T1B

They is some patriotic rednecks down in Bentonville.

Either that, or no one wants to see some skanks stink patch in a clothing ad. One of the two.

Did you have to practice to be this stupid or are you a natural?

She's been hitting the catnip stash again.

Variable wrote:

They is some patriotic rednecks down in Bentonville.

Either that, or no one wants to see some skanks stink patch in a clothing ad. One of the two.

Clothing ad?

Not up on your 90s musak eh?

That's right, I forgot. Is it The Black Crowes?

With a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the Flag poised to go on the books, exactly how will they address this part of the US flag Code?

(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

I guess they'll spend another week discussing how to amend THAT, if the amendment is not shot down.

Our tax dollars, Hard at work. :roll:

Variable wrote:Free expression? Sure. I'd love to see the passage of the Constitution that guarantees that.

I'll be over here waiting. ------------------>

Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution --

"Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."

So, I guess unless the FBI or another fed agency is going to bust me for it, I won't worry.

Not sure if this has come up yet, but does Congress realize that you're supposed to burn a flag that's touched the ground? Like all of the ones that fall off SUVs and line the roadways? Better start throwing pseudo-patriotic soccermom in jail.

Read up on the thread, Dins. I posted that thought like two posts ago.

Don't tell me I'm on your list of "Posters I don't read"

I would be very hurt.

After the first page, it started to sound like the same old "b..b..b..b..ut it's the LIBERALS fault" rhetoric, which is always unreadable.

I'm suprised the republicans are allowing this. It's not their style. Putting flags on clothing is desecrating it, but there's some sort of large corporation producing such a thing....what a conundrum for the repubs.

Passing a law like that is very liberal of them.

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever

Burning the flag is not an opinion, it's...burning the flag. It doesn't show displeasure with anyone or anything unless it's accompanied by words like "Iraq is the new Vietnam" or "Gitmo is the new Gulag" or whatever. Those words that provide the context for why you are burning the flag are protected by both the Oregon constitution and the US constitution, but the actual burning of the flag, is not.

Opinions are voiced, written, or otherwise related via a form of communication.

Rack whoever (I think mvscal) said that this entire discussion is moot because the SCOTUS will overturn this anyway, since they almost always rule in favor of people doing whatever the hell they want.

It's not moot. It reflects what a piss poor job our representatives in congress are doing.

Really. Flag burning amendment? How many Americans have publicly burned flags in protest over the last decade? Or are we planning on sending the cops over to the middle east where the majority of the flag burning occurs?

Stupid waste of time.

Variable wrote:

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever

Burning the flag is not an opinion, it's...burning the flag. It doesn't show displeasure with anyone or anything unless it's accompanied by words like "Iraq is the new Vietnam" or "Gitmo is the new Gulag" or whatever. Those words that provide the context for why you are burning the flag are protected by both the Oregon constitution and the US constitution, but the actual burning of the flag, is not.

Opinions are voiced, written, or otherwise related via a form of communication.

Rack whoever (I think mvscal) said that this entire discussion is moot because the SCOTUS will overturn this anyway, since they almost always rule in favor of people doing whatever the hell they want.

It is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Withdraw your racks or face endless ridicule.

Whatever, flagburner. :D Check out the below link and click on the flag to see what a typical 4th of July at the Bushice household looks like:

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/burn5.html

Variable wrote: Opinions are voiced, written, or otherwise related via a form of communication.

While completely understandable, your complete, obvious lack of knowledge regarding how Oregon works renders your opinion worthless.

Burning a flag would VERY MUCH be considered an "otherwise related form of communication." Fuck, a lawyer(not that it would ever make it to court) would just have to say that it was performance art, and it's case-closed. Period. No debate.

Plus, flag burning is a well established form of expressing displeasure with the federal government.

And it's definitely NOT moot -- why would congress(or the republicans therein) think it's proper to do something that is in stark disagreement with the Bill of Rights? Impeachable offense-imo. Flagrant disregard for the BoR should result in an immediate dismissal from any elected position.

BSmack wrote:

Variable wrote:

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever

Burning the flag is not an opinion, it's...burning the flag. It doesn't show displeasure with anyone or anything unless it's accompanied by words like "Iraq is the new Vietnam" or "Gitmo is the new Gulag" or whatever. Those words that provide the context for why you are burning the flag are protected by both the Oregon constitution and the US constitution, but the actual burning of the flag, is not.

Opinions are voiced, written, or otherwise related via a form of communication.

Rack whoever (I think mvscal) said that this entire discussion is moot because the SCOTUS will overturn this anyway, since they almost always rule in favor of people doing whatever the hell they want.

It is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Withdraw your racks or face endless ridicule.

It can be repealed, and I believe article V requirews ratification by 75% of the states.

T'ain't over yet, states rights be damned. ;)

While completely understandable, your complete, obvious lack of knowledge regarding how Oregon works renders your opinion worthless.

Sadly, I can still respect you for your opinion without agreeing with it or referrring to it as "worthless."

Burning a flag would VERY MUCH be considered an "otherwise related form of communication." Fuck, a lawyer(not that it would ever make it to court) would just have to say that it was performance art, and it's case-closed. Period. No debate.

You can also repeatedly stand naked in a gallery stick your finger in your ass and smell it, and call it performance art. As previously said in this thread, dookie statues are considered "art." Big deal.

Anyway, finding a lawyer or group of activist judges such as the 9th circuit court of appeals who agree with you doesn't make you right or even more right.

Plus, flag burning is a well established form of expressing displeasure with the federal government.

Well established? The only time it ever happens anymore (with few exceptions, nitpicker) is when someone is protesting gov't taking away their right to do so.

And it's definitely NOT moot -- why would congress(or the republicans therein) think it's proper to do something that is in stark disagreement with the Bill of Rights? Impeachable offense-imo. Flagrant disregard for the BoR should result in an immediate dismissal from any elected position.

Immediate dismissal? Who decides what constitutes "flagrant disregard?" Hell, that's more of a militant, dictatorial opinion than even I was being accused of in this thread. Quit trying to steal my thunder.

Withdraw your racks or face endless ridicule.

As if you'll ever shut up either way. I'm too lazy to look. You at 5,000 posts in 6 months yet? Hell, even Roofer thinks that's a lot.

Variable wrote:Sadly, I can still respect you for your opinion without agreeing with it or referrring to it as "worthless."

Wasn't meant as an insult....but whatever. It was "worthless" because you were so clueless as to the workings of the state you were commenting on, and their interperetations of law.

BTW -- tittybars are protected by "freedom of expression" here. They're not speaking ( or we hope like HELL they're not, or I want my buck back), nor writing. The only "form of communication" they're using is giving some old perv a woody, or some Dr Detroit hope that a chick "likes me for real, cause she winked at me."

Hell, you can open an adult bookstore next to a school, for that matter. Pornography is "free expression" here.

But, you think burning a flag won't qualify round these parts? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Variable wrote:

Withdraw your racks or face endless ridicule.

As if you'll ever shut up either way. I'm too lazy to look. You at 5,000 posts in 6 months yet? Hell, even Roofer thinks that's a lot.

Comming from the king bandwidth hog of TNW, I'll take that as a compliment.

Don't worry. Things are starting to heat up at the workplace. Right now I'm designing a a webpage for internal training and banging out the odd reply to idiots on the Internet. But things can change REAL quick in my line of work.

Dinsdale wrote: BTW -- tittybars are protected by "freedom of expression" here. They're not speaking ( or we hope like HELL they're not, or I want my buck back)

Only a buck to get into a tittie bar? I'm moving there.

Mister Bushice wrote: Only a buck to get into a tittie bar?

Huh?

There's only one or two out of the ~80 here in town that charge a cover, I think. The buck is to get her to put her nasty snapper up in your greel. Hopefully, she's spent some of those previous bucks on FDS.

I'm told this is the only place where you can drink hard booze while bimbo has her goods in your face, too.....althought that CAN'T be true, I'm sure. The whole rest of the country can't be THAT uptight about pussy, can they?

Sheeeet.....cover at a tittybar? You funny guy, Joe.

I never/rarely go to the damn places anyway.

There's either a 2-3 drink minimum or a cover charge here, or both, depending. If it's a drink minimum, count on the drinks starting at $5.00 per.

You're in California?

Do they even take the g-string off and display the money-maker there?

I'm not sure the last time I saw one with a minimum. There's a wide range of bars, from striahgt-up scary dives, to super high-end clubs. Stars, out in Beaverton, is quite famous. I think they charge about $10-20 to get in, but you get it all back in credit, and get a prime rib buffet while you're there. First time I went there(odd, since I lived a couple hundred yards away, and a good friend was a manager), I sat next to Travis Tritt. Wouldn't have known him from Adam, if someone hadn't told me. The mullet stood out pretty bigtime, though. My friend accumulated quite the collection of pics with celebs who came in.

Never looked into it, but I think that in most of them, a "happy ending" can be found, if you're feeling wealthy.

What were we talking about again?

well, if you need a tie-in:



:)

By posting that, you just desecrated the flag, you fucking criminal.

Slipperly slope, eh?

Not yet, actually. That amendment still needs ratification.

I will raise flag hell until then. :)

Mister Bushice wrote:Not yet, actually. That amendment still needs ratification.

I will raise flag hell until then. :)

Good idea. Maybe I'll go home and wipe my ass with one.

Not a good visual.

Comming from the king bandwidth hog of TNW, I'll take that as a compliment.

Haha. Fair enough. However, even as much as I spammed that board I don't think I ever posted more than 1,000 in a year. You've got 4,000 in six months. We...have...a....WINNER!!!

Dins, the only place I've been in where you can drink alcohol and get the money-maker in your face is Hawaii. In Florida, you can either be all nude, or serve alcohol, not both. In CA, as far as what I've seen anyway, there are no all nude bars.

Yeah, seems pretty silly.

San Francisco, dude. They have a bunch.

Variable wrote:In CA, as far as what I've seen anyway, there are no all nude bars.

While I've never been, I've heard some stories about the Mitchell Brothers joint in SF. CRAZY stories. But, you can't drink there.

I think I'll stay put(you're welcome), if the rest of the country is that uptight about a little pussy. I'll take the promiscuous women and a little rain anyday.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Variable wrote:You can't tell a cop to fuck off,

Yes you can, under a variety of circumstances.

Give it try someday.

I have, and never been arrested. If you don't know your rights, you have none. Most people don't. Nice try though.

RadioFan wrote:

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote: Yes you can, under a variety of circumstances.

Give it try someday.

I have, and never been arrested. If you don't know your rights, you have none. Most people don't. Nice try though.

I wouldn't try it if you're ever visiting Suck Diego.


Here they shoot first, and then tell you to stop.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

mvscal wrote: Give it try someday.

I have, and never been arrested.

:roll:

Yeah....sure you have. Idiot.

I had a friend who gave a cop the finger. Not a fucking thing happened to him.

I have a friend who gave a retired cop the finger on the internet, and the retired cop threatened to shoot him, then denied PM'ing the mods for some sort of aching-pussy backup.

mvscal wrote::roll:

Yeah....sure you have. Idiot.

Next time try not to assume, jackass. The statement was "you can't tell a cop to fuck off. There are many instances where you can tell "a cop" to fuck off.

Next time try not to assume, jackass. The statement was "you can't tell a cop to fuck off. There are many instances where you can tell "a cop" to fuck off.

Please tell me that you're not such a big vagina that you'd say something like, "Well I hang out with/am related to a cop and tell him to fuck off all the time and HE doesn't do anything about it!"

The exception is not the rule. I'm not going to qualify every statement that I make, just so some whiny, simp of a man can say, "But that's not ALLLLLLLWAYS true..." and site some obscure, irrelevant reference that no one gives a shit about. Nothing worse than a nitpicker.

Oh, and BSmack, "my buddy" stories blow. Anyone who's reached the age of 30 has a buddy who's done every fucking thing on the planet. I do, you do, we all do. So feel free never to share a tidbit like that ever again.

Variable wrote:

Next time try not to assume, jackass. The statement was "you can't tell a cop to fuck off. There are many instances where you can tell "a cop" to fuck off.

Please tell me that you're not such a big vagina that you'd say something like, "Well I hang out with/am related to a cop and tell him to fuck off all the time and HE doesn't do anything about it!"

The exception is not the rule. I'm not going to qualify every statement that I make, just so some whiny, simp of a man can say, "But that's not ALLLLLLLWAYS true..." and site some obscure, irrelevant reference that no one gives a shit about. Nothing worse than a nitpicker.

Maybe you should reread my post.

And no, it isn't your former comment, though my attitude about cops has done a 180 since I was 20, and yeah, I laughed, because, that would be the obvious answer.

I'll throw a rack your way for that, and for beating mvscal to it, bro. Rack.

No, outside of Luth and Kutter, I don't "hang out with cops." But I did have a chance to work with them for a time, a while back.

As for my comment ... I was referring to jurisdiction, of which I have experience telling a cop to fuck off, and property rights, of which I don't, but would in a heartbeat.

Want specific examples?

Variable wrote:Oh, and BSmack, "my buddy" stories blow. Anyone who's reached the age of 30 has a buddy who's done every fucking thing on the planet. I do, you do, we all do. So feel free never to share a tidbit like that ever again.

How about you feel free to shove your attitude up your fucking ass?

How about you feel free to shove your attitude up your fucking ass?

Not a problem. While doing so, I'll use the other hand to give myself a hearty pat on the back for getting you to say someone else's attitude sucks. That's like Detroit saying someone else uses phrases like "KYOA" and "LMAO" too much.

RF, no, don't need examples, but I would like to see video just so i could see the expression on the cop's face. :D

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote: I have, and never been arrested.

:roll:

Yeah....sure you have. Idiot.

I had a friend who gave a cop the finger. Not a fucking thing happened to him.

as he was driving by with an 'out of service' sign in the window