An Iraq War Veteran’s View of The Republican Convention
In part as a response to vicious reports that “Democrats had desecrated” American flags at Invesco Field, I wrote, “The U.S. Flag: America’s Symbol, or Political Football?”
There I said,
While, at worst, it appears that the manner in which one or two individuals handled the thousands of flags, left for pickup or for storage at a shipping dock at Invesco Field, may not have been the most appropriate way, the response by some has been disproportionate and offensive. Again, the flag is being used to question the loyalty, the patriotism of not only the Democratic Convention organizers, but also of Senator Barack Obama and of the entire Democratic Party and, consequently, of one-half of the American people.
I have not seen any recent updates to the post that brought this story to our attention, but there is one this morning at The Huffington Post, written by Iraq War veteran and co-founder and Chairman of VoteVets.org, John Soltz:
Second, there is the fact that right after the Republican convention, the party produced a bunch of flags that they stole from the Democratic convention in Denver, in an attempt to “prove” the Democrats were throwing out the flag. In fact, workers in Denver were collecting all the flags left at Invesco Field, to send to community events around the country, where other patriotic Americans might want to wave the flag. So, to promote a complete fabrication, Republicans stole flags that some five-year old kid might have wanted to wave on Main Street. Stay classy…
This is, however, only part of Soltz’ article, “How Did the RNC Insult Troops and Veterans? Let Me Count the Ways…” Soltz, who also served with distinction in the Kosovo campaign, and now heads an organization dedicated to truly supporting the troops, should know a thing or two about such issues.
In his article he “counts the ways” in which last week’s Republican Convention under the guise of being pro-Troop and pro-Veteran made “offense after offense.”
This is how Soltz “counts the ways”:
1. McCain Didn’t Mention Veterans’ Care
2. Walter Reed
3. “Phony Soldiers”
4. Speaking of phony
5. Real outrage
For the full details, please click here.
I fully expect that some will vilify a decorated Iraq War veteran (Commissioned Officer) who fought for our country—for “That Flag“—because he now dares to criticize the way an administration that professes to support the troops has dropped the ball, and taken its eye off the real ball—the terrorists who attacked our country on 9/11.
34 Responses to “An Iraq War Veteran’s View of The Republican Convention”
Whi vilify the man when it is much easier to vilify his, and your supposed arguments.
You don't build yourself up by tearing another down and that is all that Mr. Stoltz is attempting in this post. First he talks of the lack of concern for veterans' issues at the convention, fair enough. However, he allows the notion of the lack of action at the convention for lack of action in congress in addressing those concerns. If I'm not mistaken, democrats have controlled congress for the last two years. If progress has been made in addressing the converns of veterans by the democrat controlled congress, I am unaware of such. So, Mr. Stoltz is deriding Mr. McCain without ever contrasting Mr. McCain's actions to those of his opponent Mr. Obama. What can be deduced from the lact of inquiry into the democratic efforts, it can be deduced that they've done as little or less than Mr. McCain.
Poorly argued as his point might be, you take it a step further in flailing about in the final paragraph – how you managed to leave out a Halliburton reference is beyond me. And I like how you applied the Obama rhetorical device of damning the republicans even before they've acted. In the same way that Obama strikes fear into the hearts of the true believers with his tales about 'some' people saying he doesn't look like the presidents on the dollar bill, you expect that 'some' will vilify this honorable man. Nice argument there sparky.
Dorian,
As unfair as it is, the story is out there with a picture.
Regardless of what is said or written now, the general public has the impression that those flags were thrown away.
Since the liberals have championed the fight to allow the flag to be mistreated, stepped on, urine soaked and every other form of desecration, it would follow that the public would accept at face value that these flags were tossed in the garbage.
Argue if you like, but the image of the democrats using the flag as a disposable prop instead of a symbol of the country is not a far stretch.
jwest:
With the exception of some fringe “liberal” individulas, and ACLU efforts under the guise of “free speech”, please cite some examples where “liberals” (read Democrats) “have championed the fight to allow the flag to be mistreated, stepped on, urine soaked and every other form of desecration”
You are almost verbatim repeating and committing the stereotyping and insults that those who are pushing the Invesco field lies are guilty of.
D.E.,
That is the whole point.
It’s all stereotyping and clichés. Even if you had the chance to sit down and give to each and every voter the country unassailable evidence that the flags were being treated properly, most people would still walk away with the impression they were thrown out.
Republicans have suffered for years being stereotyped as bible-thumping, racist, dull-witted millionaires. No amount of evidence will ever pry that image out of the liberal’s narrow little minds.
Hey, some days it just sucks to be a democrat.
PWT:
“However, [Soltz] allows the notion of the lack of action at the convention for lack of action in congress in addressing those concerns. If I'm not mistaken, democrats have controlled congress for the last two years. If progress has been made in addressing the converns of veterans by the democrat controlled congress, I am unaware of such”
I hate to disappoint you, PWT, bu it was the Democrats in Congress who have pushed for increaded benefirts for veterans, better care, a better G.I. Bill, etc. and it has been Bush who has either vetoed such, or threatened to veto such, and/or McCain who has been conspiculously missing in action and/or also has resisted such Democratic attempts to support the troops. Here are some examples from
The New G.I. Bill Revisited
June 8th, 2008
By DORIAN DE WIND
PWT, please pay in particular attention to the section:
“Humes also takes a look at McCain’s record on “legislation supported by major veterans organizations” which he records as follows” towards the end
———
.
.
One of these pieces of important legislation is the new G.I. Bill. That is the upgraded G.I. Bill sponsored by Senators James Webb, (D-Va), and Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb). A bill that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, and one that would begin to restore educational benefits to our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, similar to the benefits that were enjoyed by our World War II veterans under the original 1944 GI Bill.
While 75 U.S. Senators have voted for this bill–neither Senator McCain nor my Texas Senator Cornyn were among them–and while an overwhelming majority of Representatives, including my Representative Lloyd Doggett, have voted in favor of it, “support-the-troops” President Bush continues to threaten that he will veto this bill.
Hopefully, this bill will come up for a final vote this week of June 9th. Hopefully, patriotism and our debt and duty to truly support our troops who are sacrificing, and who have already sacrificed so much will prevail over partisanship, petty and misplaced penny-pinching, and disingenuous opposing arguments.
[here is] a column written by none other than Edward Humes, …
I say, none other than Edward Humes because Mr. Humes is a journalist and prolific author who in 1989 received the Pulitzer Prize for specialized reporting for several investigative stories he wrote about the U.S. Military. In 2006, he literally “wrote the book” on the G.I. Bill with his “Over Here: How the G.I. Bill Transformed the American Dream.” A book that tells how the post-World War II G.I. Bill ” revolutionized higher education, created suburbia, brought us the scientists, engineers, doctors, artists and teachers who built most of what is good in America today.”
While Humes mainly questions Senator McCain’s opposition to the G.I. Bill (”Why would a Vietnam War veteran and former prisoner of war, a man who is personally acquainted with the difficulties vets can face in returning to civilian life, join President Bush in opposing a popular bipartisan bill to support the troops?”), he offers many other thoughts and compelling arguments. Here are some excerpts from his May 30 column in the Los Angeles Times, “McCain’s Attack on Vets– His respectful rhetoric isn’t matched by his votes“:
“Isn’t fixing the education benefit in the bill — one that has shortchanged far too many veterans for years — a political no-brainer in an election year? The 75 senators who recently voted for it certainly thought so”
.
.
McCain and others who oppose the Webb-Hagel version of the G.I. Bill have said that too-generous education benefits will hurt retention as enlistees will leave for college after their initial enlistment commitment rather than continue to serve. This is what Humes has to say about that:
“McCain’s position makes sense only by overlooking the fact that the main retention (and recruiting) problems facing the military are the Iraq war and the scandals plaguing military and veterans healthcare.” “The inadequacy of the military’s prime recruiting tool — subsidized college educations — is hurting recruitment too, and Webb argues this can be fixed only by fixing the GI Bill. He says McCain, a friend, ‘is missing the boat’ by siding with the Bush Pentagon rather than veterans groups. Webb points to a Congressional Budget Office analysis that found any possible losses in retention caused by his bill would be balanced by the increases in recruitment it would generate.”
On some of McCain’s other positions and arguments:
“Before the Senate voted on Webb’s GI legislation, McCain offered what he called a compromise bill, but it was rejected. Webb pointed out that there really was no compromise in McCain’s proposal because it would have excluded most veterans by offering full education benefits only to those with multiple enlistments, even though 70% to 75% of enlistees leave after one tour.”
Humes also takes a look at McCain’s record on “legislation supported by major veterans organizations” which he records as follows:
* On Webb’s GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.
* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.
* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 — to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes — he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.
* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.
* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.
* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.
As to the “it costs too much” argument, I will quote myself from my May 30 piece, “The bill is estimated to cost $45 billion [update: $52 billion] over the next 10 years. At the present rate of expenditures for the Iraq war–including the billions of dollars wasted, fleeced and not accounted for–we are talking about an amount equal to what we spend in Iraq in about six months. Is this too much to spend on our troops who are getting shot at, injured and maimed every day?”
jwest, you consistently support smearing Democrats, even with flagrantly dishonest charges. In so doing, you support lowering our electoral process to trickery designed to subvert democracy by misinforming rather than informing. If we vote based on lies, and if everyone shows such contempt for “an informed electorate”, democracy is lost.
PWT, “If I'm not mistaken, democrats have controlled congress for the last two years.” How disingenuous, and I think you know it. Between presidential vetoes (including veterans' bills vetoed by Bush) and filibusters (record number for GOP in the last 2 years), the Dems have NOT been in charge of the agenda. Lacking a filibuster proof majority, they cannot get bills passed, and they would be vetoed anyway. I know from your posts here that you aren't dumb. Are you intentionally deceptive?
I was going to wait for D.E.’s comment to come out in paperback, but I went ahead and read it here.
So, D.E., when Barack loses the election because people were mad at him for throwing flags away, you’ll understand………right?
Greendreams,
If you’ve been paying attention, I’ve said it is unfair. I’ve said it doesn’t matter what the facts are. It wouldn’t matter if I joined with you and D.E. to deny the flag story at every opportunity.
It doesn’t matter.
The image is there and you just have to live with it. Some things you just can’t fight.
From jwest:
Actually, it does. The reaction(s) of yourself, and others, to stories presented by the media is exactly what matters.
For quite a long while, I listened to various reports and read articles online on how public representatives were deceiving, or otherwise manipulating, the public. My standard response had been to conduct research for my own intellectual gain, and rarely participate in political conversation with others – if only because I was more interested in hearing their views and trying to understand their rationale. At that point in time, I would have stated what you just wrote (and probably have in the recent past).
I then came to realize how disingenuous this position was… to myself. By silently allowing misconceptions to flow through a dialogue, I was letting myself down on one of the goals I have for personal growth: accepting the reality of every situation instead of ignoring.
Now, I will agree with you that the impact of both you and I stating to others that this particular story is untrue might be very little at this point in time. The question, then, is if such knowledge also correlates into less value in such a situation for yourself as a person in standing up against something you know to be untrue. For me, the cost of taking 30 seconds to attempt a correction of someone's knowledge in this area is fairly minimal compared to what I'd be giving up.
(Two notes: I'd say this just as much about a story promulgated by the one political group as another. And, on an amusing tone, I don't carry a soap box with me just in case the couple behind me in the store are muttering privately to themselves about it… my family wishes that extended to them at times
.)
It's just like the troops' real concerns in Iraq and our failure to man the occupation adequately, to try to win a remote, push-button war and then do an occupation too cheaply, and shortchanging the troops when they return by claiming they have a behavioral problem that disqualifies them from veterans' benefits.
The hard-core anti-war-and-USA contingent (as with radicalism going back to the 1960s, care packages being sent by students to the Viet Cong, riots and vile treatment over veterans as “protest” of the Vietnam war) has tainted the Democrats to this day.
We see some signs of changing, evident in the 2006 vs. 2004 election results, but how much of it is pro-Democratic and pro-liberal versus anti-GOP and anti-conservative remains to be seen (through observing not a single 2006 set of elections, but other trends).
Note that McCain's choice of Palin stole the show last week and has revitalized the McCain campaign and deflated the Obama campaign's impression of strength as the race leader. Perceptions (and the real events that generate the perceptions), the images, really do matter — it's not limited to the neurotic obscession liberals and Democrats have with “symbolic” this and that (in place often of substance.)
(We have two months to go before we learn how much 2008 is like 2006, or if it's back to the past 2000s electoral and political norm. That's two more months for both campaigns for the White House to craft their campaigns and their images.)
Dear Dorian, TMV did clarify the 'flag-schmag' issue, (as spirisol named it with some wit yesterday) here yesterday. I went down to Denver and wrote this: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/republican…
and this
“Re the small flags from the DNC, and their thousands of signs as well, that blown backward and inside-out bumbershoot story amounts to this: I spoke to two persons at DNC downtown when I was in Denver today: 12,000 flags were wrapped along with thousands of signs for pickup. A worker called the Republican headquarters in Denver ‘to report’ the travesty that wasn’t. Some of the GOP people took the worker at his/her word that these were on the loading dock and therefore (in the worker’s mind) were being thrown away. They weren’t. They were waiting for transport. According to DNC cleanup coordinators, someone (said worker? no one knows) took quite a few of the flags from stadium without permission. Oh, and someone thought to take pictures of the flags wrapped for transport.
“My husband USAF 21 years verifies what several of you have already offered… just to answer the questions swirling on Internet… to dispose of flags soiled, torn beyond repair, unless heirloom or commemoration flags carried during battle or other significant event, such as commemorative burial of a veteran, the proper conduct is to burn completely, and to bury the ashes. It is, in military, a ceremony. In private, it is asked that it simply be done with respect.”
I am sorry, it may not have been seen, for I put it in an article about all of us seeminly lost in the pages of the satire based newspaper, The Onion…
What is/ was interesting to me, is that the MSM, via cable news, claims they followed this story and the Palin wasnt really pregnant story, because bloggers whipped it into being.
Seems, even if so, still, for heaven's sakes, real journos checking the facts first would have helped. Certainly allowing for monkey-wrenching tendencies of some few 'operatives' on both sides, would have made a journo think of all the ways to interpret, rather than just one.
I could be wrong, but the trend looks like Richard Jewell, Randi Rhodes, Whose baby is whose? and Flag Schmag issues, all belong to same genre of premature ejaculation. I am not being vulgar. I went to school so long ago, that exclamation in grammar was called ejaculation. It was 'quick or sudden speech,' also for us Catholics, it is also the word for a short prayer.
I know, I know. I go to my room now
dr.e
jwest,
There you go with the “flag desecration” argument using the same, tired, distorted argument that so many before you have used–that which argues that supporting ones right to engage in some particular activity is the same thing as endorsing the activity itself.
I support the right of every American adult to eat fast food every day of the week. That doesn't mean that I endorse such an activity.
I support the right of every American adult to gamble away their own hard-earned money. That doesn't mean that I endorse such an activity.
I support the right of every American adult to look at porn or engage in kinky sexual acts. That doesn't mean that I endorse such activities.
I support the right of every American adult to smoke cigarettes or marijuana. That does't mean that I endorse such activities.
Similary, I I support the right of every American adult to burn or otherwise desecrate an American flag so long as it is his own property. That doesn't mean that I endorse such an activity.
And frankly, the idea that those who continue to wave the “flag desecration” issue believe that they or the government have the right to tell my fellow Americans what they can or cannot do with their own property, is one that I find reprehensible. To hide behind the American flag and use it as a prop to argue against the very freedoms that it stands for is both sad and pathetic.
jwest,
There you go with the “flag desecration” argument using the same, tired, distorted argument that so many before you have used–that which argues that supporting ones right to engage in some particular activity is the same thing as endorsing the activity itself.
I support the right of every American adult to eat fast food every day of the week. That doesn't mean that I endorse such an activity.
I support the right of every American adult to gamble away their own hard-earned money. That doesn't mean that I endorse such an activity.
I support the right of every American adult to look at porn or engage in kinky sexual acts. That doesn't mean that I endorse such activities.
I support the right of every American adult to smoke cigarettes or marijuana. That does't mean that I endorse such activities.
Similary, I I support the right of every American adult to burn or otherwise desecrate an American flag so long as it is his own property. That doesn't mean that I endorse such an activity.
And frankly, the idea that those who continue to wave the “flag desecration” issue believe that they or the government have the right to tell my fellow Americans what they can or cannot do with their own property, is one that I find reprehensible. To hide behind the American flag and use it as a prop to argue against the very freedoms that it stands for is both sad and pathetic.
Actually, if the federal government may define a flag, it may also create associated laws including penalties for wrongdoing to that flag. It is perfectly suitable to have federal laws and to prosecute offenders. What affects this issue are concerns like practicality and proportion. (In the real world, deep offense to others is not free of consequences, either, nor should it be in a moral world.)
Now I have never wanted a “flag-burning” [desecration] amendment to the U.S. Constitution because this is overreaction, excessive, and amounts to idolatry.
Actually, if the federal government may define a flag, it may also create associated laws including penalties for wrongdoing to that flag. It is perfectly suitable to have federal laws and to prosecute offenders. What affects this issue are concerns like practicality and proportion. (In the real world, deep offense to others is not free of consequences, either, nor should it be in a moral world.)
Now I have never wanted a “flag-burning” [desecration] amendment to the U.S. Constitution because this is overreaction, excessive, and amounts to idolatry.
Well, now. I guess no one has bothered to consider a couple of points on the flag story.
First, it's illegal to burn trash in Denver. I think perhaps the “proper flag disposal” thing is a bit out of date. We actually don't need the air pollution, however patriotic. I'm not saying that the flags were going to be disposed of, just pointing out that burning 125,000 flags to show respect for their symbolism isn't really that great an idea.
Which brings me to point two. Do you want to wave a recycled flag? Not refurbished or sanitized in any way; just picked up from the seat at a convention and given to Boy Scouts (or whatever). I don't think that's an especially great idea either.
We're expected to get into a lather about the fate of a bunch of paper or cloth symbols and ignore public health issues? Isn't that taking symbolism a bit far? Again, I don't believe the Dems were going to discard them, but if they were, I for one would not want them burned OR given to children along with whatever viruses or microbes or rancid chicken fat may have been on the handles.
Well, now. I guess no one has bothered to consider a couple of points on the flag story.
First, it's illegal to burn trash in Denver. I think perhaps the “proper flag disposal” thing is a bit out of date. We actually don't need the air pollution, however patriotic. I'm not saying that the flags were going to be disposed of, just pointing out that burning 125,000 flags to show respect for their symbolism isn't really that great an idea.
Which brings me to point two. Do you want to wave a recycled flag? Not refurbished or sanitized in any way; just picked up from the seat at a convention and given to Boy Scouts (or whatever). I don't think that's an especially great idea either.
We're expected to get into a lather about the fate of a bunch of paper or cloth symbols and ignore public health issues? Isn't that taking symbolism a bit far? Again, I don't believe the Dems were going to discard them, but if they were, I for one would not want them burned OR given to children along with whatever viruses or microbes or rancid chicken fat may have been on the handles.
Thanks for your comments, dr. e.
I do remember reading your post on the flaf-schmag issue, and I appreciated it ,but I thought that the views on this issue from a combat vereran who actually fought for “That flag” would be of interest.
Let's hope that this one has now been put to bed…until the next one
Thanks for your comments, dr. e.
I do remember reading your post on the flaf-schmag issue, and I appreciated it ,but I thought that the views on this issue from a combat vereran who actually fought for “That flag” would be of interest.
Let's hope that this one has now been put to bed…until the next one
D. E. Rodriguez, thanks for the comment and Humes' piece!
D. E. Rodriguez, thanks for the comment and Humes' piece!
Jwest
As unfair as it is, the story is out there with a picture.
Anything can be photoshopped, and anyone with a digital camera can snap a picture, thus freezing the moment and that can be interpreted any which way. Ever go to Fark .com? Oooh look Obama doesn't have his hand over his heart for the SSB- but when exactly during the anthem was that picture taken? Before? After?During? You assume too much from one picture, and it just goes to show the “blinders-on” lack of perception by the far right.You see what you want to see because that is all you can see. Were that the case then let's talk about the Palin Bikini pic!!! Your point is null and void, and your arguments are back of the classroom noises. Step back take a breath and think.
Jwest
As unfair as it is, the story is out there with a picture.
Anything can be photoshopped, and anyone with a digital camera can snap a picture, thus freezing the moment and that can be interpreted any which way. Ever go to Fark .com? Oooh look Obama doesn't have his hand over his heart for the SSB- but when exactly during the anthem was that picture taken? Before? After?During? You assume too much from one picture, and it just goes to show the “blinders-on” lack of perception by the far right.You see what you want to see because that is all you can see. Were that the case then let's talk about the Palin Bikini pic!!! Your point is null and void, and your arguments are back of the classroom noises. Step back take a breath and think.
Vetoes and filibusters are strawmen. If the congress would draft legislation agreeable to enough members, the legislation could be passed with a veto proof majority, thus ensuring a presidential signature. So, though they may not be able to control the agenda, they are in control of congress. They have nobody to blame but themselves for a lack progress (just as the republicans had no complaint against the democrats prior to 2006 for not advancing of their agenda).
Vetoes and filibusters are strawmen. If the congress would draft legislation agreeable to enough members, the legislation could be passed with a veto proof majority, thus ensuring a presidential signature. So, though they may not be able to control the agenda, they are in control of congress. They have nobody to blame but themselves for a lack progress (just as the republicans had no complaint against the democrats prior to 2006 for not advancing of their agenda).
RememberNovember,
I am trying, believe me, to learn how to speak “liberal”. It is a foreign language to me and it is much more difficult than speaking “conservative”.
The reason I’m trying to learn your language is to be able to communicate and exchange ideas. If there is anyone on this thread who is skilled in translation, I would appreciate some help getting this point across:
I am not saying that Democrats threw flags into the trash.
What I am saying is that Democrats have a history of speech and actions that make it very easy for the general public to believe something like this could have happened.
If someone had taken the Bill Ayers photo of him standing on the flag and photoshopped John McCain’s face into it, no one would believe it. Why? Because there is nothing in his history to set the stage for an action like that.
Try to understand, I’m commenting on perception – not the reality.
RememberNovember,
I am trying, believe me, to learn how to speak “liberal”. It is a foreign language to me and it is much more difficult than speaking “conservative”.
The reason I’m trying to learn your language is to be able to communicate and exchange ideas. If there is anyone on this thread who is skilled in translation, I would appreciate some help getting this point across:
I am not saying that Democrats threw flags into the trash.
What I am saying is that Democrats have a history of speech and actions that make it very easy for the general public to believe something like this could have happened.
If someone had taken the Bill Ayers photo of him standing on the flag and photoshopped John McCain’s face into it, no one would believe it. Why? Because there is nothing in his history to set the stage for an action like that.
Try to understand, I’m commenting on perception – not the reality.
“Vetoes and filibusters are strawmen”
Not at all. No Congress has voted more in lock-step than the GOP under Bush. Their “discipline” is legendary. So what you're really saying is that if the Democrats would just draft legislation that Republicans like, they could get something past a Bush veto.
Duh.
“Vetoes and filibusters are strawmen”
Not at all. No Congress has voted more in lock-step than the GOP under Bush. Their “discipline” is legendary. So what you're really saying is that if the Democrats would just draft legislation that Republicans like, they could get something past a Bush veto.
Duh.
jwest, yes, the Republicans have effectively slimed the Dems, like they do ACLU, for fighting for the RIGHTS represented by the flag. And yes, the GOP likes to run on the perception of patriotism, using both nationalism and religion to divide the public and deceive them into voting on emotional issues rather than their policies, which are profoundly anti-democratic (with a small d). They favor the rich elite few at the expense of the many, the very opposite of democracy.
jwest, yes, the Republicans have effectively slimed the Dems, like they do ACLU, for fighting for the RIGHTS represented by the flag. And yes, the GOP likes to run on the perception of patriotism, using both nationalism and religion to divide the public and deceive them into voting on emotional issues rather than their policies, which are profoundly anti-democratic (with a small d). They favor the rich elite few at the expense of the many, the very opposite of democracy.
Thank you StockboySF. Both Soltz and Humes are patriots, each in his own way.
Thank you StockboySF. Both Soltz and Humes are patriots, each in his own way.
Actually, DLS, if I buy an American flag, that American flag belongs to me. Not you. Not Obama. Not McCain. ME.
To argue that the federal government has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property is a violation of the very property rights that conservatives claim to believe in. To argue that the federal government is within its rights to prevent me from burning my own American flag is to argue that the State, and not I, owns my property.
Sure sounds like conservative-backed socialism to me.
Actually, DLS, if I buy an American flag, that American flag belongs to me. Not you. Not Obama. Not McCain. ME.
To argue that the federal government has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property is a violation of the very property rights that conservatives claim to believe in. To argue that the federal government is within its rights to prevent me from burning my own American flag is to argue that the State, and not I, owns my property.
Sure sounds like conservative-backed socialism to me.