Man arrested for humping American Flag

[B.Calhoun]

ya well I'm grateful my underwear isnt riding up my ass ...oh wait ..stupid tight pants




..either put your money where your mouth is or shut up, by not supporting your points all you're doing is ranting




but really we have a population of just over 30 million ..you have 10 times that ..plus guns ..lots and lots of guns

1st:uhh ok

2nd: relax im just saying my opinion, not trying to get crazy here

3rd: ok we are 10x the pop. of canada, so just accept the fact that we will have more of everything including anything bad

 

[DeusExMachina]

Why is Canada so boring. No wonder stern loves America so much.

 

[PvtRyan]

You know what I found surprising? Canade is the second largest country in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_countries

Never suspected that.

 

[CptStern]

1st:uhh ok

dont tell me you didnt look when I just stood up ..if I were a girl I'd have camel toe ..no seriously it's one of those where you cant make an adjustment in public ..going to washroom is mandatory

2nd: relax im just saying my opinion, not trying to get crazy here

maybe I want to get crazy? /me gnaws side of desk

3rd: ok we are 10x the pop. of canada, so just accept the fact that we will have more of everything including anything bad

ok ...I accept you have more bad than we do ...you said it, not me

 

[-Psy-]

Stern FTW.

 

[Asknoone]

Stern needs to be leashed.

 

[Uriel]

Replace concern with obsession and we've got an accurate description there.

QFT

I used to get worked up over forum threads, then you realize who you're arguing with.
I think debates in real life would be much more different in HL2.net.

 

[Muffin Man]

maybe I want to get crazy? /me gnaws side of desk

I'm so tempted to sig that.

 

[kirovman]

B. Calhoun can't comment because he used to have Mario as his avatar.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Kerberos in nonsensical drivel shocker.

 

[Jintor]

yes unforetunately the prize is perpetual ignorance

so nationhood is relative to your experience meaning that it doesnt exist if you say it doesnt exist ..right that makes sense ..ok to play devil's advocate what if it was china? or Iran or Saudi Arabia? the citizens of that country should obey without question?

well only to the combat police who are eavesdropping on our conversation ..if you listen closely you should hear the sound of their boots coming your way ..try to cover your face when the batons start flying

You're not going to change his propanganda-filled mind and you know it.

 

[dream431ca]

This reminds me of those wonderful political threads we used to have back in the good old days...I miss those days. ;(

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Does a free society still have consequences?

That's what laws are. To protect people from arseholes.

Kerberos in nonsensical drivel shocker.

Do I sense some sarcasm?

 

[Stigmata]

That's what laws are. To protect people from arseholes.

No, laws (in the context of this debate) are there to protect your freedoms. "Freedom from offense" isn't anywhere in the Constitution. The basic principle of freedom in modern society can be boiled down to "freedom to life, liberty and happiness, so long as your freedoms do not infringe upon another's freedoms."

Even so, "freedom to happiness" works both ways. Let's say person A burns the flag, and person B becomes offended - person A's happiness stays the same because he's free to express himself, but person B's happiness goes down because he is offended. There are two responses to this: either make flag-burning illegal, or keep it legal.

If we make flag-burning illegal, person B's happiness will go up because there are no more flag burnings to offend him. Person A's happiness will go down because he's no longer allowed to express himself this way at all.

If we keep flag-burning legal, person B's happiness goes down because he can be offended in some cases, and person A's happiness goes up because he's free to always express himself.

What's the difference? With flag-burning being legal, people only get offended, and thus unhappy, some of the time. With flag burning being illegal, the people who want to burn flags get unhappy all of the time because they can no longer express themselves in that way.

Forgive me if it's a shitty explanation, it's two in the morning and I'm frustrated.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, laws (in the context of this debate) are there to protect your freedoms. "Freedom from offense" isn't anywhere in the Constitution

The Constitution gives us freedoms yes, but the laws right next to it work at ensuring crimes are payed for. Just because its not in the constitution doesn't mean nessecarly that most laws are suddenly rendered enert.

Even so, "freedom to happiness" works both ways. Let's say person A burns the flag, and person B becomes offended - person A's happiness stays the same because he's free to express himself, but person B's happiness goes down because he is offended. There are two responses to this: either make flag-burning illegal, or keep it legal.

Yea, but I'm starting to think this whole flag burning thing works more like legalized self-vandalism, if that makes any sense. I just don't see a point in doing it and again nobodys come up with very good explanation as to why. I think most people are afraid to explain why, at least directly, because they're worried that people would'nt actually bother to listen if they heard.

Then again, none of them have really bothered to speak.

What's the difference?

It's the difference between someone still feeling bad and some still feeling good. There's no real right of way for this, so the only real way to approach an issue such as this would be to discuss it with your Senator or gather enough power to approach the United States Supreme Court.

But they're again, even states can have different laws that what the government would amend, and thats the way its been for years.

I used to get worked up over forum threads, then you realize who you're arguing with.

You know, I'm not one to talk here but you made me realize something. They don't care about what we think, should we care about what they think? I'm voting for no.

Forgive me if it's a shitty explanation, it's two in the morning and I'm frustrated.

Oh no ... don't tell me your STEAM did it too.

 

[Stigmata]

The Constitution gives us freedoms yes, but the laws right next to it work at ensuring crimes are payed for. Just because its not in the constitution doesn't mean nessecarly that most laws are suddenly rendered enert.



Yea, but I'm starting to think this whole flag burning thing works more like legalized self-vandalism, if that makes any sense. I just don't see a point in doing it and again nobodys come up with very good explanation as to why. I think most people are afraid to explain why, at least directly, because they're worried that people would'nt actually bother to listen if they heard.

Then again, none of them have really bothered to speak.



It's the difference between someone still feeling bad and some still feeling good. There's no real right of way for this, so the only real way to approach an issue such as this would be to discuss it with your Senator or gather enough power to approach the United States Supreme Court.

But they're again, even states can have different laws that what the government would amend, and thats the way its been for years.



Oh no ... don't tell me your STEAM did it too.

I refuse to multi-quote from now on, so here goes.

One point I'd like to make: Don't talk about how an act is illegal when we're debating whether the act should be illegal. That makes no sense and it makes our argument unnecessarily confusing. Legalized self-vandalism wouldn't be vandalism. And furthermore, this issue is specifically constitutional in nature. It's freedom of expression versus one law that outlaws a specific kind of non-harmful expression that nobody necessarily forces you to see.

Now, about this in particular: "I just don't see a point in doing it and again nobodys come up with very good explanation as to why. I think most people are afraid to explain why, at least directly, because they're worried that people would'nt actually bother to listen if they heard." Why do you feel that people have to rationalize what they do in order for it to be considered legal? I've already talked about this. Abstract art that doesn't necessarily mean anything is still art. Talking to yourself isn't illegal. Protesting isn't illegal. Just because you think it's stupid, or that maybe there are better ways to make your message heard, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Anyway, what happens if I get offended that people want to keep flag burning illegal? Does that hold any legal grounds?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

One point I'd like to make: Don't talk about how an act is illegal when we're debating whether the act should be illegal.

An arrest was made because the act was illegal. (Amung other things.)

Legalized self-vandalism wouldn't be vandalism.

This is like you having my babies.

And furthermore, this issue is specifically constitutional in nature.

So, what you're basically saying is that the Constitution is in a higher power over say, the laws we incorperate currently?

Why do you feel that people have to rationalize what they do in order for it to be considered legal?

It's trust, really, and what this trust can do essentially is to help us ensure that when somewhere down the line you or I screw up, then at least somebodys got a record of what was promised to fix the damages and charge the appropriate person with legal action. Also, rationalizing is the first step to making something legal; above all, you have to tell someone why you want something legal otherwise they're just not going to do it.

A vague example,
The US Supreme Court is not going to legalize baby eating, at the very least, because babies have rights and they're human beings. However, assuming that they're tasty enough and the methods to process and kill them into edible parts is promised as not being painful, then someone like you can go before Congress and insinuate the debate of baby eating. If you can rationalize where a right like this would be both beneficial to you and congress then your bill might have some success at passing -- but the first step is in convincing people that you're not going to take advantage of them and prove it. Ad one element of legislation, the parents would have to consent for the child, and boom: Plausible right to devour tasty human larvae.

In effect what I'm describing to you is a system of checks and balances.
But without hearing someone rationalize where, Constitutionally, it should be a right to a citizen for the eating of babies, a Supreme Court or Congress for that matter just is'int going to let you do what you want because they're are inherent dangers to just doing that. For example, you could eventually start burning little flaglettes that are conscious and aware of you burning them. Or, you could turn flag burning into outside vandalism, or even without you doing this directly, the result could be more reckless people doing more reckless things. Or, essentially you could start taking advantage of this right and the people living under it by manipulating key weaknesses in particular policies that have not matured to certain states yet, where, they'd be capable of catching this kind of thing.

It's a mutual trust, so ineffect, rationalizing to me the reasons, whatever they maybe, is'int that much of an obstacle. It's, in the end, going to go a long way to convince people that you're intent is not to take this kind of liberty and abuse it.

 

[sinkoman]

So, what you're basically saying is that the Constitution is in a higher power over say, the laws we incorperate currently?

Yes? That's what the constitution is there for.

It basically boils down to this: Having the freedom from personal insult infringes on others' freedom of speak and opinion, because then you're limiting what other people are allowed to say.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It basically boils down to this: Having the freedom from personal insult infringes on others' freedom of speak and opinion, because then you're limiting what other people are allowed to say.

Yes, but like all constitutional rights things can be taken to far. Freedom from Offense is not guarenteed but if what happens is someone taking they're Freedom of Speech and using it to say, call for an assasination attempt on a particular world leader, then thats when the train should grind to a hault. <eyes Pat Robertson>

It's also a law to say, an example ...
You just called someone a bitch in public. A random someone -- did'nt even know them from Adam, and could not care. Well they dont respond. But you keep doing it. Eventually, they or even now, they are well within they're legal right to charge you with verbal harassment.

It's a law. Now, you can have the opinion that some particular individual is a bitch, a ****er, or whichever, and thats fine. Nobodys infringing on your right to maintain opinions -- but when you're, as it says, verbally assaulting someone or threatening them, whether communicated (physical threats, what was said that was threatening, or how you said it that made the context threatening) or not communicated (staring or following), then someone is well within they're legal rights to protect themselves from that kind of scatology.

So, if its a law that says, "Okay, you cant burn flags reguardless", and someone catches you doing it, there well within they're legal rights to call the police and notify them of your breaking the law.

The Constitution gives us rights. The Laws helps to protect them and us.

They work as a mutualism, not as opposing forces. The cause and effect however of breaking these laws is punishment, so unless you want them legalized, you're going to have to explain why and the benefits of. Me? Convince me, sure. But I'm not congress. You'll need them or the US Supreme Court to do that. So, whats beneficial about flag burning? Why should it constitutionally allowable when the law to prevent flag burnings were rules that ran side by side of our Constitution when it was first made?

 

[Stigmata]

I give up. I really do. You haven't listened to a goddamn word I've said, Kerberos, and neither has anyone else who disagrees with me. I don't need to stress myself over one debate, and I certainly don't need to stress myself debating with closed-minded idiots.

Enjoy your tunnel vision.

 

[sinkoman]

Yes, but like all constitutional rights things can be taken to far. Freedom from Offense is not guarenteed but if what happens is someone taking they're Freedom of Speech and using it to say, call for an assasination attempt on a particular world leader, then thats when the train should grind to a hault. <eyes Pat Robertson>

I really think you don't understand the bill of rights, at ALL. That's absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

It's also a law to say, an example ...
You just called someone a bitch in public. A random someone -- did'nt even know them from Adam, and could not care. Well they dont respond. But you keep doing it. Eventually, they or even now, they are well within they're legal right to charge you with verbal harassment.

That's disturbing the peace and harassment. It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you do that to somebody, but they won't stop you for voicing your opinion, they WILL stop you for hounding somebody and not leaving them alone.

That person has every right to turn away and not listen to what you have to say, yet you're infringing on that right by forcing them to listen to you, and not leaving them alone, even though they've kindly ask you to.

Kerberos, you seem to think that it's ok to break the constitution for special cases. It's not. EVER.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I give up. I really do. You haven't listened to a goddamn word I've said, Kerberos, and neither has anyone else who disagrees with me. I don't need to stress myself over one debate, and I certainly don't need to stress myself debating with closed-minded idiots.

Enjoy your tunnel vision.

You would'nt have to turn away yet if only you provided us an answer.
Is that something you're willing to discuss before you part?

I really think you don't understand the bill of rights, at ALL. That's absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

From Wikipedia

The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement by other people and the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights

That's disturbing the peace and harassment.

Some people view flag burning as both. How can you make them see that its actually nethire, if it is?
Or, could you accept that maybe you should respect other peoples beliefs first before you demand that they respect yours?

Kerberos, you seem to think that it's ok to break the constitution for special cases. It's not. EVER.

But a burning flag does not speak -- only people do, amung other things so this would'nt constitute as oppression of speech. It seems to me the more I observe this issue, that its actually for the disturbance of the peace that more or less, constitutes flag burners getting arrested. Yet, there are also states that allow flag burning displays and require you permits to have public rallies, even making it perfectly legal. Perhaps your frusteration would be considered misguided if you understood this already?

 

[Stigmata]

Okay, this is my last post in this thread, at least for the foreseeable future.

I'm turning away not because I don't have an answer to you, but because YOU don't have an answer to ME. I keep trying to explain, over and over, that freedom of speech means not having to rationalize your actions. You started off trying to explain that flag burning should be kept illegal because there are more constructive ways to express yourself. It's true that it's not a very constructive way to express yourself, but that's one of the worst reasons to keep something illegal that I've ever come across in all my debates.

My reply, of course, is that speech doesn't have to be rationalized in order for it to be constitutional. Your response? You go on and on about how free speech can be used to harm other people, like calling for the assassination of the President, or promoting hate speech and crimes. Well, NEWS FLASH, guess what, none of that is protected under freedom of speech! The line where freedom of speech ends and criminal activity begins is where your speech begins to cause measurable injury to a person or a group of people. That is why insult is legal, and slander is not. Why saying "I'm a racist" is legal, and "I think we as a nation should murder all black people" is not. And, if we are to follow that train of thought, why burning the American flag should be legal, while literally burning America is not.

The only reason flag burning is illegal is because some closed-minded politicians decided that burning the American flag was analogous to treasonous crimes. A similar law might be to make it illegal to burn a piece of paper with the McDonald's logo on it. You might rationalize that law by saying it's unfair to show such disrespect to a company that provides millions of meals every day to hungry, paying customers. But that would go against the freedoms granted by the Constitution, and since most people's judgment isn't clouded by their patriotism to a fast-food company, we can see why making such a law would be downright stupid. The same principles apply to the laws governing flag-burning. Anyone who really thinks it should be kept illegal is either blinded by patriotism, or a person who simply does not understand the laws around it.

 

[sinkoman]

But a burning flag does not speak -- only people do, amung other things so this would'nt constitute as oppression of speech. It seems to me the more I observe this issue, that its actually for the disturbance of the peace that more or less, constitutes flag burners getting arrested. Yet, there are also states that allow flag burning displays and require you permits to have public rallies, even making it perfectly legal. Perhaps your frusteration would be considered misguided if you understood this already?

K, this is perfect, RIGHT THERE. That has to be the ultimate contradiction, that you've so kindly laid before me

If a flag burning does not speak, then what is it about it that offends you?

If the action itself doesn't actually say or mean anything, then why does it rile you up?

BTW freedom of speech is freedom to voice your opinion, not freedom to literally talk. If that were the case, then the government would be limited in terms of deleting posts on the internet that it didn't like, but it isn't.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The only reason flag burning is illegal is because some closed-minded politicians decided that burning the American flag was analogous to treasonous crimes.

So what you're saying is that, these accused of being closed-minded politicians, decided that burning the American flag was analogous to treasonous crimes; at what time in our nations history did they choose to do this? What were they're reasons for doing this?

How could you convince politicians these days that its otherwise, okay? How do you convince them that its not treason and goes against the constitution? Would you also care to say why burning a flag is so much more important then saying why you'd like to burn it?

If the action itself doesn't actually say or mean anything, then why does it rile you up?

My comment was more or less to put focus on the fact no one will ever truely understand the, "art" behind a flag burning, unless its explained.

What should it mean to me?

Because what it might mean to someone else is our destruction, and they're celebrating or wearing it like colours on a shirt.

freedom of speech is freedom to voice your opinion, not freedom to literally talk.

It's both actually, even if there where no laws on this earth that ever mandated silence. It's there to say, "Not only can you voice your opinions, but if someone aims to silence you from the government know that you have a right to keep gabbing away."

 

[Stigmata]

Okay, I really can't pass this up.

Do you believe in treason?

trea?son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Do you believe that flag-burning is treason? Do you honestly believe that by setting alight a piece of fabric with thirteen red/white bars and fifty white stars, that I am attempting to assassinate the President? [edit: just to clarify, flag burning doesn't count as a violation of allegiance, because it doesn't say anything other than "this flag is on fire". And "betrayal of trust" doesn't really apply to treason against one's country.]

If not, then I win because you've got no argument against me. After all, that's the only bit of my post that you quoted.

 

[sinkoman]

My comment was more or less to put focus on the fact no one will ever truely understand the, "art" behind a flag burning, unless its explained.

What should it mean to me?

Because what it might mean to someone else is our destruction, and they're celebrating or wearing it like colours on a shirt.

What are you talking about? This has absolutely nothing to do with art. Flag burning is not ART, it's the voicing of an opinion.

Well, TECHNICALLY it isn't, it just usually is, and that's apparently what you think it is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you didn't think that flag burning voiced some sort of opinion, then it wouldn't make you mad.

Regarding all of this, you have no right to tell somebody to NOT celebrate your destruction. If they want the government to fall into anarchy, they have every right to say it, in any way shape or form, that doesn't physically harm anybody or their property.

Please tell me how flag burning does that.

It's both actually, even if there where no laws on this earth that ever mandated silence. It's there to say, "Not only can you voice your opinions, but if someone aims to silence you from the government know that you have a right to keep gabbing away."

K, and how is this any different from what I said?

If you have freedom to voice your opinion, in any way shape or form, then you don't need specifics. It's just "freedom to make your opinion known, END".

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Do you believe that flag-burning is treason? Do you honestly believe that by setting alight a piece of fabric with thirteen red/white bars and fifty white stars, that I am attempting to assassinate the President?

(1.) Yes/No.

It might be a constitutional right of yours to do this -- but some laws issue that an action like this still be considered a crime.

Given todays environment I don't find anything tempting or rational about this -- even if it is your property that happens to be burning. Yet, I also believe that its possible, you might be trying to rally people who hate our country under you or around you to start trouble.

Who knows? I don't. You've never told me. I'm honestly half in half about this reason. I find it treasonous and yet I don't. You've made some progress on me, keep going.

(2.) Uh, I don't even know if your Pat Robertson. This is the internet, after all, but I digress; is that what you want to happen?

No, excuse me ...

Is that what some of these people imagine when they burn our flag? Feasibly, if we can agree that there are other ways of expressing your opinion and that this is'int the best one, then I win because I'm still retarded.

Flag burning is not ART, it's the voicing of an opinion.

An opinion that has yet to be discussed. Whats this whole, mystarium cultic flag burners silent opinion bullshit about?

Spill it or loose me, because I think Stigmata might be on the verge of it and if he does, then this crisis will be completely avoided.

If you have freedom to voice your opinion, in any way shape or form, then you don't need specifics.

Your free to express your opinion to a POINT. That's always been the LAW as I've understood.

I will write the following:

Kill Bush. Behead all those who saw Islam is ... Islam.

Secret police knocking at my door? Nope.

<burns log, barrel, car, flag, in public space>
<gets arrested for disturbing the peace>

Me: But Officer! I was burning that log to show people what greedy corperations are doing to the South American Rainforest! I was also burning that barrel to show how our current President is wasting our own natural resources and time to steal somebody elses just to waste'em and destroy a country that was rich with it! I was also burning that car because I think vehicles need to be more gas efficient, MAN! That flag? That flag is a facist flag because the President wont let me jackoff by the highway!

Officer: Alright, fine. You win. Thats more then just disturbing the peace.

Have you figured out the pattern yet? Maybe?

 

[Jintor]

You have a right to keep burning flags? What?

 

[Stigmata]

(1.) Yes/No.

It might be a constitutional right of yours to do this -- but some laws issue that an action like this still be considered a crime.

Given todays environment I don't find anything tempting or rational about this -- even if it is your property that happens to be burning. Yet, I also believe that its possible, you might be trying to rally people who hate our country under you or around you to start trouble.

Who knows? I don't. You've never told me. I'm honestly half in half about this reason. I find it treasonous and yet I don't. You've made some progress on me, keep going.

(2.) Uh, I don't even know if your Pat Robertson. This is the internet, after all, but I digress; is that what you want to happen?

No, excuse me ...

Is that what some of these people imagine when they burn our flag? Feasibly, if we can agree that there are other ways of expressing your opinion and that this is'int the best one, then I win because I'm still retarded.

Okay, so I might be attempting to rally people to overthrow the government. So what? Even if I am, I'm innocent until proven guilty (Guantanamo Bay notwithstanding).

And I WILL SAY THIS FOR MAYBE THE FIFTH TIME: BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS ILLEGAL WHEN WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IS WORTHLESS. STOP IT.

You don't win because there are better ways to express yourself. You LOSE because it is A way to express yourself.

 

[sinkoman]

An opinion that has yet to be discussed. Whats this whole, mystarium cultic flag burners silent opinion bullshit about?

Spill it or loose me, because I think Stigmata might be on the verge of it and if he does, then this crisis will be completely avoided.

You're the one that seems to think it means something. If it didn't, then it wouldn't bother you.

USUALLY though, people are trying to say "down with the government, we don't like you".

Your free to express your opinion to a POINT. That's always been the LAW as I've understood.

That point is as soon as you start destroying property or life, endangering property or life, or limiting people's rights, and flag burning doesn't do any of those.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Okay, so I might be attempting to rally people to overthrow the government. So what? Even if I am, I'm innocent until proven guilty (Guantanamo Bay notwithstanding).

Actually, you just admitted it so your no longer innocent.

BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS ILLEGAL WHEN WE ARE DEBATING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IS WORTHLESS. STOP IT.

Wait what? You want it to be legal -- I've already pointed out why I believe it should remain illegal, or not so much ... and you want us to stop going back and fourth?

Are you kidding? **** watching CNN, I'm watching you write. You've got my attention. I have to say, without this here, I might not ever have known any better. I'd be still 1% more ignorant then before where it not for you, and that my friend, is an accomplishment.

You don't win because there are better ways to express yourself. You LOSE because it is A way to express yourself.

Dood, seriously. I got you to do it.

You are now a member of the Kerboss Fan Club, wether you needed to register or not.

USUALLY though, people are trying to say "down with the government, we don't like you".

Yes. Thats why I'm opposed to flag burning, because it allows them to rally and misbehave. *gasp* You caught me, and I caught you.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Yeah that's why I have thus far not participated.


Besides you guys are just going in circles.

 

[sinkoman]

Yeah that's why I have thus far not participated.


Besides you guys are just going in circles.

I think i'm starting to realize that i've just taken part in a really big joke :|

 

[K e r b e r o s]

_Z_Ryuken can be in the center of our circle.

Don't you want to feel special, like us?

http://www.hebrewcollege.edu/Gen_images/alumni_V2-1_side-bar_special-ed-101.jpg

I think i'm starting to realize that i've just taken part in a really big joke

SIGGED. :thumbs:

 

[sinkoman]

_Z_Ryuken can be in the center of our circle.

Don't you want to feel special, like us?

http://www.hebrewcollege.edu/Gen_images/alumni_V2-1_side-bar_special-ed-101.jpg



SIGGED. :thumbs:

:cheers:

 

[co05]

You evil bastard.


lol.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

wow America suxors!

I haven't see the word suxor used in a long time btw. What happened to it?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

It went out of fashion along with flags and clothes.

 

[Stigmata]

Thats why I'm opposed to flag burning, because it allows them to rally and misbehave. *gasp* You caught me, and I caught you.

Go back to Korea.