• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freeway Flag - Display Of Patriotism Or Graffiti?

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is too much and if we are not careful it will spread. We already have schools that no longer say the pledge because Liberal idiot teachers refuse to lead it in class where a young man had to fight to even get flags returned,

We have allowed the wacko Liberals to push us around and it's time to push back and be serious about it.

Freeway Flag - Display Of Patriotism Or Graffiti? - News Story - KTVU San Francisco
"Posted: 10:05 pm PDT July 1, 2010Updated: 3:03 am PDT July 2, 2010
SUNOL, CAlif. -- Interstate 680, in and out of the Silicon Valley, is one of the bay area's busiest freeways. And everyday for the last eight and half years there was a hillside mural motorists passed on the Sunol grade.

"It just made me feel really patriotic, just seeing it everyday," said motorcyclist Dave Freely.

Until Wednesday, motorists saw a 35 foot mural of the American flag painted on a concrete retaining wall.

On Thursday, it was just gray concrete painted over by Caltrans.

"It was put on the list for graffiti removal and yesterday morning they painted over it with grey concrete paint," said Allyn Amsk of Caltrans.

"It should not be classified as graffiti. I mean it was a well done flag and and I felt like it's part of America," objected the flag muralist Eric Noda.

About a week after 9-11. Eric Noda was photographed roller painting the flag mural. It took him three hours to finish.

He and friends R.J. Waldron and Thomas Hanley picked the spot to express their patriotism after the terrorist attack.

"It's kind of a landmark for me and it reminds me of that day and the time in the wake of 9-11," said Noda.

But why did Caltrans wait so long to remove the flag?

"Maintenance wasn't aware that it was on the state right-of-way or you know it would have been removed sometime in the past," said Amsk.

Regular 680 commuters said they were upset."
 
If you want to say the pledge written by a Christian communist go for it. It's strangely ironic that most people do not know the author of the pledge was a communist.
 
What did you expect? It is California. I'm suprised they did anything considering they are 19B in the rears and no budget for the fiscal year. But, painting over the flag must be worth doing:lol:

As far as the pledge, IMO, many have lost what it means to live in this country? Wonder what their grandparents would think today.
 
So, what, graffiti is ok so long as it's pretty? If you don't own it, you don't get to spray paint it, no matter how talented you are.

Would you be ok with someone spray painting the side of your house without permission?
 
Last edited:
Why can't it be both patriotic and graffiti? I mean sure it was patriotic to paint a U.S. flag on there, but it still doesn't change the fact it was graffiti.
 
Riddle me this, Batman:

When is grafitti not grafitti?

When the imagery involves elements of the nationalist religion. :lol:
 
Patriotic? Hardly. A flag painted on a highway retaining wall where is can get rained on, splattered with mud from passing cars, and generally desecrated on a daily basis? It wouldn't be patriotic even if it wasn't graffiti. Seriously, what is it about Republicans that they hate following flag code so much? And, oh yeah, it was graffiti!
 
caltran should approve its repainting
 
It was patriotic, sure, but it was graffiti because the artist had no legal right to paint on that surface
 
Alright, so graffiti is okay as long as its a symbol of America? Alright then, why don't you let me paint a pic of the Democratic Donkey on your house? I mean its a symbol of America too.
 
The thing that bugs me is the timing. They should have painted it over at Christmas time.
 
I will agree that the painter should have applied and recieved permission first and most likely broke some law. Caltran had the authority to paint over the flag. The question is the need for removal?

IMO, its not the same to argue private property rights vs. public property rights for those who said is it ok to paint someones house.
 
I will agree that the painter should have applied and recieved permission first and most likely broke some law. Caltran had the authority to paint over the flag. The question is the need for removal?

IMO, its not the same to argue private property rights vs. public property rights for those who said is it ok to paint someones house.

So you basically want to set a precidence that it is ok to grafitii a public area so long as it is a flag or some other arbitrary art? Really? That is what you want to change the laws to? Because that is what would have to happen to allow this to go unpunished.
 
I will agree that the painter should have applied and recieved permission first and most likely broke some law. Caltran had the authority to paint over the flag. The question is the need for removal?

IMO, its not the same to argue private property rights vs. public property rights for those who said is it ok to paint someones house.

The gov. owned the property, and decided to take it down. Thats all the reason they needed.
 
So you basically want to set a precidence that it is ok to grafitii a public area so long as it is a flag or some other arbitrary art? Really? That is what you want to change the laws to? Because that is what would have to happen to allow this to go unpunished.

What part of "applied and recieved permission" didn't you understand? Actually I hate grafitii. Though some is pretty good art, especially compared to gang/taggers. So I'll go along with you, no grafitii should be placed on public property (without permission)?
 
I think this might go against flag code.
 
What part of "applied and recieved permission" didn't you understand? Actually I hate grafitii. Though some is pretty good art, especially compared to gang/taggers. So I'll go along with you, no grafitii should be placed on public property (without permission)?

I understood it perfectly, and then you said:

The question is the need for removal?

Which is a simple answer, because the person broke the law. Why should his art remain when he broke the law to do it? The removal was just and right in this instance.
 
Alright, so graffiti is okay as long as its a symbol of America? Alright then, why don't you let me paint a pic of the Democratic Donkey on your house? I mean its a symbol of America too.

It's amazing how Leftists will defend the removal of anything that could be remotely patriotic.

Bet ya'll would be singing a different tune if it were a star and cresent, or celebrated Nelson Mandela, or some other communist asshole.
 
It's amazing how Leftists will defend the removal of anything that could be remotely patriotic.

Bet ya'll would be singing a different tune if it were a star and cresent, or celebrated Nelson Mandela, or some other communist asshole.

So you think that it is ok to break the law then and paint grafitii on government property without permission, got it.
 
So you think that it is ok to break the law then and paint grafitii on government property without permission, got it.

If it were something more PC than our national colors, it probably wouldn't have been painted over. Political correctness sucks ass.
 
If it were something more PC than our national colors, it probably wouldn't have been painted over. Political correctness sucks ass.

Ah yes, more worthless rhetoric from you as usual. They broke the law and got their grafiti painted over, BOO HOO. Glad that you advocate breaking the law to paint grafiti.
 
The artist didn't have permission to do the national colors on the wall, so it should be removed plus the artist should be punished according to the laws.
 
Last edited:
I understood it perfectly, and then you said:



Which is a simple answer, because the person broke the law. Why should his art remain when he broke the law to do it? The removal was just and right in this instance.

Ok, I see your point. Not to change the subject, but it is interesting people don't think way when it comes to illegals. They broke the law, they should be removed. Seems many pick and choose what laws should be upheld.
 
It’s all chuckles when a conservative supports a pledge written by a socialist. I do not pledge my allegiance to the state like some totalitarian ruled slave! I bet you would be crying the opposite if someone painted something you didn’t like; oh the hypocrisy.
It’s graffiti, period.
 
I think it's funny they call it a retaining wall. It's a random piece of concrete on a hill.

They should approve the repainting.
 
Back
Top Bottom