what a waste of everything. HAY GUYS PICTURE POST + CATCH PHRASE OH NOES! EDITED POST!!!!!!!
I never would have thought that the arrangement of a few hundred pixels is something people could get so outraged over.
True Story: this man is from Naperville Illinois. So is Bob Odenkirk and Karl "GODDAMN AMERICAN" Schuster.
It is really difficult to listen to a Republican supporter complain about offensiveness hindering the democratic process. If you are really concerned about this, could you try applying this filter in a bipartisan manner? I'd love to see your neutral list of perpetrators. I don't think you are concerned about general offensiveness. Rather, you are concerned with forcing others to adhere to a certain frame of reality in which the rules always favor your beliefs. Thus, no matter what someone who disagrees with you says, you have some justification for marginalizing their feelings. Flag etiquette is a common issue for people like you. It is a symbol, and thus easily subjected to arbitrary projections on your part, and then used as a wildcard in your arguments in whatever way you wish. The sad thing is that you will successfully delegitimize jmesissen's feelings in some people's eyes, even if it is totally irrational. Is that what your real beef is, then? That jmeissen fails to give in to irrational perspectives about the flag? - Paul
You're still projecting on me arguments I did not nor would not make. To me, even flag burning is free speech. I think "Republican" efforts to ban it are nothing more than cynical politics. However, I also think people that burn the flag to make their points are idiots. So too with people who insist on turning the flag upside down. No matter what you MEAN it to say, others have their own independent responses. It offends them. They won't get past it and on to your other points like, for instance, Becks in the MLS. It's just a poor means of communication or, in apparently Jim's case, a request for martyrdom.