image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover

fly this flag with pride or (_x_)

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
fly this flag with pride or (_x_)

Comments for: fly this flag with pride or (_x_)
jordan1st Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 08:12PM

The untited states of america is a great nation, i respect and admire the pride of its people in thier country.
it is truly the land of freedom and home of the brave.
respects to all americans
but still fuck your goverment and its policies.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 08:36PM

The Constitution
Was cast aside by Congress.
Hideous corpus!

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 09:26PM

iwas aiming a ltlle lower

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2006 10:05PM

eye rolling

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25/12/2008 01:18AM by fossil_digger.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2006 04:57PM

Well, as Lenny Bruce once said, "If you can't say 'fuck', then you can't say 'fuck the government'".

Or as Utah Philips said:

"I learned in Korea that I would never again, in my life, abdicate to somebody else, my right and my ability to decide who the enemy is."

Flag burning is a superficial issue, people waste time bickering over what that symbol actually means to everyone. Meanwhile, the government has just set a precedent -- a precedent established on 500 years of western law -- that the Writ of Habeas Corpus no longer applies to certain categories of people.

Habeas Corpus -- "show the body" -- means that the accused has the fundamental right to respond to the charges AND evidence against them. Seems pretty basic, right? If someone says "you murdered my child" and you didn't, you'd better be able to see the evidence and show it is wrong.

Not if Congress finishs passing this new bill. And not if you are a second-class citizen of some sort. You will be able to be incarcerated w/o charge, and potentially without being brought into a court. And you will be able to be charged with evidence that you cannot see and argue.

Oh well. Looks like the bricks of the post-modern police state are being put in place.

"First they came for the arabs, because they were probably 'enemy combatants', and that seemed reasonable to me. Then they came for the mexicans, because they were 'illegals', but again I did nothing because I was not a mexican. Then they came for the blacks, but I was not black and did not stand up. Then they came for the hippies, but not being a hippie, I did nothing. Then they came for the 'activists', but stood for nothing, so they did not take me. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to stand up anymore."
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2006 06:49AM

If you people are so determined that we are heading toward a police state, then why do you support the laws which might get us there like the seatbelt laws, the smoking laws and laws designed to take guns away from law abiding citizens? You people are so stupid that you think the only indicator is the detainies, look around there are many more and they began years before Bush came into office. If you want to prevent what you think might be coming then work to get the laws changed which take away our right to make decisions. It should be our decision to wear a seatbelt or where to smoke or not to smoke. It should be our decision what to watch on tv or listen to or read. The only control which should placed on things which affect only ourselves should monetary determination set by our participation or no participation. A so called police state can be brought about by using only little laws as well. While you guys are bitching about the head magician in office wheather it be republican or democrat, the most important magicians in congress have been doing their slight of hand for decades. If you really want to do some good then try to get rid of the political parties entirely.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2006 09:54PM

seatbelt and smoking laws equal encroaching police state?
=Now= who's the paranoid conspiracy nut...

Look goins, I'm not berating BushCo. on this one. I think the US Government is a emminently corruptible place, and we need to keep it in check. Sounds like were on the same page there.

However, under the BushCheney regime we've seen (1) more classified documents than ever before, (2) more rule effected by "Executive Orders" than all other presidents combined, (3) a major terrorist attack on our land, (4) and a reduction of civil liberties, now allowing the State to keep a person captive w/o a trial for as long as they want.

#4 is fucking mideval. And yes, Congress is totally to blame for this, as they are the ones putting a fucking rubber stamp on it. Harry Reid (Democract for what it's worth) bargained away the Dems right to filibuster this piece of shit law in order to attempt to tack on some lame amendments.

I hope you write your Congresscritters regularly goins. I really hope you do.

Btw, the smoking thing? Where is my right to breathe non-smoky air? I thought my liberties ended where your nose begins... and if I smoke, then my liberties go right up your nose. Doesn't sound exactly fair to me. Sounds selfish.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: October 01, 2006 11:23PM

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 07:55AM

We set the path with the little laws like the seatbelts and such. If we give away our rights to choose on the little things then the big things soon follow. The smoking think would have taken care of itself. If say a resturant allows smoking and non smokers stopped going there and enough of them did so to impact their bottom line they would have made changes. Instead of making laws to force unfair restrictions on smokers we should let money make the changes. Many smokers are respectful to non smokers and had they said something we would move ourselves. Ever since the move to force smokers to quit smoking was put into place we have been forced to accomidate non smokers even when there are none around. How long do you think it will be before something you like is taken away from you? We must start saying no to ALL the laws which take the decision away from us.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 01:56PM

Money is a hardly a democratic method. It favors the rich, exclusively. That is an oligarcy, and requires that many lose out.

Smoking is a smokescreen issue. My right to clean air should be the default. Smokers should ask before they light up in public places. However I would happily allow 50% of bars and restaurants to be smoking-only, and I will happily avoid them.

To say that banning smoking, a known pollutant and carcinogen, is an encrochment of the police state, YOU are the one who is whining.

Arresting someone, calling them an "enemy combatant" (whatever the fuck that means exactly), locking them up, removing their right to trial, or giving them a military trial with hooded judges and providing the accused with no evidence IS totally police state activity.

As to "laws which take the decision away from us"... we live in a SOCIETY, there are many of us that have to get along togther. TO do so, we make rules to inhabit the same square footage.

Does it not seem reasonable that an average person should be able to expect clean air when they eat or listen to music? Why do smokers get to make the default as smokey air, they don't exactly ask non-smokers if they mind. The responsibility should be on the smokers.

Again, selfish.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 02:00PM

But then, that's very American.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 02:04PM

THIS is police state action, torturing innocents and extracting crap confessions that will never stand up in court:

*Canadian deported to Syria for torture is cleared*
A Syrian-Canadian has been totally exonerated of having ties with Al Qaeda -- after the RCMP and US Department of Homeland Security conspired to have him shipped to Syria, where he was tortured for ten months.

Maher Arar was passing through the US on the way back to Canada when the DHS detained him. The Mounties sent the US authorities bogus intel about him, saying that he had "links with Al Quaeda" because he was friends with someone who might be an Al Quaeda sympathizer. The US authorities sent him to Syria, where they (and the RCMP) fed questions to his Syrian torturers for months. Eventually, his torturers extracted a "confession" from him.

When he returned to Canada, he publicized his plight and the RCMP responded by smearing him, publicizing his "confession" and saying that he'd gotten what he deserved.

Now a public Canadian inquiry (which the DHS boycotted, refusing to disclose any information) has totally cleared Arar, and the RCMP has apologized for sending a citizen to a corrupt totalitarian state to be tortured because he was friends with someone they didn't like.

Critics have called for the commissioner of the RCMP to resign, for the officers involved to be disciplined, for the Canadian officials who dealt so callously with Mr Arar to be held accountable.

Mr Arar has won a hard-fought victory, not just for himself but for all Canadians. Through his persistence, and that of his wife, they have seen how the powers of the state were abused in the panic and fear that followed the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Three other Canadian citizens were also tortured in the Middle East under similar circumstances: Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muyyed Nurredin. The government says it is now considering ways to get to the bottom of what happened to them without the cost and delay of holding full public inquiries.

HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 02, 2006 02:05PM

And you won't read about it in US papers.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 03, 2006 07:23AM

Money can determine if a resturant is smoking or non smoking. If a large majority of people refused to eat at a resturant which allows smoking then they would change their policy. This is what was meant by letting money determine the issue. Second hand smoke is no worse than the smoke you get from grilling or burning leaves but we are still allowed to do that. Not wearing seatbelts is less harmful than riding a motorcycle without a helmet but we are allowed to rid motorcycles without a helmet. What is allowed on tv should be determined by our watching, not the law, and parental control should be the only censor. We do not need a small minority making the decesions for us, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
messyflatmate Report This Comment
Date: October 03, 2006 08:36AM

> "we are capable of doing it ourselves"

Wish that was true.

But many people are far from capable of making the right decisions, jgoins, and you know that. Hey, you're the one who keeps trumpeting "you people are idiots". Would we need any laws if people were able to make the right decisions? Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, are you suggesting we get rid of all laws ?

As for riding bikes w/out helmets, that's probably a state anomaly. I dunno about the US but Aussies have had to wear crashats for as long as I can remember. It's just common sense.

Your "money can stop smoking in restaurants" argument holds no water at all. If what you say is true, then, why weren't there all these restaurants that banned smoking? Clearly that didn't happen, so why on earth are you suggesting it could have? I think you are dreaming that the market can solve all human problems.
messyflatmate Report This Comment
Date: October 03, 2006 08:39AM

> "Not wearing seatbelts is less harmful than riding a motorcycle without a helmet"

What's your basis for that comment? Don't you know how many people have been saved by seatbelts?

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 03, 2006 03:26PM

The seatbelt issue should have remained personal choice as it hurts no one else, just like the helmet issue.

I am not saying all laws should be abolished. Just the ones which limit personal decision and do not effect other people, like seatbelts for instance. The smoking issue could be managed with common curtosy(sp) and failures could be handled on a case by case basis. As it sits now with the smoking laws, especially in Arkansas, we may need smoking police as infractions will sooner or later take the police away from their jobs too much.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 03, 2006 03:48PM

On the contrary, seatbelts reduce the costs in medical expenses to society. Actually it was probably the insurance industry who made everyone wear seatbelts. However, they do actually save lives. If all you have to bitch about is being 'forced' to wear seatbelts, you have no problems in your life.

As to helmets on motos.. you must not get out much. The law varies across the US. Most states require helmets, Illinois, for example, does not.

Considering that the smoking issue =wasn't= handled by common courtesy shows the flaw in your plan. BTW, smoking is not equivalent to burning grass. I don't burn grass in your kitchen while you are eating, but people like to smoke in restaurants. Similarly, no one grills in a closed exercise room, while people smoke about 10 pounds of tobacco a night in clubs where people dance.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Do you, or do you not support our government holding people w/o access to basic human rights such as trial on the =assumption= that they are merely =associated= with terrorists? Do you even care that this line has been crossed, and may easily -- more easily than your piddly example of "police state encroachement" -- lead to permanent incarceration of citizens, with no right to trial?
Pretty weighty stuff. IMHO.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 03, 2006 03:51PM

Oh yeah, then there's torture, which has been shown to not provide useful information, and definitely not useful information in court. Why bother torturing at all? Does it get someone's rocks off or something? Provide a personal sense of vengance? I hope not. Otherwise they should fucking grow up.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 04, 2006 07:54AM

I am all for using the same tactics on those people which their people use on ours. When they capture our people they beat torture and brutally kill them, so why should we treat them any better when we capture them. I had an idea a while back. Maybe we should inject them wih a tracking device and release them back into the wild. Then if they are caught again just kill them.
HellBent Report This Comment
Date: October 04, 2006 09:25PM

So you'd prefer to sink to the lowest level, the lowest common denominater of brutality and not rise up and be the better man. How can we say that western democracy is any better than their theocracy when we engage in the same brutality as them? Why should they listen to us?

Also, remember who invaded which country. I don't see fundamentalist arab troops occupying America... And Iraqis =have= lost over 200,000 people in the last 15 years due to US-UK bombing and war...
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: October 05, 2006 07:51AM

They are not afraid of being captured by us because they know they will be treated much better than by us than they even lived. The people in Gitmo have gained weight while they have been there because they eat better and refuse to exercise. Has anyone the terrorists captured ever gained weight even if they were lucky enough to be released instead of being beheaded?