Arlington TX employee told US Flag is offensive

[pafindr]

if you would have substantial arguments as opposed to the drivel you've put in the last couple posts, we could maintain the discussion. Since you obviously cannot do that, i guess my part in the inquisition has come to a close.

+1,000,000

[CityOfChicago]

And while we're talking about "citizens of the world" and arrogance...

1) We still have military fighting in Iraq, yes? What happened to my nightly news reports about how f*cked up we made that country, how out of control the violence is, and the nightly Vietnam-styled body counts? Obama has completely ended all violence and killing in Iraq in 100 days. Maybe he is Christ.

2) So, it seems thatthe chief complaint about Bush was that he a) was waging an "unpopular war that was escalating like the 'Nam" and, b) He was arrogant in foriegn policy matters and was bunching up the collective panties of other so-called 'world leaders'.

Well, in response to (a), reference my #1 above. In response to (b), Obama has gone out of his way to put smiles all over the faces of world leaders - not usually allies of the US, but hey - it's his world. In the meantime, he's tripled the budget and the debt and is in the process of devalueing the dollar whilst driving inflation AND taxes through the roof. I mean, he's got to pay for this somehow, rite? And if he prints more money or borrows from China to pay for everything, you watch what happens to the economy then. And he actually has the marbles to stand in front of his teleprompter and LIE that he's gonna fix the economy and prevent inflation. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THIS CRAP SOMEHOW, PEOPLE.

So...Bush was bad because he made America look arrogant, and Obama is good because he apologized and begged our enemies to love us - but will make us all poor. What's more important?

[suzanne1020U.S.]

I like seafood. Ceviche is also a fav.

Isn't Ceviche, like, shrimp and green leaves?:confused:

[CityOfChicago]

I make mine with squid. And onions, habanero, celery, cilantro, salt, and lime juice.

[tomtom83]

And while we're talking about "citizens of the world" and arrogance...

1) We still have military fighting in Iraq, yes? What happened to my nightly news reports about how f*cked up we made that country, how out of control the violence is, and the nightly Vietnam-styled body counts? Obama has completely ended all violence and killing in Iraq in 100 days. Maybe he is Christ.

2) So, it seems thatthe chief complaint about Bush was that he a) was waging an "unpopular war that was escalating like the 'Nam" and, b) He was arrogant in foriegn policy matters and was bunching up the collective panties of other so-called 'world leaders'.

Well, in response to (a), reference my #1 above. In response to (b), Obama has gone out of his way to put smiles all over the faces of world leaders - not usually allies of the US, but hey - it's his world. In the meantime, he's tripled the budget and the debt and is in the process of devalueing the dollar whilst driving inflation AND taxes through the roof. I mean, he's got to pay for this somehow, rite? And if he prints more money or borrows from China to pay for everything, you watch what happens to the economy then. And he actually has the marbles to stand in front of his teleprompter and LIE that he's gonna fix the economy and prevent inflation. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR ALL THIS CRAP SOMEHOW, PEOPLE.

So...Bush was bad because he made America look arrogant, and Obama is good because he apologized and begged our enemies to love us - but will make us all poor. What's more important?

1) Soooo ... are you saying that it is OK for me to prefer not to have a US flag in the church I attend? :confused:

2) Christ never ended any violence or killing. Not even his own.

3) Who makes the better ceviche? You or Sgt. Slaughter?

Carry on.

[Creeker]

This may make me the most unpopular person on this forum, but so be it.
....

First, I believe that somewhere you mentioned that you were in the Service.

For that, I thank you from the recesses of my soul.

However, despite that Service, it seems that you haven't got an operational grasp of our History, our Founding documents, or how it is all interwoven with our religious freedoms... or in your haste to blame America first, it seems intentionally so.

...and for it to be "not all that important" to you, you apparently chose your church, hence your faith, based on the absence of a U.S. flag.

This makes you unpopular with me.

If there is an occasion for that to be rectified, have someone advise me, because until that happens, I'm not interested.

:>click<:

[tomtom83]

Your “feelings” and my “feelings” about our Constitution are no different. None of what I said suggests otherwise unless it is either mindlessly or intentionally misconstrued.

As has been stated and acknowledged before: I and you (collectively) are on the same page regarding the ONLY political/constitutional aspect of this “discussion”: That there will never and should never be an (official) BAN on displaying the American flag or on any other displays of patriotism.

Not wanting to see a flag during worship has nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment or any other amendment for that matter.

Again, it is a matter of personal preference – not a matter of politics or the Constitution. My personal preferences aren’t up for debate either. They are just that – personal.

I did not choose my “faith” based on the absence of a flag. My faith has nothing to do with what church I attend. I can have faith without ever setting foot in a church or other house of worship.

When I came to this site and saw the thread about “Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution” I was immediately interested in the group. I read what was posted in the group area, and I read posts of your “leader” for lack of a better word.

You’ve got a lot going for you: You have a worthwhile cause; you have good ideas, good principles, and conviction.

Most importantly, you have a great leader. Just from reading his posts I believe that he is very bright, well-educated, well-rounded, extremely eloquent, and even charismatic in writing.

But as soon as one of his soldiers opened his mouth I was turned off. And as soon as the other soldiers chimed in with similar off-topic mambo-jambo I was done.

Yes, you could care less about the approval of some internet freak; just realize that I’m not the only one who is being turned off by your irrational and hostile demeanor.

Word of advice to the leader: Get your troops under control or your following will be a small one.

As I said, you have a worthwhile cause, and I fight the same fight. Don’t risk losing the battle because you can’t keep your soldiers in formation. It truly would be a shame. It’s too important of a cause to screw up over petty issues that have absolutely no relevance.

[Taz_bb2]

:eek::eek::eek:

For someone that has served our country (and I thank you), your grasp of the Constitution and it intents, as well as the intent of this group, is very short-sighted.

Not wanting to see a flag during worship has nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment or any other amendment for that matter.

Oh, but it does. It's called freedom of expression, which has been upheld in the courts as falling under freedom of speech, as not all speech is spoken. It is the freedom of the church, its elected officials, and its parishioners to display or not display. If they choose to display it and you are offended, welcome to America. There's freedom of choice to leave, freedom of choice to ignore, or freedom of choice to praise. Freedoms often offend. That's the nature of a free Republic. I'm offended by seeing teenage ***-cracks showing, but I don't say anything. I'm offended by the noise pollution of "thumpers" playing songs at 1800 db, rumbling the mirrors on MY ride, but I don't say anything. I'm offended by every other word being the "F" bomb, but hey, it's freedom of speech.

The key is to understand that while you may be offended, as long as you retain the right to leave, ignore, or join, YOUR rights are still intact, as well as theirs.

So you see, they are connected, indelibly.

You’ve got a lot going for you: You have a worthwhile cause; you have good ideas, good principles, and conviction.

Most importantly, you have a great leader. Just from reading his posts I believe that he is very bright, well-educated, well-rounded, extremely eloquent, and even charismatic in writing.

But as soon as one of his soldiers opened his mouth I was turned off. And as soon as the other soldiers chimed in with similar off-topic mambo-jambo I was done.

Yes, you could care less about the approval of some internet freak; just realize that I’m not the only one who is being turned off by your irrational and hostile demeanor.

Word of advice to the leader: Get your troops under control or your following will be a small one.

As I said, you have a worthwhile cause, and I fight the same fight. Don’t risk losing the battle because you can’t keep your soldiers in formation. It truly would be a shame. It’s too important of a cause to screw up over petty issues that have absolutely no relevance.

Firstly, yes we do. Although I'm sure CoC's intention was not to become a leader of this group, his intelligence, prose, insight, and demeanor has pushed him there.

Secondly, we are all like-minded individuals in the fact that we honor the Constitution and what it stands for, but we are NOT a military group where the chain of command is in force. Ergo, our "leader" is in no position to "reign" anyone in, and quite honestly, I'd be surprised if CoC was so inclined.

See, true belief in the Constitution inherently enjoins one to the belief that each and every individual, regardless of status, mental capacity, or lot is entitled to their opinion and the expression thereof. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing - why do you think the Founding Fathers made it the very first thing in the Constitution? Without it, we would not have a Republic.

While you may or may not agree with anything anyone here has said, it is still our right under the First Amendment to do so. You have no more right to insist that one of the members of this group reign in his/her comments than CoC does, or even the President. THAT is true belief in and exercise of the Constitution and more importantly, the 1st Amendment.

I personally would rather have 5 dedicated souls to the Constitution, free exercise of the Bill of Rights, and unwavering belief in its power and freedom, than to have 5000 people who like to pick and choose who can or cannot say something based on some unfounded caste system of command. That is the basis of control, personal and public, and there is WAY too much of that already. The Constitution reserved rights to the People first, then the State, but somewhere along the way, 1913 to be precise, we started handing over our powers to the Federal Government, leading us to the precipice that we find ourselves on today.

If there is anything in this thread, on this site, or even this post, that offends you....to put it bluntly, too bad. You STILL have the right to ignore it, leave, or join. It matters not to me what your choice is. I respect your freedom and rights as an American to do or say what you want.

Its too bad that philosophy is not reciprocal.

[BP348]

Isn't Ceviche, like, shrimp and green leaves?:confused:

No green leaves that I remember. I make mine, or order it, like CoC but without the squid Just a good white fish & shrimp. With the lime juicw and everything else. A little avacado is good too :cool:

[ChevySSP]

No green leaves that I remember. I make mine, or order it, like CoC but without the squid Just a good white fish & shrimp. With the lime juicw and everything else. A little avacado is good too :cool:

That sounds good right about now.

[tomtom83]

Replies embedded in blue

First off, my comments about the “soldiers opening their mouths” were not directed at you. That disgraceful string started after your post. You have expressed your opinions with common sense and respect, and I thank you for that.

For someone that has served our country (and I thank you), your grasp of the Constitution and it intents, as well as the intent of this group, is very short-sighted.

I spent all but a few months of my adult life serving our country, in times of war, most of it in combat. I have paid my dues. I have made my sacrifices. I don’t need your “thank you” (whether it be sincere or not) nor anybody else’s. I have nothing left to prove and I know I have done my part, as small and insignificant as it may be. I have also brought home some baggage and I value my two hours of peace a week, a small reprieve that may be offensive to some.

As for your assessment of my “grasp of the Constitution”, you have nothing to base such opinion on.

Oh, but it does. It's called freedom of expression, which has been upheld in the courts as falling under freedom of speech, as not all speech is spoken.

My bad. I read your initial post as “freedom of religion” rather than “freedom of speech”. I suppose this whole debate would have gone differently without that initial misunderstanding.

The key is to understand that while you may be offended, as long as you retain the right to leave, ignore, or join, YOUR rights are still intact, as well as theirs.

Which is exactly what I have been saying and doing all along. I prefer not to see a flag in church; therefore I go to one that doesn’t display it. It was a very simple statement of my personal preference and should not have been the basis for a constitutional debate or personal attacks. I did not go to the priest or church leaders to complain about the flag either; it is their choice and their right and I accept it.

As you said, I chose to leave that church, which is my right. Why your hypocritical constitutional-loving buddies couldn’t accept it is beyond me.

So you see, they are connected, indelibly.

In that sense, yes, they are. And I didn’t infringe upon anybody’s rights by choosing a church to my liking.

Firstly, yes we do. Although I'm sure CoC's intention was not to become a leader of this group, his intelligence, prose, insight, and demeanor has pushed him there.

Secondly, we are all like-minded individuals in the fact that we honor the Constitution and what it stands for, but we are NOT a military group where the chain of command is in force. Ergo, our "leader" is in no position to "reign" anyone in, and quite honestly, I'd be surprised if CoC was so inclined.

People can have whatever personal opinions they want. But if they intertwine a constitutional debate with irrational idiocies it will poorly reflect on the group and cause. That holds true for any group. What I do on my time off as a soldier WILL be held against the group. Your (hypothetical) outrageous conduct WILL poorly reflect on your department whether you think it’s “fair” or not.

It’s the mixing of political statements with bologna that’s damaging to the image of the group. Debating someone’s online research skills or the definition of “worship” amidst a debate of the Constitution? WTF? Which is more important? All I can say is choose your battles wisely and your statements will make a much greater impact. I’m ashamed that these people claim to be upholding our Constitution.

See, true belief in the Constitution inherently enjoins one to the belief that each and every individual, regardless of status, mental capacity, or lot is entitled to their opinion and the expression thereof. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing - why do you think the Founding Fathers made it the very first thing in the Constitution? Without it, we would not have a Republic.

Agreed. Except apparently, I was not entitled to my opinion or expression that I would rather not see a flag in church. While YOU may truly live by what you preach, other members of the group clearly don’t. It’s not like I proclaimed “burn the flag”. All I said was I would rather not see it in church. Even THAT was too much for them to tolerate.

While you may or may not agree with anything anyone here has said, it is still our right under the First Amendment to do so. You have no more right to insist that one of the members of this group reign in his/her comments than CoC does, or even the President. THAT is true belief in and exercise of the Constitution and more importantly, the 1st Amendment.

I don’t insist on anything. The only reason I even brought it up is because I share the group’s beliefs and I would hate to see it fail because people are unaware of how poorly their irrational and hostile behavior reflects on the group as a whole. I could care less what any of you say or do, but it’s the cause that I’m concerned about.

As I said, you have a nice thing going here and I believe you can take this far, but it will take at least SOME self-restraint on the part of the members of this group to make it viable. You may be able to reel in some fanatics, but if you want to be taken seriously by a broader range of people, it will take some attitude adjustments. I’m not saying that any of the members of the group are fanatics, but messages are being sent that would suggest that canned proclamations are made instead of common sense employed. Any (perceived) adversity is met with hostility and ridicule.

I personally would rather have 5 dedicated souls to the Constitution, free exercise of the Bill of Rights, and unwavering belief in its power and freedom, than to have 5000 people who like to pick and choose who can or cannot say something based on some unfounded caste system of command. That is the basis of control, personal and public, and there is WAY too much of that already. The Constitution reserved rights to the People first, then the State, but somewhere along the way, 1913 to be precise, we started handing over our powers to the Federal Government, leading us to the precipice that we find ourselves on today.

Agreed.

If there is anything in this thread, on this site, or even this post, that offends you....to put it bluntly, too bad. You STILL have the right to ignore it, leave, or join. It matters not to me what your choice is. I respect your freedom and rights as an American to do or say what you want.

Its too bad that philosophy is not reciprocal.

It IS reciprocal between you and me. But apparently an utterly foreign and totally repulsive concept to certain other individuals. And THAT’S why I'm worried for the future of this country.

Good luck to you.

[CityOfChicago]

1) Soooo ... are you saying that it is OK for me to prefer not to have a US flag in the church I attend? :confused:

2) Christ never ended any violence or killing. Not even his own.

3) Who makes the better ceviche? You or Sgt. Slaughter?

Carry on.

If you don't want a flag in your church, then fine. It's a decision to be made by either the clergy or the congregation. My only comment would be the reason for not wanting a flag. If the reasoning is "God is not nationality specific, and we come here to be in His presence, then fine. If the reasoning is a PC one, such as "We don't want to offend people from other countries" then I think that's BS.

Christ performed miracles. Within the first 50 days of his office, I saw a news report that said people in Iraq were hungry for Western goods and the economy was growing rapidly. In 50 days? One of two things is happenning here - media bias or a miracle.

We probably have different recipes.

[EJV]

Hell, the best tacos I've ever had, and I have had them in Mexico, were from Albuquerque, New Mexico. Have plenty of cold drink and something to wipe the sweat off before you dig into them. :eek:

I used to live in the Burque and I don't remember any good tacos. Where did you get them? Course I am from CA so I am used to a different style.

[Cat_Doc]

I used to live in the Burque and I don't remember any good tacos. Where did you get them? Course I am from CA so I am used to a different style.

I can't remember the name of the restaurant, but it was right outside of the main gate of the base, to the west of the main intersection on the north sided of the street. When you walked in the front door, the restaurant was off to the left, the bar to the right.

I can't remember the name of the other place I had great NM Mexican food, but it was in a little bar/restaurant in Socorro, NM. A buddy and I were on a bike ride, stopped in for tacos and a couple of beers while we watched Lupita tend bar. Good food, good scenery, good times. :D

[CityOfChicago]

When I came to this site and saw the thread about “Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution” I was immediately interested in the group. I read what was posted in the group area, and I read posts of your “leader” for lack of a better word.

You’ve got a lot going for you: You have a worthwhile cause; you have good ideas, good principles, and conviction.

Most importantly, you have a great leader. Just from reading his posts I believe that he is very bright, well-educated, well-rounded, extremely eloquent, and even charismatic in writing.

But as soon as one of his soldiers opened his mouth I was turned off. And as soon as the other soldiers chimed in with similar off-topic mambo-jambo I was done.

Word of advice to the leader: Get your troops under control or your following will be a small one.

As I said, you have a worthwhile cause, and I fight the same fight. Don’t risk losing the battle because you can’t keep your soldiers in formation. It truly would be a shame. It’s too important of a cause to screw up over petty issues that have absolutely no relevance.

There are time that I visit here, and my visits are quick and I don't get a chance to read through every post. That being said, I offer my mea culpa for not reading through all the posts here and missing this one. I saw your earlier comments to which I responed, and just didn't even read what was in between. My bad; apologies offered.

First I'd like to thank you for your comments about me. That was a boat-load of nice things to say, and I appreciated them.

I'd like to ask you, to which posts do you find exception with? Were they in the thread about the group, or were they in the group itself? I ask because if they were in the thread, then I don't mind some of the off topic talk, and I'll tell you why.

There are many people who feel passionate about the Constitution and how it applies to us as LEO's. But there are also a great many LEO's who do not want to become involved with any organization that sounds politically active. There is a fear that such involvement will be detrimental to their career, or that such activism would be a conflict of interest to their supposed impartiality under law. Some don't want to end up on a governmental "list", and others see any group with any politcal bend as a potential extreme group, and they don't want to get in with the "black helicopters and compunds in Idaho" militants. Whatever single or multitude of reasons LEO's may have for restricting their involvement in any group, I hope that be letting some of the off-topic 'banter' slide, especially such that is a bit humorous, LEO's here that are otherwise reticent about joining will see that the group s not founded on extremism. We are a bunch of regular LEO's who simply want to ensure adhereance to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We want it's survival as the guiding document and set of principles of our nation. That's first. Second, we want to make sure that laws and policies are not enacted in this nation that a) run contrary to the liberties and securities guearanteed in the Constitution and, b) are designed to be enforced by LEO's. Third, we want to raise Constitutional awareness in the LEO community so that any such unconstitutional laws or policies are recognized and not followed - we refuse to allow LE to become an unwitting vehicle for socialism or facism. Fourth, we want to create a support network for LEO's who feel as we do, so that should such LEO's feel compelled to take a stand on any issue, they can do so knowing that they are not the sole light in the forest. Finally, we hope that a better understanding of individual liberties and rights will affect how LEO's interact with their community and the offenders they come into contact with, so that the law can be swiftly, thoroughly, and vigorously enforced without violating individual rights. Such actions my LEO's will serve to assist LE in regaining some of the standing it has lost in the community, and protect against some of the things we see on home video on the evening news. Succinctly, it's about recapturing the character of LE from those few poor examples the media makes people believe is the majority, and relegating them to the minority they are.

These are lofty goals, to be sure, but necessary ones. By allowing some of the off-topic comments to go unchecked, I hope to show that we are just regular cops with a sense of humor, like everyone else. Additionally, every post made in that thread moves it back to the top of the "New Posts" search function, and more and more people will have a chance to see it. The more posts in the thread, perhaps that will also incline people to check it and the group out. Whatever it takes to get people who may not otherwise look into such a group to do so, is fine with me.

If you have any issues with the comments posted in the actual group, then I'd ask you to join the group and post your own comments. I have tried to keep the posts there on topic and succinct. I like to think that I've also given a brief outline of what he group is intended to be and what it is intended not to be.

Throughout my life, I have always found myself in a position of 'leadership', be it nominal or not. Perhaps that is my personality. But I do not intend to be the Leader of this group, other than to create what it is and what its mission is. Outside that, I see myself only as a coordinator - keeping the ship on course. In order for such a group to have any real success or power, there must be real ownership by the members. We'd like to take the group national, with wider membership accross the country. I don't want to be the Limbaugh of a group of dittoheads. If you marginalize or discredit the leader, you do the same to his/her membership. In order for this to work, we must be a united brotherhood of LEO's who stand as one to say "No" to unconstitutional law, the concept of a police state, and to Constitutional abuses by individual officers.

I object to the reference of the membership as 'troops'. I understand that this is a functional analogy, but it's one I'd like to actively avoid. I do not want any perception of this group to be one of militancy. In fact, I do not want to see the word "militant" or any of its derivatives used by the group. I will not let the group be marginalized by some outsider who rails against us as seeking or accepting of armed violence. This group is one based on law by those sworn to protect and defend the law. We are a republic of laws. We will use the law with our voices to protect the nation.

Taz, as always, I appreciate your comments about me. Thanks for being there when I wasn't.