• 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?

I feel bad because the guy lost his "art." Why in the heck did he not ask the state permission is beyond me. Maybe they would have been open to the idea, and everyone would be happy... including those who would be solely admiring it.
 
Grafitti - yes.
Bad - not really.
Patriotic - yes.
Bad to paint over it - no.

They left it there for years.

if someone wants to have a flag in view whilst mid commute they can actually get together all necessary paperwork, funding and items to actually have a monument constructed.

That'd be a huge jump - using a lone flag in a monument instead of a cross or other religious symbol.
 
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.


owned


......
 
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.

LOL. *kneeslap*
*hold up that one section of the hill, there! So it don't fall down and take the rest of the hill with it!*
 
owned


......

Owned nothing. I may see your point. It does not mean I agree with you. Funny how the flag was in place for over 8 years and Caltan just now decides it needs to be removed. But if it makes your day to think you have the upper hand, then enjoy. As the warden said in "Cool Hand Luke", "'cause you gonna get your mind right. ". And people wonder why the US heading down hill.
 
If the muralist didn't own the wall, then it would be graffiti. However, I think California waited to take it down so that they wouldn't be seen as "anti-American." After all, it was done right after 9-11. I think it's unpatriotic to vandalize someone else's property. This country gives us personal rights and freedoms, and the artist violated someone else's when he defaced their property. There would be nothing wrong with it if it was his wall he placed the mural on. However, it was right for them to remove the flag. Graffiti that looks patriotic shouldn't receive exceptions. if someone painted a mural the wall of your house with a patriotic scene, should there be an exception to the vandalism case and a delay in removing it?
 
If the muralist didn't own the wall, then it would be graffiti. However, I think California waited to take it down so that they wouldn't be seen as "anti-American." After all, it was done right after 9-11. I think it's unpatriotic to vandalize someone else's property. This country gives us personal rights and freedoms, and the artist violated someone else's when he defaced their property. There would be nothing wrong with it if it was his wall he placed the mural on. However, it was right for them to remove the flag. Graffiti that looks patriotic shouldn't receive exceptions. if someone painted a mural the wall of your house with a patriotic scene, should there be an exception to the vandalism case and a delay in removing it?

I would hope the homeowner would be aware that they had owned the home for over eight years. :lol:
 
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."

Oh good, a clean canvis. Where can I send my donation and design sugestions for the new flag painting?
 
What do think would happen if they repaint it with an "Obama 2012" logo somewhere?
 
Conservative: It was patriotic.

Liberal: It was graffiti.

Conservative: It was patriotic.

Liberal: It was graffiti.

Conservative: It was patriotic.

Liberal: It was graffiti.

DanaRhea: Hold it. You are both right. Yes, it is graffiti, but it is also patriotic. Problem here is that, although I admire whoever painted it, it was painted on property he did not own, which makes it removable. If the flag is allowed to stay, then what next? You will have all kinds of people screaming that their own rights were violated too, because their graffiti was removed. In the end, highways are for moving people from one place to another, not for political statements, no matter how much I agree with them.
 
Conservative: It was patriotic.

Liberal: It was graffiti.

Conservative: It was patriotic.

Liberal: It was graffiti.

Conservative: It was patriotic.

Liberal: It was graffiti.

DanaRhea: Hold it. You are both right. Yes, it is graffiti, but it is also patriotic. Problem here is that, although I admire whoever painted it, it was painted on property he did not own, which makes it removable. If the flag is allowed to stay, then what next? You will have all kinds of people screaming that their own rights were violated too, because their graffiti was removed. In the end, highways are for moving people from one place to another, not for political statements, no matter how much I agree with them.

Or the Mayer could just declair that this particuler piece of graffiti has cultural value, pass a memo to CalTrans not to distroy it, and get some posative name recegnition in the process.
 
Or the Mayer could just declair that this particuler piece of graffiti has cultural value, pass a memo to CalTrans not to distroy it, and get some posative name recegnition in the process.

And in doing so, then encourages others to break the law and put graffiti up hoping the city will do the same. Is that really a good idea?
 
Or the Mayer could just declair that this particuler piece of graffiti has cultural value, pass a memo to CalTrans not to distroy it, and get some posative name recegnition in the process.

I think if you're going to preserve graffiti for its "cultural value," it should be a mural which depicts a naked woman upon whom the flag of the United States has been applied with body paint.

THAT has cultural value.
 
It's too bad that they didn't take a picture of the flag art right before it was painted over. It appears that the only image they could find was a random video camera shot from a poor angle that might have been taken years ago. Red paint is always at the mercy of Old Sol. 8 years of red paint in the sun should have been faded something terrible. Pink, white, and peeled blue are not our country's colors. I think that there is a similar, but smaller, flag painted on the Grapevine Lake spillway. <goes off to find picture>
 
OK, this one is more Lone-Star patriotic, but look at the condition of the red paint>

grapvine0.jpg
 
They could make a graffiti permit, charge for it of course, and encourage folks to color the city with an artistic flair. Such a permit could lay down some guidelines and give direction to the art. A politician could make a lot of extra revenue that way. Perhaps concrete spaces could be divided up and permits bought and sold. Companies could buy commercial permits allowing them to put all that wasted billboard space to use. These permits would cost more. And of course a permit holder would have to maintain their art just like any adopt-a-highway program.

Aside from the charge for the permit, just think of all the tax revenue a green advertising campaign could drum up for environmentally friendly mediums....of which would, of course, be required use as per the permit...which would also give you a token discount on said green products.
 
Last edited:
Graffiti plan and simple. Doesn't mean it wasn't patriotic, but it is still graffiti. If they can get permission to re-paint it then go right ahead. Otherwise, just let it be.
 
They could make a graffiti permit, charge for it of course, and encourage folks to color the city with an artistic flair. Such a permit could lay down some guidelines and give direction to the art. A politician could make a lot of extra revenue that way. Perhaps concrete spaces could be divided up and permits bought and sold. Companies could buy commercial permits allowing them to put all that wasted billboard space to use. These permits would cost more. And of course a permit holder would have to maintain their art just like any adopt-a-highway program.

Aside from the charge for the permit, just think of all the tax revenue a green advertising campaign could drum up for environmentally friendly mediums....of which would, of course, be required use as per the permit...which would also give you a token discount on said green products.

Given the fact that the person that did the painting broke the law, do you really think they are going to abide by it and pay to put grafitii up?

Let alone the cost it will take to hire the people that have to enforce the so called "adopt a highway" standards you want to put on it.

How about people just don't put graffiti up on government property? It's simple, no cost, and there is but just one standard....."Don't do it".
 
There is no legal exception of "unless it's patriotic."

If it is illegal to paint something on public property, then it's illegal. It doesn't become legal just because you agree with it or like it.
 
They could make a graffiti permit, charge for it of course, and encourage folks to color the city with an artistic flair. Such a permit could lay down some guidelines and give direction to the art. A politician could make a lot of extra revenue that way. Perhaps concrete spaces could be divided up and permits bought and sold. Companies could buy commercial permits allowing them to put all that wasted billboard space to use. These permits would cost more. And of course a permit holder would have to maintain their art just like any adopt-a-highway program.

Aside from the charge for the permit, just think of all the tax revenue a green advertising campaign could drum up for environmentally friendly mediums....of which would, of course, be required use as per the permit...which would also give you a token discount on said green products.

I actually like that idea. . . it's just grey - why not paint it, legally, if someone wants to be creative? I've heard of various mural projects done in tourist areas and so forth -why not?
 
I actually like that idea. . . it's just grey - why not paint it, legally, if someone wants to be creative? I've heard of various mural projects done in tourist areas and so forth -why not?

See that's where I'm comming from. It's not hurting anyone and the state needs money. There's a demand for artistic griffiti so why not genorate the supply? Anyone familier with the Bay Aria can attest to the creative paintings on the side of buildings. I understand those started the same way and are a great decoration.
 
See that's where I'm comming from. It's not hurting anyone and the state needs money. There's a demand for artistic griffiti so why not genorate the supply? Anyone familier with the Bay Aria can attest to the creative paintings on the side of buildings. I understand those started the same way and are a great decoration.
I don't think anyone here is against good art, including flags, being painted alongside highways and such. I love seeing that kind of stuff.
 
I don't think anyone here is against good art, including flags, being painted alongside highways and such. I love seeing that kind of stuff.

Actually, I'm against flags painted along highways and anything else that violates flag code. Everybody else can choose to ignore it, but it doesn't make it right or respectful.
 
Actually, I'm against flags painted along highways and anything else that violates flag code. Everybody else can choose to ignore it, but it doesn't make it right or respectful.

You can't make a painting of a flag?
 
Graffiti should always be painted over by another graffiti artist not the state.
 
Back
Top Bottom