Where are all of the Flag Waving Rednecks NOW?

from JoeUser Forums

Flag desecration was once supposed to be a HUGE issue. Remember that? Politicians, wearing portions of the flag as articles of their clothing, often ties (ignoring the irony that their OWN actions are, technically, considered desecration as well) standing on their soapboxes and promising the full force of law to come down on Americans who desecrate our nations sacred fibers?

Or how about cross desecration? Doesn't go over big in the Bible belt, last I heard.

And, last, but not least, how about dishonoring the memory of our fallen soldiers. Not even the most militant leftists are stupid enough to do that.

And yet, one idiot in Crawford Texas simultaneously does all three and it generates all the noise of a butterfly fart.

You see, Cindy Sheehan painstakingly set up a memorial to the fallen soldiers. Regardless of her intent, the memorial was sincere and should have been regarded as such, her political identity notwithstanding. But a particular resident of George W. Bush's Texas home community took it upon himself to drive his four wheel drive through the memorial. News footage showed crosses and flags strewn across a bar ditch. The message was clear: regardless of the nature of a protest, dissent will not be tolerated in Crawford, Texas.

Now's the time for the District Attorney to act. We have anti-flag desecration laws. We have "hate crimes" legislation. Under the technical definitions of BOTH, this act applies (are you LISTENING, fed? Just because a CHRISTIAN religious symbol was attacked doesn't make it any less a desecration than a graffitti painted mosque or synagogue).

I, of course, do not see these actions as meriting the full force of the law. I don't see EITHER law cited as being "fair" or "reasonable". But, in front of our nation's highest court sits a statue of lady justice, blindfolded, holding a pair of scales. The concept of the artist was to depict the idea that justice is supposed to be blind. And if it is blind, then the full force of law should apply as much to this idiot as it does to a socialist flag burner on a public square in DC. In fact, the only REASONABLE law that I see this man as having violated is the act of vandalism, as those items were the owned property of another. But again, let's return to the concept of justice and the fact that it should apply EQUALLY to this man.

Otherwise, I have a gift of my own I'd like to give the citizens of Crawford, Texas. I would be willing to handpaint a sign stating "Welcome to Crawford, Texas. Leave your Constitutional Rights at the Door">

5,536 views 48 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
We've been over this before Gid. First there was absolutely no mention of a 4 wheel drive anything. Just a pickup. Secondly what exactly does your title have to do with the article? Seeing how the term "redneck" has NOT been mentioned anywhere in the coverage of this! The only thing your right on about is whoever did this should be punished as far as we can!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler,

Umm, no, we HAVEN'T been over this before. This is my first post on the article, and the first post I've read on the article. Don't see why your hackles are so raised on this.

But as for my use of the term "Redneck", the title STAYS. I don't know where this "redneck anti-defamation league" attitude came from, but I can assure you that the prevaling attitude of most residents of that particular region who are driving pickup trucks and would take it upon themselves to destroy this monument could be summed up in one word: REDNECK (the LIBS are driving HYBRIDS, remember?)

The article was meant to be tongue in cheek, but to bring up a point. It's reasonable to assume that this person is a pretty staunch Republican, and he used that, among other things, as the basis for his actions. If I'm PROVEN wrong, I will GLADLY blog an article on the subject (if you have conclusive, hard evidence from a mainstream news source that this man was anything other than a Republican, please email it to me at: [email protected] )

My point, though, was actually that this man should NOT be punished as far as he can...but neither should any other flag or cross desecrating idiot who dishonors our troops!
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Umm, no, we HAVEN'T been over this before. This is my first post on the article, and the first post I've read on the article. Don't see why your hackles are so raised on this.


When I said we, I didn't mean you and me personally. When I say we I mean "we" as a whole. My hackles are raised because I consider myself to be a "redneck" and I'd be the first to smack some sob who did this. And uhhhh I ain't never seen no hybrids in Crawford.

My point, though, was actually that this man should NOT be punished as far as he can...but neither should any other flag or cross desecrating idiot who dishonors our troops!


And my point is that both he and the "others" should be punished!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
And my point is that both he and the "others" should be punished!


And I don't hold it against you that you feel that way (although I DO think a few of our founding fathers might personally hold an opposing view...but I digress). But as for the term "redneck", the fact that this man was probably a redneck (sorry, I just don't buy your commie conspiracy theory), does not indict ALL rednecks; it just underscores the hypocrisy of the position held by SOME of them. I applaud you for at least being CONSISTENT in how you feel the law should be applied; I just wish more people held the same view.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
True, but they don't apply to political hatred, only "protected classes" of citizens, like minorities.


They apply to religion, LW, that was my point. While it hasn't been applied to Christianity, it SHOULD. if the same desecration was done to the Star of David or the Islamic Crescent, I guarantee you the ADL would be over this like flies on excrement.

As for the flag desecration laws, I'm fairly sure that there has been some passed legislation (if any state has it, I'm sure Texas is among them). I could be wrong on this, though; I'll go back and check for ya, ok?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The crosses did not honor the fallen dead. They co-opted the dead to support a different sort of agenda entirely. The crosses were a travesty, not a memorial.

There are plenty of ways for me to respect our fallen soldiers and memorialize their heroic sacrifices for me and mine. Taking these roadside crosses seriously isn't one of them. Show me that Cindy Sheehan is taking her son's choices and commitments seriously, and I'll reconsider my opinion of the crosses. In the mean time, drive on, pickup truck, drive on.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/faq.html

I stand corrected. Technically, though not factually illegal (consistently overturned by SCOTUS). Thanks for the correction, LW.

But, the larger point still stands. The ones who have pushed hardest to make this illegal are those among the right, who have been silent here.

One question for you vets about this, though. There are some clear cut rules on how the flag should be treated (hint: running over them with a pickup truck ain't among the approved methods of disposal). If this man happens to have a military background (or better yeat, a status such as IRR), is there any action that the military could take? Just a little trivia for my own info.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

The crosses did not honor the fallen dead. They co-opted the dead to support a different sort of agenda entirely. The crosses were a travesty, not a memorial.

That's YOUR opinion. I happen to disagree. But thanks for weighing in anyway.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
(sorry, I just don't buy your commie conspiracy theory)


And just where did this come from?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Honoring or co-opting a cause is determined by the intent of the person doing the act. Because you disagree with what she's doing doesn't mean you can declare her actions or intentions. If she says she has those crosses up to honor fallen troops, then unless you have proof of her admitting the contrary, you're just disagreeing with her based on opinion.

Lets flip the situation around a bit. After 9/11 there were flags EVERYWHERE on EVERYTHING. Many said they were doing it as a sign of solidarity. How would you feel if someone said "Bah, nothing about solidarity or national pride, it's just an empty gesture from people following the masses for fear of being called unamerican" You say you intend one thing, I say you intend something else, which is right?

I agree with Gid's point in a way here. Those who are the most vocal against flag burning aren't touching this one for whatever reason, and that's an unacceptable double-standard. Personally I think it should remain a legal act if you so choose, but if you're going to try and yell from the rooftops about it, you should be consistent about it. You either oppose passionately the desecration of the flag, or you don't. There's no wishy-washy middle ground where it can be OK in some cases (like if you agree with their cause) but not OK in others (when you disagree with the cause).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
And just where did this come from?


Ok, it was Dr. GUY's commie conspiracy theory. My bad:

It very well could have been a communist who disagrees with the war and thought the crosses were a counter protest. HOw do YOU know it was a redneck?

But what pisses me off is you're splitting hairs and missing the larger point of the article. That's a typical JU FAR leftist tactic (not you moderates, so simmer down now...lol), drmiler, and it's FAR BENEATH you. If you have an issue with the meat of the article, discuss that...don't split hairs over terminology, please.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
You either oppose passionately the desecration of the flag, or you don't. There's no wishy-washy middle ground where it can be OK in some cases (like if you agree with their cause) but not OK in others (when you disagree with the cause).


finally, someone who GETS it!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, rereading my article, drmiler, you have no point at all. The title is "Where are all the flag waving rednecks now?", and the intent was clear: where are those who spoke out against cross desecration and flag burning (a predominantly held view among, umm, I dunno...REDNECKS, among others!) now that somebody (whom I refer to, variously as an idiot, a resident, and a man...all labels I'm willing to stand behind)drives through the display with their pickup truck (which I MAY have wrongfully referred to as a 4x4 for purposes of visual imagery...for now we'll refer to it as an "alleged" 4x4). I did not refer specifically to this man as a redneck ANYWHERE, but asked where the rednecks were to demand this man's head on a platter after what he's done.

At any rate, thanks for splitting hairs to take away from what I felt was a damn good piece!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, it was Dr. GUY's commie conspiracy theory. My bad:

It very well could have been a communist who disagrees with the war and thought the crosses were a counter protest. HOw do YOU know it was a redneck?

That was on a different thread and was a question, not a statement or conspiracy.  At the time of the article in question, all we knew was that it was some jerk in a pickup.  NO mention as to politics or color of their nape was given.

But since you bring it up, in this case you are acting like the left.  You are stereotyping an entire society based upon the action of 1.  You are stating they are a redneck when no evidence appears to that effect.  DrMiler is an avowed redneck (not inbred).  As for only 'rednecks' driving pickups, I was not aware of so many rednecks voting for Kerry as I see as many if not more kerry stickers on gas hogging SUVs and pickups as I do bush stickers.

Your point would have been better made to attack the individual in question.  And once his politics and color of his nape were known, to then try a generalization.  However, you instead attacked a lot of people who may or may not have agreed with the actions of the individual and branded them with the same broad brush.

None of your diatribe is indicative of a well thought out arguement.  You take a single point and draw a straight line that you claim is the only line that can be drawn through that point.  I am sorry to inform you that it takes at least 2 points to define a line.  You just had a point.

If you want to accuse me of a communist conspiracy theory, that is your right.  But I think you mis read my response to thatoneguyinslc.  He did not seem to have a problem with me raising objections to typecasting half of America with such a broad brush.  I dont see why asking questions of the unknown is called a conspiracy.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
But since you bring it up, in this case you are acting like the left. You are stereotyping an entire society based upon the action of 1. You are stating they are a redneck when no evidence appears to that effect. DrMiler is an avowed redneck (not inbred). As for only 'rednecks' driving pickups, I was not aware of so many rednecks voting for Kerry as I see as many if not more kerry stickers on gas hogging SUVs and pickups as I do bush stickers.
Your point would have been better made to attack the individual in question. And once his politics and color of his nape were known, to then try a generalization. However, you instead attacked a lot of people who may or may not have agreed with the actions of the individual and branded them with the same broad brush.
None of your diatribe is indicative of a well thought out arguement. You take a single point and draw a straight line that you claim is the only line that can be drawn through that point. I am sorry to inform you that it takes at least 2 points to define a line. You just had a point.


Thank you! At least someone around here understands!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, rereading my article, drmiler, you have no point at all. The title is "Where are all the flag waving rednecks now?", and the intent was clear: where are those who spoke out against cross desecration and flag burning (a predominantly held view among, umm, I dunno...REDNECKS, among others!)


No see you miss the point entirely. Why are you singling out "rednecks" in the first place? That my friend is a typical "leftist" tactic. You use the term "rednecks" instead of just "flag wavers" which would describe a lot more people than just "rednecks"! Or do you see it as only "rednecks" are flag wavers?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
That was on a different thread and was a question, not a statement or conspiracy. At the time of the article in question, all we knew was that it was some jerk in a pickup. NO mention as to politics or color of their nape was given.


No, I made the glib "commie conspiracy" theory thinking it was miler, rather than you, who posted it. I copied the comment to clarify so that he at least knew what I was referring to. It shouldn't have entered into the picture but did because of a name confusion. So to that end, I'll readily apologize.

You are stating they are a redneck when no evidence appears to that effect.


Actually, I didn't say the driver of the pickup was a redneck. THAT was drmiler's ASSUMPTION. I said that the rednecks who had rallied for anti-flag desecration laws, etc, were rednecks. As for "only rednecks driving pickup trucks", I didn't say THAT either. I made a (VERY tongue in cheek) comment that it couldn't be the right because "they drive hybrids".







Your point would have been better made to attack the individual in question. And once his politics and color of his nape were known, to then try a generalization. However, you instead attacked a lot of people who may or may not have agreed with the actions of the individual and branded them with the same broad brush.


I DID NOT CALL THE MAN A REDNECK. Reread the article and show me ONE QUOTE WHERE I DID. I called the man an IDIOT. Big difference. If you assume that by "idiot", I meant "redneck", YOU are doing the stereotyping, NOT me!

Why are you singling out "rednecks" in the first place?


Get a grip. I'm done with this one. This has gotten BEYOND ridiculous.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
To toss the argument back to you guys on the right, you're ignoring the point of the post and singling out ONE minor piece of it that is actually irrelevant to the whole thing.

If you remove the term "Redneck" from the above post completely, as well as the misguided statement that pickups are always 4x4s, there is still have a very valid point that is being tossed aside.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW - That quoted line was from me, and it's not much of a disagreement with your premise. All I was saying is that those who scream over the flag being burned in protest should be equally up in arms about people running them over with cars because they're being used in a protest they disagree with.

My point was the double-standard that comes up on this issue.

I actually agree with you on your points about hate crime legislation and such
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hijacking the names of dead solidiers to make your point isn't the thing to do. I don't agree with acres of crosses in the abortion debate, and I don't agree with it here. Why the community at large isn't finding a way to expell this insane woman, I don't know, but evidently she isn't wanted there.

Was it right to tear down her little cross art? No, not unless it was the owner of the property who did it. Neither was it right for it to be put up in the first place. I find the idea of her using a crosses and the name of soldiers she doesn't know to promote her POLICITAL agenda easily as offensive as what the guy in the truck did.

Before you go painting signs, you might want to find out who owns the property, and whether it was valid for the display to have been there in the first place. In my opinion, even if she wasn't violating anyone's property rights or the law, she had no right to hijack other people's dead sons and daughters.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. If I am not mistaken, in 2001 the Supreme court overturned the convictions of people convicted of burning crosses on the grounds of free speech. If you can burn a cross to make a point, you can certainly run over one in a truck.

So, that would make this a case of civil disobedience, wouldn't it? I always thought you were a fan of civil disobedience, Gid. Maybe a guy in a pickup doesn't evoke Walden Pond for you, but is it really that different? If so, why?

The presence of the protesters is certainly an attempt to intimidate, and they were using crosses, so wouldn't what they are doing be akin to what they KKK does? Would you get mad at someone in a pickup that runs over a burning cross?

I'm surprised, Gid, things are not usually this black and white for you. Party line, maybe?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, this Redneck is sitting at his computer resenting being lumped in with the kind of criminal minded people who maliciously do this kind of thing...

But I'll get over it, I keep forgetting my kind is fair game for these kinds of stereotypical generalizations.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can understand the issues folks have with Sheehan's make-shift memorial. I personally choose to believe that she's sincere, although I can see where her display might not have been the best choice.

I think it's disgusting that some asshole chose to drive over the memorial, and I have no problem labeling him a redneck. I'm a redneck, too. One who exercises at least some level of good judgment and shows at least a fraction of respect for other human beings, unlike the truck-driving douche bag who plowed through those reminders of American sacrifice.

Gideon, I think this may be one of the best articles written on this topic.

But again, let's return to the concept of justice and the fact that it should apply EQUALLY to this man.


Exactly.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
If somebody from Hollywood, California driving a Cadillac Escalade with a "John Kerry '04" sticker had done something similiar at a pro-war rally, this site would probably overload and shut down with all the vitriol from the conservative majority. As it is, I've got people on my threads condoning what happened because "They ain't on public property" (roads, shoulders, and yes, ditches are public property). It's hypocritical, and also exactly what I expect from guy, miler, and most of the rest.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't the redneck a protestor, too? When people tear down yellow ribbons and such, the Left likes to call that 'civil disobedience'. I personally see the guy in the truck protesting just as much as she was.

If he goes to jail, then he shouldn't be seen as any different than the G8 protestors and activist nits that get slapped on the wrist and turned loose. When you make a stink the size that the PAC sponsered activists are in Crawford, I think it should be expected that people will demand retort.

Gid has always stood for people's right to commit acts of civil disobedience as long as they were willing to pay the legal price. Evidently this time is different.