Tomi Lahren’s attempt at a sexy and patriotic Halloween costume backfired, big time

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

There is no "stand for the anthem" code that people are violating either.

 

Both are actions that can be deemd as disrespectful to our soldiers and what they fight for. One is a song, one is our nation's most prominent symbol. Doesn't matter that it isn't a real flag, it's still the symbol of our nation. It's disrespectful to out that symbol on bikinis, hats, tank tops etc... It's not that it violates any code (just like kneeling doesn't), it's that it takes a national symbol and turns it into a commercial product.

 

I am still struggling to see how someone who is so patriotic and cares so deep for the national anthem doesn't care about our nation's great symbol. That is hypocritical to me.

Nope there isn't other than love for one's country and overall respect.  I know we generally don't teach respect anymore which is quite sad, but whatever.  As to symbols, so you are saying there can be no physical depictions of the flag?  This is very different than desecrating the actual flag and is more of a show of respect for the symbol than a violation of the flag code.  If someone wears a bathing suit or a jacket with a flag depiction are they disrespecting the flag? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The argument that this violates the flag code is incorrect. unless you can prove that this was an actual flag fashioned into a cape.  The flag code is related to just the flag itself, not depictions of the flag, or there would be a lot of people and companies in trouble with all the garments out there that depict the flag.

Well, you may have missed the mark on that one.  Title 10, Chapter 36, Paragraph 176. Respect for Flag says:

• (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.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Nope there isn't other than love for one's country and overall respect.  I know we generally don't teach respect anymore which is quite sad, but whatever.  As to symbols, so you are saying there can be no physical depictions of the flag?  This is very different than desecrating the actual flag and is more of a show of respect for the symbol than a violation of the flag code.  If someone wears a bathing suit or a jacket with a flag depiction are they disrespecting the flag? 

Yes exactly it is about respect for a symbol, whether that symbol is the Flag or the Anthem. I think we agree at least on that part. Neither one is violating some "code" (which yes if it was an actual flag then that would be violating the flag code). They are both about respect for something.

 

Fashion sense aside, yes I find flags on bathing suits, jackets etc... disrespectful. Fourth of July "decor" I think is reasonably appropriate (as long as it isn't outlandish) because the whole holiday is about a celebration of patriotism. So bunting, tablecloths etc for that holiday are all clearly in celebration. But buying flag underwear, flag shirts, or dressing up in a flag for halloween intentionally trying to "bait" people (Looking at Tomi there...) are all disrespectful to the symbol. Those products are using our nation's symbol flippantly and commercially and to me if you find standing for the Anthem as disrespectful, I still don't understand how you would be okay with such use of our Nation's most important symbol that has been around far longer than the National Anthem.

 

21 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Are you one of those who believe that Hillary didn’t “intend” to illegally send those emails from her personal devices and server, so she’s innocent?

I think you are getting lost in this discussion IDWAF (not trying to be insulting with that, honestly). I wasn't the person who brought up how intentions matter. Go back to page 1. JayjayJ brought it up. I have said, repeatedly, that a person's intentions don't matter and they can be disrespectful whether they intend to or not. Similarly, you can commit a crime whether you intend to or not.

 

That question is much better posed to others in this thread who claim that innocent intentions somehow make it okay in certain circumstances.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

There is no "stand for the anthem" code that people are violating either.

 

Both are actions that can be deemd as disrespectful to our soldiers and what they fight for. One is a song, one is our nation's most prominent symbol. Doesn't matter that it isn't a real flag, it's still the symbol of our nation. It's disrespectful to out that symbol on bikinis, hats, tank tops etc... It's not that it violates any code (just like kneeling doesn't), it's that it takes a national symbol and turns it into a commercial product.

 

I am still struggling to see how someone who is so patriotic and cares so deep for the national anthem doesn't care about our nation's great symbol. That is hypocritical to me.

Ummm, actually, there is exactly such a code.  

 

Title 36, Subtitle 1, Part A, Chapter 3, Paragraph 301:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

[Dashinka 24,505]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Well, you may have missed the mark on that one.  Title 10, Chapter 36, Paragraph 176. Respect for Flag says:

• (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.

Doesn't the term "the flag" represent an actual flag and not a depiction of the flag?  Just wondering as otherwise there are a lot of companies violating this especially around July 4.

 

[Dashinka 24,505]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Yes exactly it is about respect for a symbol, whether that symbol is the Flag or the Anthem. I think we agree at least on that part. Neither one is violating some "code" (which yes if it was an actual flag then that would be violating the flag code). They are both about respect for something.

 

Fashion sense aside, yes I find flags on bathing suits, jackets etc... disrespectful. Fourth of July "decor" I think is reasonably appropriate (as long as it isn't outlandish) because the whole holiday is about a celebration of patriotism. So bunting, tablecloths etc for that holiday are all clearly in celebration. But buying flag underwear, flag shirts, or dressing up in a flag for halloween intentionally trying to "bait" people (Looking at Tomi there...) are all disrespectful to the symbol. Those products are using our nation's symbol flippantly and commercially and to me if you find standing for the Anthem as disrespectful, I still don't understand how you would be okay with such use of our Nation's most important symbol that has been around far longer than the National Anthem.

 

I think you are getting lost in this discussion IDWAF (not trying to be insulting with that, honestly). I wasn't the person who brought up how intentions matter. Go back to page 1. JayjayJ brought it up. I have said, repeatedly, that a person's intentions don't matter and they can be disrespectful whether they intend to or not. Similarly, you can commit a crime whether you intend to or not.

 

That question is much better posed to others in this thread who claim that innocent intentions somehow make it okay in certain circumstances.

The difference is that the message the NFL players are sending is basically a hatred for the country.  Whether intentional or not, this is the message being seen, and they need to deal with that.

 

[NikLR 13,227]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 If someone wears a bathing suit or a jacket with a flag depiction are they disrespecting the flag? 

Technically yes.  The flag isn't supposed to be on clothing or made into clothing.  Or beach balls etc... 

 

But people don't see it the same as kneeling.  IMHO kneeling is fine if you're politely protesting.  Standing for the flag is an act of patriotism that IMHO has absolutely NOTHING to do with the military. (Regardless of US code btw which I think may only apply to actual military members.) We don't play the national anthem to respect the military... we do it to show patriotism towards one's country.  It's not like all the people are standing in their living rooms with their hands over their hearts singing loudly at the national anthem every time it's played on TV.  There are religions that do not allow someone to sing or stand for a national anthem... I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses being screamed at by football fans or Tomi Lahren or Donald Trump and told they're unpatriotic and horrible people who shouldn't be allowed to have their jobs.  

 

I don't hear O' Canada and think, dang thanks armed forces!   I say hey, I'm proud to be Canadian at this time and I show respect by removing my hat and standing.  At home I'll sing along if I don't stand. I show respect for armed forces by standing behind them and supporting them, telling them I'm proud of their service (even though modern armed forces often do not like to hear this), and voting in a manner which shows that support.   I have a small Canadian pin that I keep on my purse.  I have a Canadian flag that I put in my house (and an American one as well just fyi.)  I don't salute them when I go by but that doesn't mean I'm not patriotic. 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Ummm, actually, there is exactly such a code.  

 

Title 36, Subtitle 1, Part A, Chapter 3, Paragraph 301:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

How is the US Code enforced (if at all)?

 

BOth of these (This one, and the one you listed regarding clothing) are clearly not enforced that regularly, if at all. I don't know the details about when or how these are supposed to be enforced. I can ask my legal friends next time I see them but until then...

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Doesn't the term "the flag" represent an actual flag and not a depiction of the flag?  Just wondering as otherwise there are a lot of companies violating this especially around July 4.

 

Well, therein lies the rub.  Any halfpbaked lawyer could argue that making a shirt to resemble the flag is “using any part of the flag”.  Same thing with the blurb about “embroidering the flag” onto something else.  Screen printing has taken over where embroidering has left off.

 

Either way, even if it WERE to violate the USC, there are no penalties.  The only penalty I am aware of is a fine and/or imprisonment for desecrating the flag (burning, stepping on, throwing it on the ground), and even THAT is never enforced.  (Well, once that I have ever found).

[NikLR 13,227]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Well, therein lies the rub.  Any halfpbaked lawyer could argue that making a shirt to resemble the flag is “using any part of the flag”.  Same thing with the blurb about “embroidering the flag” onto something else.  Screen printing has taken over where embroidering has left off.

 

Either way, even if it WERE to violate the USC, there are no penalties.  The only penalty I am aware of is a fine and/or imprisonment for desecrating the flag (burning, stepping on, throwing it on the ground), and even THAT is never enforced.  (Well, once that I have ever found).

I believe that burning the flag in protest is the only desecration that is allowed by US law.  You aren't allowed to step or on it or throw it on the ground though which is why it isn't supposed to be on clothing, objects etc...   http://time.com/3907444/flag-supreme-court-history/

Edited November 1, 2017 by NikLR

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

The difference is that the message the NFL players are sending is basically a hatred for the country.  Whether intentional or not, this is the message being seen, and they need to deal with that.

 

I don't see it as hatred for our country. I see it as protesting certain aspects and actions of law enforcement agencies. Not agreeing with 100% of what happens in the country doesn't mean you hate it. Protestors typically don't "hate" the country, just like people with different political opinions don't hate the country. They disagree on the direction and values the country should have.

 

I also don't see the Charlottesville protesters, or any other right-leaning protestors as "hatred" for the country. 

 

3 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Technically yes.  The flag isn't supposed to be on clothing or made into clothing.  Or beach balls etc... 

 

But people don't see it the same as kneeling.  IMHO kneeling is fine if you're politely protesting.  Standing for the flag is an act of patriotism that IMHO has absolutely NOTHING to do with the military. (Regardless of US code btw which I think may only apply to actual military members.) We don't play the national anthem to respect the military... we do it to show patriotism towards one's country.  It's not like all the people are standing in their living rooms with their hands over their hearts singing loudly at the national anthem every time it's played on TV.  There are religions that do not allow someone to sing or stand for a national anthem... I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses being screamed at by football fans or Tomi Lahren or Donald Trump and told they're unpatriotic and horrible people who shouldn't be allowed to have their jobs.  

 

I don't hear O' Canada and think, dang thanks armed forces!   I say hey, I'm proud to be Canadian at this time and I show respect by removing my hat and standing.  At home I'll sing along if I don't stand. I show respect for armed forces by standing behind them and supporting them, telling them I'm proud of their service (even though modern armed forces often do not like to hear this), and voting in a manner which shows that support.   I have a small Canadian pin that I keep on my purse.  I have a Canadian flag that I put in my house (and an American one as well just fyi.)  I don't salute them when I go by but that doesn't mean I'm not patriotic. 

Agreed.

 

I realize some people see kneeling as a problem. I just don't. I get that those people kneeling aren't showing outward patriotism for their country (though I disagree that it means they don't respect our troops, as I agree with you about the meaning of a National Anthem) but also recognize that they are doing it for a reason. It's a protest. Not a particularly effective one if you ask me, but I won't judge them for how they choose to protest the cause they believe in.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think you are getting lost in this discussion IDWAF (not trying to be insulting with that, honestly). I wasn't the person who brought up how intentions matter. Go back to page 1. JayjayJ brought it up. I have said, repeatedly, that a person's intentions don't matter and they can be disrespectful whether they intend to or not. Similarly, you can commit a crime whether you intend to or not.

 

That question is much better posed to others in this thread who claim that innocent intentions somehow make it okay in certain circumstances.

Doesn’t matter who said it, intent certainly matters according to the law.  There’s intentional murder, and there’s unintentional.  

 

But when someone uses the “I didn’t intend to” as an excuse to rid themselves of guilt, that’s pretty weak.  As in the case I mentioned about Hillary.  She knew darn good and well what she was doing was illegal. When you have a clearance such as she, you are VERY THOROUGHLY briefed on how so many things you can do will send you to jail.  But.. that’s an old topic.

 

The intent of the NFL players is to show that they don’t respect the US nor the flag that represents it.  That “living thing” that everyone is required to swear allegiance to.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, NikLR said:

I believe that burning the flag in protest is the only desecration that is allowed by US law.  You aren't allowed to step or on it or throw it on the ground though which is why it isn't supposed to be on clothing, objects etc...   http://time.com/3907444/flag-supreme-court-history/

You are not allowed to burn it in protest, only if it was already desecrated or tattered to such a point as to be unusable.  Then it should be burned, or disposed of properly.  Ant VFW post will take a tattered or worn flag and dispose of it for free.

[NikLR 13,227]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

You are not allowed to burn it in protest, only if it was already desecrated or tattered to such a point as to be unusable.  Then it should be burned, or disposed of properly.  Ant VFW post will take a tattered or worn flag and dispose of it for free.

According to the link the supreme court disagrees with you. 

 

Quote

In United States v. Eichman, which was decided exactly 25 years ago, on June 11, 1990, the Supreme Court once again ruled that burning the flag was an example of constitutionally protected free speech.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by NikLR

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Doesn’t matter who said it, intent certainly matters according to the law.  There’s intentional murder, and there’s unintentional.  

 

But when someone uses the “I didn’t intend to” as an excuse to rid themselves of guilt, that’s pretty weak.  As in the case I mentioned about Hillary.  She knew darn good and well what she was doing was illegal. When you have a clearance such as she, you are VERY THOROUGHLY briefed on how so many things you can do will send you to jail.  But.. that’s an old topic.

 

The intent of the NFL players is to show that they don’t respect the US nor the flag that represents it.  That “living thing” that everyone is required to swear allegiance to.

 

Gotcha. I agree with you that intent matters in terms of determining severity of the infraction (unintentional murder is not as severe). But intent doesn't matter when determining whether or not you killed someone, whether or not you hit another car, whether or not you said something racist. You  may "get off" for it if it was accidental, but it still happened.

 

As for the "intent" of the NFL players - I guess that is just where I disagree. I don't see their intent as "I don't want to respect the US or the flag". Their intent is that they are unhappy with certain practices and wanted to do something publicly to protest it. I'm sure if you asked all of them they all respect our troops, and they all, on the whole, love America. They just don't think it's perfect. I'm sure none of us do. Of course also many of the additional players doing it had a different intention, which was just to show solidarity and support for those who had already did it. That also isn't showing disrespect to the country of the flag, it is showing support for their fellow players.

Edited November 1, 2017 by bcking