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

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, NikLR said:

According to the link the supreme court disagrees with you. 

 

 

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

 

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.

 

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

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.

Do you think this mock outrage fits the situation though?  To kneel is to violate the USC on the national anthem, plain and simple.  Just because there is no penalty for the violation does not lessen the meaning.  To kneel with the intent to protest the COUNTRY, when they are actually complaining about some other issue (cops shooting innocents is one I have heard), when in fact the number of innocents shot by cops every year is like 1/100th of a percent of all police interactions... that is ridiculous to me.  

 

I agree that when innocent, unarmed people are shot by cops, it’s a bad thing.  And something is done about it, probably more today than in past decades when things were swept under the carpet more.  But again, the tiny numbers of innocents shot, when looked at in the daily arrest records across the country, and infinitesimal at best.  And certainly not something worth disrepecting our nation as a whole.  It’s not like our nation is pro-kill-the-innocent or anything,

 

I can say that I have been in at least 4 other countries when their national anthem was being played, and I always stood out of respect.  Even if I am not a citizen, even if I don’t agree with their laws or rules, I stood.  (Now, put me in front of the N. Korea anthem, and I might feel otherwise.)  I see no reason to kneel for a national symbol to protest one or two little issues.  My beef would be with the local problem at hand, not the country as a whole.  But that’s just me.

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Do you think this mock outrage fits the situation though?  

I find the outrage against the kneeling to be just as misplaced. So you don't agree with what they are protesting? I don't think we need to turn it into a big deal. Let them kneel. I think it is quite disingenous to suggest that it "ruins" the entire football experience or something equally dramatic. They are kneeling during a song. Just ignore them. If you don't agree with them the BEST thing you can do is ignore them because it makes their protest ineffectual. 

 

So, as I've said, while I don't think Kaepernick and Co. chose a very effective means of protesting, I have no problem with what they are doing. They can do whatever they want. If I watched football it wouldn't hurt my enjoyment of the game because it isn't during the game. It is for 3 minutes before the game. I'd imagine I'd probably be filling up bowls with chips and setting out the dip at that part. As someone else mentioned - I highly doubt most of us stand and put our hand on our heart while watching football through the television. 

 

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

To kneel is to violate the USC on the national anthem, plain and simple.  Just because there is no penalty for the violation does not lessen the meaning.  

Wouldn't the same apply to our primary discussion in this thread regarding Tomi Lahren's outfit? It seems to violate the USC. Just because there is no penalty, doesn't lessen its meaning.

 

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

To kneel with the intent to protest the COUNTRY, when they are actually complaining about some other issue (cops shooting innocents is one I have heard), when in fact the number of innocents shot by cops every year is like 1/100th of a percent of all police interactions... that is ridiculous to me.  

1. Protesting certain actions, or specific laws, or a specific part of what is happening in the country is NOT the same thing as "Protesting the country". They aren't hating on America, they are hating on what they perceive as unfair treatment. They have chosen a tool at their disposal to gain attention for their cause. You can disagree with their perspective, but them protesting and believing it doesn't mean they are protesting the whole United States of America. 

 

This is something that needs to be recognized in many situations. There are a lot of people protesting right now. People want to protest Trump. People want to protest immigration. I agree with some, I disagree with others. I don't think ANY of them really hate the country, or are "protesting the country" as a whole. They are just disagreeing with aspects of what is going on. That is what protesting is. (I'm sure there are some people out there who honestly truly just hate our country all around and maybe they are protesting also...even the white supremacists I don't think hate the country).

 

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I agree that when innocent, unarmed people are shot by cops, it’s a bad thing.  And something is done about it, probably more today than in past decades when things were swept under the carpet more.  But again, the tiny numbers of innocents shot, when looked at in the daily arrest records across the country, and infinitesimal at best.  And certainly not something worth disrepecting our nation as a whole.  It’s not like our nation is pro-kill-the-innocent or anything,

In general I agree, though I can't say I am all that knowledgeable on the statistics. I just have never looked into it. My general impression is there are probably areas of the country where it is a bigger problem, but when you look at the country as a whole yes it ends up being a small number.

 

I'm not here to debate/discuss the merits of what they are protesting. Everyone has the right to protest for causes they believe in. I'm mostly here to argue that their form of protesting is not all that offensive. It doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't disrupt anything. It is fairly ineffectual, except in the way that it has generated so much public discussion. Without that "outrage" about the kneeling, it wouldn't have accomplished anything.

 

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I can say that I have been in at least 4 other countries when their national anthem was being played, and I always stood out of respect.  Even if I am not a citizen, even if I don’t agree with their laws or rules, I stood.  (Now, put me in front of the N. Korea anthem, and I might feel otherwise.)  I see no reason to kneel for a national symbol to protest one or two little issues.  My beef would be with the local problem at hand, not the country as a whole.  But that’s just me.

I've done the same. I've stood in the UK for God Save the Queen. I stood in Thailand, though to be honest that was mostly because my wife told me I could be arrested if I didn't. We were in a movie theater and they play their anthem before any movie. I thought it was strange and probably would have just stayed seated if she didn't say anything.

 

Each one of us can choose to stand or not stand. I have no problem with people choosing not to stand as long as that doesnt disrupt my ability to stand, honor the song or whatever else I want to do. If Kaepernick ran over to the band and started stealing their instruments and tried to get them to stop playing the song, then I would have a problem (Do football stadiums even use a band? I guess they probably just play a recording...)

Edited November 1, 2017 by bcking

[Steeleballz 7,550]

31 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Do you think this mock outrage fits the situation though?  To kneel is to violate the USC on the national anthem, plain and simple.  Just because there is no penalty for the violation does not lessen the meaning.  To kneel with the intent to protest the COUNTRY, when they are actually complaining about some other issue (cops shooting innocents is one I have heard), when in fact the number of innocents shot by cops every year is like 1/100th of a percent of all police interactions... that is ridiculous to me.  

 

I agree that when innocent, unarmed people are shot by cops, it’s a bad thing.  And something is done about it, probably more today than in past decades when things were swept under the carpet more.  But again, the tiny numbers of innocents shot, when looked at in the daily arrest records across the country, and infinitesimal at best.  And certainly not something worth disrepecting our nation as a whole.  It’s not like our nation is pro-kill-the-innocent or anything,

 

I can say that I have been in at least 4 other countries when their national anthem was being played, and I always stood out of respect.  Even if I am not a citizen, even if I don’t agree with their laws or rules, I stood.  (Now, put me in front of the N. Korea anthem, and I might feel otherwise.)  I see no reason to kneel for a national symbol to protest one or two little issues.  My beef would be with the local problem at hand, not the country as a whole.  But that’s just me.

 

   In many religions, including Christianity, kneeling is considered an act of reverence and respect.  I'm not sure what line of reasoning people are using to say it's disrespectful but it seems disingenuous to me. 

 

   In case you are not familiar with the whole story, it was special forces veteran (and NFL player) Nate Boyer who originally suggested that Kaepernick kneel for the anthem. Prior to that, Kaepernick had sat on the bench. Boyer suggested that kneeling was a more respectful way to deliver his message.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   In many religions, including Christianity, kneeling is considered an act of reverence and respect.  I'm not sure what line of reasoning people are using to say it's disrespectful but it seems disingenuous to me. 

 

   In case you are not familiar with the whole story, it was special forces veteran (and NFL player) Nate Boyer who originally suggested that Kaepernick kneel for the anthem. Prior to that, Kaepernick had sat on the bench. Boyer suggested that kneeling was a more respectful way to deliver his message.

I haven't brought that up yet, but I have thought about it. It's another aspect that has always confused me.

 

I've never really associated "kneeling" with disrespect. While yes I get it the players aren't assuming the body posture that is "expected" during the Anthem, they certainly aren't assuming a disrespectful posture. They aren't mooning the flag, standing on their heads, giving the flag the finger. They are saying nothing and just kneeling (with the exception of some teams who I know stayed in their locker room). 

 

It terms of false outrage the response to the kneeling has been far more dramatic and overdone than their own protest. They weren't showing "outrage", they weren't being loud and obnoxious because of what they deemed as inappropriate behavior by law enforcement. They were silently kneeling. What followed was a lot of very upset/hurt people. Many of whom love to use the terminology "Snowflake" to refer to those who take things way too personal, or are so easily offended. Many of them should look in the mirror if they want to find a snowflake.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am a little confused.  I thought the MDL has been telling us for years that even if one person is offended it matters?  Does that only apply to those positions held dear by the MDL?

 

   Who are you insinuating is the MDL? You are replying to a specific poster. He already gave you his opinion.

 

   The MDL is something a few people on an internet forum created to construct their straw man arguments around. You are taking it a little far to ask for clarification of positions from an entity that doesn't even exist in the first place. 

[NikLR 13,232]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

 

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.

 

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

 

oh look you quoted it too. 

 

Federally speaking, burning the flag is an appropriate form of protest against the government.

 

In reality, none of it affects me.  I stand for the national anthem if I'm at an event.  I'm not American but yet I do so.  I also have ZERO issues with someone kneeling or choosing not to stand due to their religious beliefs.   You seem to be the one with the issue.  As such, to continue on the ORIGINAL post, I found her outfit distasteful and I thought she looked stupid, especially considering what I know of her other comments.  She would have been better suited in some sort of captain america costume or mrs marvel type cosplay.  Not that she cares what I think so end of story. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by NikLR

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   In many religions, including Christianity, kneeling is considered an act of reverence and respect.  I'm not sure what line of reasoning people are using to say it's disrespectful but it seems disingenuous to me.

 

   In case you are not familiar with the whole story, it was special forces veteran (and NFL player) Nate Boyer who originally suggested that Kaepernick kneel for the anthem. Prior to that, Kaepernick had sat on the bench. Boyer suggested that kneeling was a more respectful way to deliver his message.

If you are serious about this, then you are failing at reading comprehension, because I know it’s posted on this website about the USC, which says non-military folks are to stand and face the music or flag, and has been discussed at length.

 

The kneeling thing from Boyer comes from the tradition of kneeling for dead soldiers.  That is a sign of respect in and of itself.  Sitting or kneeling during the anthem = same thing, not standing.  

 

At the end of the day, CK got what he deserved over it.  It’s just sad that he didn’t use his money and influence as a famous person to do something that would actually have made a difference in fixing what his kneeling failed to fix.  He could really have done more had he handled it differently, instead of now being out of a job.

[bcking 3,157]

53 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

If you are serious about this, then you are failing at reading comprehension, because I know it’s posted on this website about the USC, which says non-military folks are to stand and face the music or flag, and has been discussed at length.

Yes because everyone on Fox News and other conservative sites are all upset about it SPECIFICALLY because of the US Code that you quoted earlier...That is all they care about I'm sure

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

If you are serious about this, then you are failing at reading comprehension, because I know it’s posted on this website about the USC, which says non-military folks are to stand and face the music or flag, and has been discussed at length.

 

The kneeling thing from Boyer comes from the tradition of kneeling for dead soldiers.  That is a sign of respect in and of itself.  Sitting or kneeling during the anthem = same thing, not standing.  

 

At the end of the day, CK got what he deserved over it.  It’s just sad that he didn’t use his money and influence as a famous person to do something that would actually have made a difference in fixing what his kneeling failed to fix.  He could really have done more had he handled it differently, instead of now being out of a job.

 

  See, there you go again. It doesn't say "are to" stand, it says "should" stand. We went over this recently. As modal verbs go, should is used to be suggestive of an option.  If it was mandated to be compulsory that everyone stand, they would have used a more appropriate modal verb, for example must. 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  See, there you go again. It doesn't say "are to" stand, it says "should" stand. We went over this recently. As modal verbs go, should is used to be suggestive of an option.  If it was mandated to be compulsory that everyone stand, they would have used a more appropriate modal verb, for example must. 

 

Tomato, tomatoe.  I didn’t say must or shall.  The point remains the same.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Tomato, tomatoe.  I didn’t say must or shall.  The point remains the same.

The point changes along with which word you use.
Big difference.
Definitely not as in tomato and tomatoe. That is still a tomato(e).
Should and must are apples and oranges.

 

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/difference-between-should-and-must/

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Tomato, tomatoe.  I didn’t say must or shall.  The point remains the same.

Haha um no. Absolutely no.

 

Tomato and to-mah-to are two different pronunciations of the same word.

 

Should and must are two completely different verbs.

 

The English language is not that complicated.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

31 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

The point changes along with which word you use.
Big difference.
Definitely not as in tomato and tomatoe. That is still a tomato(e).
Should and must are apples and oranges.

 

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/difference-between-should-and-must/

 

 

Again.. I didn’t say must.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

Haha um no. Absolutely no.

 

Tomato and to-mah-to are two different pronunciations of the same word.

 

Should and must are two completely different verbs.

 

The English language is not that complicated.

Again... Steelballz said MUST, not me.