As usual, Congress beats its chest and thumps its patriotic drum with the introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.
As they prepare to vote in the U.S. Senate on yet another effort to introduce a constitutional amendment against desecrating the American flag, I found myself wondering which was worse: marring the Stars and Stripes literally or exploiting it for political purposes in an election year, as the sponsors of the amendment are doing. The flag stands for the precious freedoms Americans enjoy. Claiming to protect this symbol while acting to suppress freedom of speech is a cruel contradiction in terms.
What makes the campaign for an anti-desecration amendment even more noxious is that it stirs up divisive emotions over a problem that doesn't exist. The cases of flag desecration that have led the Supreme Court to rule it nonviolent political speech protected under the Bill of Rights, as offensive as it may be to some people, were isolated in the extreme.
I personally believe people who desecrate the flag are idiots. They're losers who insult the very memories of those who died for the freedoms the flag represents. Nevertheless, does not Old Glory stand for, at a minimum, the very right for such people to act like idiots?
The amendment wouldn't stop at criminalizing burning or shredding the flag. It would also outlaw altering its design, sometimes done to convey a political message. I don't recall seeing too many flags with peace signs in the star field, either, and if we did, they would be preferable to the rhetoric of amendment sponsors, including Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein (nice to see stupidity is a bipartisan commodity up there on the Hill). With friends like them, the flag needs no enemies.
[ June 07, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
It is exceedingly difficult to argue with that well reasoned yet heartfelt summation of the issue of flag burning and the perrenial amendment to outlaw it. I tried, but I couldn't find a thing wrong with it.
While I generally abhor slippery slope arguments, I think this is a legitimate time to ask ourselves what sort of speech will be found unacceptable next if flag burning is outlawed?
While I generally abhor slippery slope arguments, I think this is a legitimate time to ask ourselves what sort of speech will be found unacceptable next if flag burning is outlawed?
QUOTE
The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
God Bless America :cool:
I still have the little American flag sticker on the rear bumper of my truck, affixed as a show of solidarity after 9/11. Of course, I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, & believe that that opposition has been completely vindicated by subsequent developments & revelations. And it's galling to me to see all this carried out in my name as an American, & in the name of "freedom" & "democracy". After the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, I wanted so much to take a magic marker & write the word "SHAME" across that little flag, but I didn't because that would be a sure way to get my vehicle vandalized. And to think that if all these flag-idolizers & hyper-patriots have their way, that little act of speech/defiance that I'm contemplating would get me thrown in prison for 5 years.
So if the amendment is passed, does that mean we all have to turn in our American flag clothing, handbags, hats, shirts, fanny packs, etc etc? I find someone wearing red white and blue striped spandex to be offensive to me! 
Happy Flag Day, America. 
The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment 286-130 that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
Somebody needs to teach the heathen fools the meaning of idolatry.
Link
Somebody needs to teach the heathen fools the meaning of idolatry.
Link
QUOTE
MIB:
As usual, Congress beats its chest and thumps its patriotic drum with the introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.
As they prepare to vote in the U.S. Senate on yet another effort to introduce a constitutional amendment against desecrating the American flag, I found myself wondering which was worse: marring the Stars and Stripes literally or exploiting it for political purposes in an election year, as the sponsors of the amendment are doing. The flag stands for the precious freedoms Americans enjoy. Claiming to protect this symbol while acting to suppress freedom of speech is a cruel contradiction in terms.
What makes the campaign for an anti-desecration amendment even more noxious is that it stirs up divisive emotions over a problem that doesn't exist. The cases of flag desecration that have led the Supreme Court to rule it nonviolent political speech protected under the Bill of Rights, as offensive as it may be to some people, were isolated in the extreme.
I personally believe people who desecrate the flag are idiots. They're losers who insult the very memories of those who died for the freedoms the flag represents. Nevertheless, does not Old Glory stand for, at a minimum, the very right for such people to act like idiots?
The amendment wouldn't stop at criminalizing burning or shredding the flag. It would also outlaw altering its design, sometimes done to convey a political message. I don't recall seeing too many flags with peace signs in the star field, either, and if we did, they would be preferable to the rhetoric of amendment sponsors, including Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein (nice to see stupidity is a bipartisan commodity up there on the Hill). With friends like them, the flag needs no enemies.
'Nuff said.
As usual, Congress beats its chest and thumps its patriotic drum with the introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.
As they prepare to vote in the U.S. Senate on yet another effort to introduce a constitutional amendment against desecrating the American flag, I found myself wondering which was worse: marring the Stars and Stripes literally or exploiting it for political purposes in an election year, as the sponsors of the amendment are doing. The flag stands for the precious freedoms Americans enjoy. Claiming to protect this symbol while acting to suppress freedom of speech is a cruel contradiction in terms.
What makes the campaign for an anti-desecration amendment even more noxious is that it stirs up divisive emotions over a problem that doesn't exist. The cases of flag desecration that have led the Supreme Court to rule it nonviolent political speech protected under the Bill of Rights, as offensive as it may be to some people, were isolated in the extreme.
I personally believe people who desecrate the flag are idiots. They're losers who insult the very memories of those who died for the freedoms the flag represents. Nevertheless, does not Old Glory stand for, at a minimum, the very right for such people to act like idiots?
The amendment wouldn't stop at criminalizing burning or shredding the flag. It would also outlaw altering its design, sometimes done to convey a political message. I don't recall seeing too many flags with peace signs in the star field, either, and if we did, they would be preferable to the rhetoric of amendment sponsors, including Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein (nice to see stupidity is a bipartisan commodity up there on the Hill). With friends like them, the flag needs no enemies.
Hey, "judge", quoting yourself is a sign of mental illness.
[ June 22, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
[ June 22, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]
I thought arguing with oneself is a sign. wink
How exactly is "flag" defined?
What if I burn...
...a flag with only 49 stars?
...an original flag, with the 13 stars in a circle?
...a flag with six stripes and ten stars?
...a flag with purple stripes instead of red?
...a flag with the word AMERICA across it?
...my state's flag?
...a flag with the US flag up in the corner?
LXN
What if I burn...
...a flag with only 49 stars?
...an original flag, with the 13 stars in a circle?
...a flag with six stripes and ten stars?
...a flag with purple stripes instead of red?
...a flag with the word AMERICA across it?
...my state's flag?
...a flag with the US flag up in the corner?
LXN
I'd like to know the 'logic' behind this. Because polls actually show a strong majority OPPOSE this amendment, but as you can see most politicians are FOR it and it would probably have no problem getting the appropriate number of states to pass it.
All of those 37 cent stamps with cut-off images..
Is it just burning, or do famous, gay American artist Jasper Johns's (1930-) flags also count as "desecration"?
why the heck are these pols even wasting their time with this???? :mad:
>>>why the heck are these pols even wasting their time with this????
It utterly proves their commitment to America and American values. Now we know which Representatives hate America.
LXN
It utterly proves their commitment to America and American values. Now we know which Representatives hate America.
LXN
While I can understand the arguement that flag burning is somehow connected with free speech, I do not think it is right to burn the flag, even in protest. Too many good men and women have died protecting the flag and this country, and I feel it is insulting to their service to this country to burn the flag in a disrespectful fashion. One can burn the flag in a respectful fashion if the flag has been damaged or has touched the ground. I still fly my flags, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and I do it with pride. The flag is so much bigger than any individual or political party that is in office. I will never give up on this country no matter who is in office. There is simply too much to risk...where else on the planet could I have so much freedom? Don't burn the flag. Write a letter to the editor instead.
QUOTE
blueraider:
why the heck are these pols even wasting their time with this???? :mad:
iraq is quickly becoming vietnam; and people know it.why the heck are these pols even wasting their time with this???? :mad:
social security reform is dead in the water.
have you checked the deficits lately?
tax code reform? right after fixing social security.
when nothing is going right for the ruling party, there's no one to blame. so they change the subject. when things don't look so good, wrap yourself in the flag and bash gays! and anyone who disagrees is, of course, unamerican and likely opposed to mom and apple pie -- liberal gay-defending flag burners!
but the good news is, they can't change the subject for three more years, and we will all have a chance to voice our opinions at the polls in less than a year and a half.
the bad news is, this administration -- with the republican defections on the war and social security -- will likely have one of the longest lame duck tenures on record, and a prolonged stasis with the current state of affairs will not be good for the country. the longer problems go unfixed, the more difficult they become to solve.
The American flag has special meaning to many people, but in essence, it's a piece of cloth. It may represent freedom or liberty or any other positive aspect. but that doesn't MAKE it freedom. Setting a flag ablaze doesn't take away freedom, anymore than ripping up a picture of a bald eagle (say) takes away freedom. I pray that no soldier was idiotic enough to die for a piece of cloth. They may have died protecting the ideals behind it, hopefully not the item itself.
Is burning rainbow flags OK? I'm assuming it is. And if someone were burning one, the sheer fact that the flag was on fire wouldn't bother me. The thing that would piss me off is the intent behind it. I'd feel (probably correctly) that the person behind the match hated gays, and thus hated me. To me, when people object to burning the flag, what they're feeling is "You can't hate America." Which you can.
LXN
[ June 23, 2005, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Lexington ]
Is burning rainbow flags OK? I'm assuming it is. And if someone were burning one, the sheer fact that the flag was on fire wouldn't bother me. The thing that would piss me off is the intent behind it. I'd feel (probably correctly) that the person behind the match hated gays, and thus hated me. To me, when people object to burning the flag, what they're feeling is "You can't hate America." Which you can.
LXN
[ June 23, 2005, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Lexington ]
Well said, MB. As MIB correctly notes, and those who have memories that last longer than the current TV season know, legislators pull this crap every few years or so, only to have such laws struck down by the Supreme Court, if not lower ones, as unconstitutional violations of the I Amdt. Even if the SCOTUS were to be as totally fundamentalized as some have baselessly feared, which is NOT about to happen, that longstanding view of flag burning laws is not about to change. But as MB notes, just because people CAN do things, doesn't always mean they SHOULD.
QUOTE
millerbeach:
While I can understand the arguement that flag burning is somehow connected with free speech, I do not think it is right to burn the flag, even in protest. Too many good men and women have died protecting the flag and this country, and I feel it is insulting to their service to this country to burn the flag in a disrespectful fashion.
I agree and disagree. One thing you can almost always say about an American citizen who choses to burn a flag is that he or she is an idiot. There are better, more expressive forms of protest than flag burning to make a political point.While I can understand the arguement that flag burning is somehow connected with free speech, I do not think it is right to burn the flag, even in protest. Too many good men and women have died protecting the flag and this country, and I feel it is insulting to their service to this country to burn the flag in a disrespectful fashion.
The "people died for this flag" arguement is abhorent to me. No one has ever died for the flag of the United States of America. It is a symbol. Just like no one has ever died for the bald eagle (that may actually be untrue, as I'm sure some conservationist somewhere died trying to protect out nation's bird). No one has ever died for our national anthem or our pledge of allegiance. These things are symbold that represent out country, not the thing itself. People died for freedom, to protect our way of life, and mostly simply to defend our country from enemies domestic and foreign. It demeans the very sacrifice one is trying to honor to say that it was in the name of some lifeless symbol rather than what it was, in fact, for - to protect your home and family.
Of course many people oppose flag burning as a form of expression. I personally oppose carrying signs reading "god hates fags" as a form of expression. I think that anyone who does such a thing must be countered and exposed for the scum they are. THAT is the right way to counter those who express themselves in ways that you oppose. Not by ignoring Iraq, social security, deficits and torture in order to pass a flag amendment. jqueer is right as he/she often is. No one fought and died for "the flag". They fought for the Constitution. No one takes an oath of office to defend the flag, they take an oath to defend the Constitution. That is the case for everyone who joins the military and for every elected/appointed official.
The whole thing is just stupid pandering to those who don't understand the reason why we even have a Bill of Rights.
I believe Larry Flynt once said something on the order of "the First Amendment is for that which you hate the most"...the freedoms in the amendment are to protect that one thing that makes you want to hit a wall you detest it so much, not the things you WANT to hear and see.
I believe Larry Flynt once said something on the order of "the First Amendment is for that which you hate the most"...the freedoms in the amendment are to protect that one thing that makes you want to hit a wall you detest it so much, not the things you WANT to hear and see.
QUOTE
dfwAggie99:
The whole thing is just stupid pandering to those who don't understand the reason why we even have a Bill of Rights.
I believe Larry Flynt once said something on the order of \"the First Amendment is for that which you hate the most\"...the freedoms in the amendment are to protect that one thing that makes you want to hit a wall you detest it so much, not the things you WANT to hear and see.
Which, a lot of times, provokes thought and discussion. If we hear and see things we agree with, we never grow. Which why I love discussions with the Reds (a.k.a. Republicans) Outsports!
The whole thing is just stupid pandering to those who don't understand the reason why we even have a Bill of Rights.
I believe Larry Flynt once said something on the order of \"the First Amendment is for that which you hate the most\"...the freedoms in the amendment are to protect that one thing that makes you want to hit a wall you detest it so much, not the things you WANT to hear and see.
Who needs a Bill of Rights? SCOTUS has been chipping away at it for years! :mad:
QUOTE
MIB:
Did you forget which personality you were writing under judge?
QUOTE
MIB:
As usual, Congress beats its chest and thumps its patriotic drum with the introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.
As they prepare to vote in the U.S. Senate on yet another effort to introduce a constitutional amendment against desecrating the American flag, I found myself wondering which was worse: marring the Stars and Stripes literally or exploiting it for political purposes in an election year, as the sponsors of the amendment are doing. The flag stands for the precious freedoms Americans enjoy. Claiming to protect this symbol while acting to suppress freedom of speech is a cruel contradiction in terms.
What makes the campaign for an anti-desecration amendment even more noxious is that it stirs up divisive emotions over a problem that doesn't exist. The cases of flag desecration that have led the Supreme Court to rule it nonviolent political speech protected under the Bill of Rights, as offensive as it may be to some people, were isolated in the extreme.
I personally believe people who desecrate the flag are idiots. They're losers who insult the very memories of those who died for the freedoms the flag represents. Nevertheless, does not Old Glory stand for, at a minimum, the very right for such people to act like idiots?
The amendment wouldn't stop at criminalizing burning or shredding the flag. It would also outlaw altering its design, sometimes done to convey a political message. I don't recall seeing too many flags with peace signs in the star field, either, and if we did, they would be preferable to the rhetoric of amendment sponsors, including Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein (nice to see stupidity is a bipartisan commodity up there on the Hill). With friends like them, the flag needs no enemies.
'Nuff said. As usual, Congress beats its chest and thumps its patriotic drum with the introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.
As they prepare to vote in the U.S. Senate on yet another effort to introduce a constitutional amendment against desecrating the American flag, I found myself wondering which was worse: marring the Stars and Stripes literally or exploiting it for political purposes in an election year, as the sponsors of the amendment are doing. The flag stands for the precious freedoms Americans enjoy. Claiming to protect this symbol while acting to suppress freedom of speech is a cruel contradiction in terms.
What makes the campaign for an anti-desecration amendment even more noxious is that it stirs up divisive emotions over a problem that doesn't exist. The cases of flag desecration that have led the Supreme Court to rule it nonviolent political speech protected under the Bill of Rights, as offensive as it may be to some people, were isolated in the extreme.
I personally believe people who desecrate the flag are idiots. They're losers who insult the very memories of those who died for the freedoms the flag represents. Nevertheless, does not Old Glory stand for, at a minimum, the very right for such people to act like idiots?
The amendment wouldn't stop at criminalizing burning or shredding the flag. It would also outlaw altering its design, sometimes done to convey a political message. I don't recall seeing too many flags with peace signs in the star field, either, and if we did, they would be preferable to the rhetoric of amendment sponsors, including Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein (nice to see stupidity is a bipartisan commodity up there on the Hill). With friends like them, the flag needs no enemies.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment 286-130 that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
Somebody needs to teach the heathen fools the meaning of idolatry.
Link
Excellent post! I agree completely! You are such a brilliant person! Geez, dude, I love you!The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment 286-130 that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
Somebody needs to teach the heathen fools the meaning of idolatry.
Link
:cool: 
wink
Sometimes I have to check. Powerful minds can often cause confusion. wink
Babyfaced Anarchists go on a neighborhood flag-burning spree...
The Smoking Gun link
The Smoking Gun link
You want a way around this stuff? Just pass local ordinances that ban public immolations period. Leaf burning is banned in many places, so should be the public burning of anything per se.
Austin has an "outdoor burning ban" in place right now because we have gone a month with no rain...I wonder what the rule is about burning things not touching the ground? After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
And we have to breathe their putrid exhaust. Yuck.
I've always felt that flag burning was a form of property right - if you own a flag, you can burn it whenever you want as long as you're not violating any fire codes. If you try burning someone else's flag, that's vandalism or theft. If you try burning a flag where it's against a fire code, then you should have a fire hose turned on you full blast.
I agree that with those who think all it does is make the burner look like an idiot though.
I agree that with those who think all it does is make the burner look like an idiot though.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
"Stupid idiot"? Why the need to insult nicotine-enjoyin' Outsporters with this phrase (which was unnecessary to make your point)?
After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
I've always felt that flag burning was a form of property right - if you own a flag, you can burn it whenever you want as long as you're not violating any fire codes. If you try burning someone else's flag, that's vandalism or theft. If you try burning a flag where it's against a fire code, then you should have a fire hose turned on you full blast.
I agree that with those who think all it does is make the burner look like an idiot though.
Amen.....couldn't have said it better myself.....it certainly shouldn't be unconstitutional to act like an idiot.
I agree that with those who think all it does is make the burner look like an idiot though.
Amen.....couldn't have said it better myself.....it certainly shouldn't be unconstitutional to act like an idiot.
QUOTE
FeverDog:
If I sit down on the train tracks while a train is rolling toward me and I do not move, I am a stupid idiot.QUOTE
bobby78751:
After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
\"Stupid idiot\"? Why the need to insult nicotine-enjoyin' Outsporters with this phrase (which was unnecessary to make your point)? After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
If I run back and forth across the interstate during rush hour traffic, I am a stupid idiot.
If I eat a McDonald's Quarter Pounder everyday, I am a stupid idiot.
If I smoke something that is one of the leading causes of death in this country, I am a stupid idiot.
Smokers = Stupid Idiot.
Back to the issue at hand...
You forgot a couple....
If I watch every reality TV show known to man, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I have to use !!!! in virtually every post, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I post the same things over and over again (PF, when are you going to enlist?), I'm a stupid idiot.
I'm sure there's more, but I don't feel like wasting any more time, because stupid idiots never change.
If I watch every reality TV show known to man, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I have to use !!!! in virtually every post, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I post the same things over and over again (PF, when are you going to enlist?), I'm a stupid idiot.
I'm sure there's more, but I don't feel like wasting any more time, because stupid idiots never change.
QUOTE
Weaselman:
(PF, when are you going to enlist?)
Everyone wants to know PF, when's the big day?
(PF, when are you going to enlist?)
QUOTE
Weaselman:
You forgot a couple....
If I watch every reality TV show known to man, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I have to use !!!! in virtually every post, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I post the same things over and over again (PF, when are you going to enlist?), I'm a stupid idiot.
I'm sure there's more, but I don't feel like wasting any more time, because stupid idiots never change.
Yeah, clever and original post...now go smoke a cigarette. You forgot a couple....
If I watch every reality TV show known to man, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I have to use !!!! in virtually every post, I'm a stupid idiot.
If I post the same things over and over again (PF, when are you going to enlist?), I'm a stupid idiot.
I'm sure there's more, but I don't feel like wasting any more time, because stupid idiots never change.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Yeah, clever and original post...now go smoke a cigarette. )
I don't smoke....stupid idiot!!!!! Yeah, clever and original post...now go smoke a cigarette. )
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
"Everyone," Razorbreath? Speak for yourself on this one - and most others, for that matter. As Rob pointed out in another thread, your "enlist or shut-up" refrain is as insulting to those who do and have served as it is tiresome. In fact, it's not much different from the old "America, Love it or Leave It" canard of the '60s. As Joan Baez sang to Bob Dylan, "The '60s are over, so set us free."
QUOTE
Weaselman:
(PF, when are you going to enlist?)
Everyone wants to know PF, when's the big day? (PF, when are you going to enlist?)
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
As Rob pointed out in another thread, your \"enlist or shut-up\" refrain is as insulting to those who do and have served as it is tiresome.
All of you "who do and have served" or you and Rob?As Rob pointed out in another thread, your \"enlist or shut-up\" refrain is as insulting to those who do and have served as it is tiresome.
I know your type likes to make those who serve and win purple hearts out to be the bad guys and those who dont even show up for National Guard duty to be the heroes so Ill take your opinion with a HUGE grain of salt.
[ July 01, 2005, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
Back to flag desecration...
I was at a bakery yesterday and they had flag cookies for sale. I told my friend Erica she better buy one and eat the flag before it's outlawed. The guy behind the counter looked at me like he could kill me.
I was at a bakery yesterday and they had flag cookies for sale. I told my friend Erica she better buy one and eat the flag before it's outlawed. The guy behind the counter looked at me like he could kill me.
Wrong again; you're misstating and mischaracterizing our posts, which have consistently honored those who have and now serve, Purple Hearts or not. (And thanks for using Spellcheck, but now go back and use Readcheck!)
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Back to flag desecration...
I was at a bakery yesterday and they had flag cookies for sale. I told my friend Erica she better buy one and eat the flag before it's outlawed. The guy behind the counter looked at me like he could kill me.
Why am I not surprised? You get those kinds of looks pretty often, no?
Back to flag desecration...
I was at a bakery yesterday and they had flag cookies for sale. I told my friend Erica she better buy one and eat the flag before it's outlawed. The guy behind the counter looked at me like he could kill me.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Back to flag desecration...
I was at a bakery yesterday and they had flag cookies for sale. I told my friend Erica she better buy one and eat the flag before it's outlawed. The guy behind the counter looked at me like he could kill me.
LMAO...
Back to flag desecration...
I was at a bakery yesterday and they had flag cookies for sale. I told my friend Erica she better buy one and eat the flag before it's outlawed. The guy behind the counter looked at me like he could kill me.
QUOTE
msully:
I've always felt that flag burning was a form of property right - if you own a flag, you can burn it whenever you want as long as you're not violating any fire codes. If you try burning someone else's flag, that's vandalism or theft. If you try burning a flag where it's against a fire code, then you should have a fire hose turned on you full blast.
I agree that with those who think all it does is make the burner look like an idiot though.
I was getting ready to post -then I read this posting and I realized I couldn't put state it any better - I'm a moderate conservative but I think this is a big waste of time issue. frown
I've always felt that flag burning was a form of property right - if you own a flag, you can burn it whenever you want as long as you're not violating any fire codes. If you try burning someone else's flag, that's vandalism or theft. If you try burning a flag where it's against a fire code, then you should have a fire hose turned on you full blast.
I agree that with those who think all it does is make the burner look like an idiot though.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
If I run back and forth across the interstate during rush hour traffic, I am a stupid idiot.
If I eat a McDonald's Quarter Pounder everyday, I am a stupid idiot.
If I smoke something that is one of the leading causes of death in this country, I am a stupid idiot.
Smokers = Stupid Idiot.
Back to the issue at hand...
Didn't answer my question, but never mind. Back to the topic.
QUOTE
FeverDog:
If I sit down on the train tracks while a train is rolling toward me and I do not move, I am a stupid idiot.QUOTE
bobby78751:
After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
\"Stupid idiot\"? Why the need to insult nicotine-enjoyin' Outsporters with this phrase (which was unnecessary to make your point)? After all, stupid idiot smokers can still smoke.
If I run back and forth across the interstate during rush hour traffic, I am a stupid idiot.
If I eat a McDonald's Quarter Pounder everyday, I am a stupid idiot.
If I smoke something that is one of the leading causes of death in this country, I am a stupid idiot.
Smokers = Stupid Idiot.
Back to the issue at hand...
I assume representation of the flag on clothing would also become a no no. Guess I'll have to toss off my Tommy Hilfiger stars and stripes boxers that I was planning on wearing to a July 4th pool party with some of my American friends living up here. Oh well, skinny dipping is more fun anyway LOL.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.