Okayplayer--

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, who saluted the flag, who serves beneath the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Your thoughts...

--El'Bee

"No matter what you say, you only remember what you see." -unknown
________________________________________
EFFStop: Presenting the photography of LeroyBumpkin http://www.members.tripod.com/effstop/

And the soldier MUST make the flag something to protect...
It is the Corporate mans greed that has made the flag flammable!
It is the Politcian's order that turns the soldier on US!

JUSTICE

http://www.sector9.com
http://www.internationalsocialist.org
http://www.neckexersize.com
NEW INDUCTEE!!!! SPAS!!! RECOGNIZE!!
http://www.sector9.com
http://www.internationalsocialist.org
http://www.neckexersize.com
I'm not here right now please leave a message...

whether he knew it or not, the soldier died not for the flag but for the freedoms it represents, one of them being the freedom to desecrate it in protest of the tyranny and injustices it symbolizes simultaneously.

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

i held out, but i finally put an IM in my sig. me and steve talking isht about biz markie:
Gigfog: He scares me alot
Gigfog: he's like king kong
Xkrh1X: LOL
Xkrh1X: you're fucked up
Gigfog: I saw him at the hotel with a biz markie sweater on LOL
Gigfog: I was like "why wear a sweater with your name on it?"
Xkrh1X: in case he forgets
Xkrh1X: lol
Gigfog: HAHAHAHa
Gigfog: just in case he gets lost..the police can contact his owner
Xkrh1X: yeah, you didn't see, but it has his address and a contact number on the back
Gigfog: hAHAHA
Xkrh1X: "if found, please call..."
Gigfog: and his proof of rabies vaccination?
Xkrh1X: LOL
Gigfog: man I am mean
Gigfog: LOL
Xkrh1X: yeah, you also may have just made my signature
Xkrh1X: lol

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month!:o

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane

"respect my month or lick my rump!":o-fire da BITCH

Said very non-aggressively.

Which soldiers are these?

>It is the soldier, not the
>reporter, who has given us
>freedom of the press.

When did armies fight for this freedom? And to give this freedom to whom?

>It is the soldier, not the
>poet, who has given us
>freedom of speech.

Ditto?

>It is the soldier, not the
>campus organizer, who has given
>us freedom to demonstrate.

And who attack demonstrators as well? Well, actually the police do that.

Most of these battles seem like political ones to me.

>It is the soldier, who saluted
>the flag, who serves beneath
>the flag and whose coffin
>is draped by the flag,
>who allows the protester to
>burn the flag.
>

Doesn't the flag represent the nation?

Anyway, you're obviously thinking of US soldiers. Who might not be the worst (*might*), but I wouldn't idolise them. And of course, not to idolise the people who give them orders, either.

>Your thoughts...
>
>--El'Bee


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

said just as non aggresively...


some of the most noble of mans traits can only be seen clearly in a war, or on a battlefield...of any profession that is worthy of respect, i would say being a soldier is the highest...who else knows that they will be called one day (not these days but in the past) to give their lives for the good of some people, who really dont even care?

>some of the most noble of
>mans traits can only be
>seen clearly in a war,
>or on a battlefield...

There are surely experiences that can only be felt during war. Those experiences are surely powerful. But, apart from the obvious killing, there are so many evil things (rape, torture, the slaying of innocents, the destruction of homes, crops, etc...) that go on, that those "noble traits" seem worthless.

of any
>profession that is worthy of
>respect, i would say being
>a soldier is the highest...

To be brutally honest: If you said that in front of me, I'd feel like punching you. Of course, I wouldn't punch you, but to put soldiers in front of doctors, teachers, aid workers, nurses, hell, anybody that *enhances* life, is, IMO, stupid. Out of all the professions that exist, the soldiering profession is the one that most needs to disappear. Not to disrespect soldiers as individuals (from the tone of your posts, I suppose there are some in your family), but the profession.

>who
>else knows that they will
>be called one day (not
>these days but in the
>past) to give their lives
>for the good of some
>people, who really dont even
>care?

In the past? What about the present? Look at the wars around the world (not just the ones involving US troops). Tell me how much net good is being brought about by soldiers.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

i myself was in the military, and its good that anything can get a rise out of you....meanwhile, you have no idea what your talking about...a doctor wont die for practicing medicine, ordinarily..neither will a nurse or a teacher, or anyone else...to be a soldier is to come to and accept the conclusion that 1 may be called on to die for others, to make that level of sacrifice. without a standing army, filled with individuals who are ready and willing to go this route, America wouldn't be free...you yourself, like they say, live under a blanket of security provided by thousands of men and women whom you've never met, but these people, would, if asked go to war to protect you, and that computer your on, and the right to speak your mind about the government that in many cases (mine included) help subsidize your further education....do soldiers rape? massacre? commit atrocities? no doubt...is it ever explainable or right? I'll reserve judgement on a case by case basis. the point is at the end of the day, the doctor, nurse, teacher, et al, go home...the soldier stays..on post on guard, and sometimes, he or she may never see home again...if that is not honorable, i dont know what is...

do soldiers rape? massacre? >commit atrocities? no doubt...is it >ever explainable or right? I'll
>reserve judgement on a case >by case basis.

How exactly would rape and massacre ever be explainable or right?

supposedly murder is never right...say for example, you are the soldier...and you best friend has been cut off and fallen into enemy hands..where is is eviscerated and left to die..your the first one to find his body, a few mionutes before his heart pumps the last bit of his blood out the hole that used to be his stomach...your unit finds the individuals responsible, and temporarily loses their minds, killing every last man, woman and child...is it right? HELL no...is it understandable, to you, sitting here in comfort typing, NO, but in that situation, i think you would feel differently...and many many have been in just that situation, you have been looking for this group of people, who have been trailing you, picking you off one by one for weeks, then as if by accident you find them...the only thing you think is revenge...all you want is blood...aint right, but I cna def. see it happening...

While killing other soldiers who have been attacking you is one tthing, killing "every last man, woman and child" is a war crime.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

in order to get a goal accomplished, sometimes things have to be done...

First off, of course when you become a soldier, you take on a lot of risks "normal" people don't face. The individuals I don't have a problem with. But the concept of a profession who's basic purpose is to kill other men when instructed, I find questionable, to say the least. A necessary evil? Only because people (or at least the powerful ones) believe in war more than they do in peace.

>a
>doctor wont die for practicing
>medicine, ordinarily..neither will a nurse
>or a teacher, or anyone
>else...

No, but neither will they kill anybody. In fact, generally they enhance life.

to be a soldier is
>to come to and accept
>the conclusion that 1 may
>be called on to die
>for others, to make that
>level of sacrifice. without a
>standing army, filled with individuals
>who are ready and willing
>to go this route, America
>wouldn't be free...

That is one part of the historical building of my freedom. However, the army certainly did not fight to end the legality of slavery in the French Caribbean colonies. Plus, on a day-to-day basis, the police assures my safety and freedom.

>you yourself, like
>they say, live under a
>blanket of security provided by
>thousands of men and women
>whom you've never met, but
>these people, would, if asked
>go to war to protect
>you, and that computer your
>on,
>and the right to
>speak your mind about the
>government

Oh, so that's what Tianemen Square was about? I'm not too sure armies insure peace. Peace comes through dialogue. Armies come into the peace equation at some point, but true peace comes from dialogue. Armies didn't build the European Union, talks did.

>that in many cases
>(mine included) help subsidize your
>further education....

How does that sit with your "burn anything public to the ground sentiment?"

>do soldiers rape? massacre?
>commit atrocities? no doubt...is it
>ever explainable or right? I'll
>reserve judgement on a case
>by case basis.

So there are cases when rape, massacre and atrocities are explainable or right? Please give me some examples.

the point
>is at the end of
>the day, the doctor, nurse,
>teacher, et al, go home...the
>soldier stays..on post on guard,
>and sometimes, he or she
>may never see home again...if
>that is not honorable, i
>dont know what is...

It might be honorable, but I believe that there are far more honorable professions. Shit, how many hours do hospital interns work? How many teachers end up with nervous breakdowns? They might not have guns pointed at them, but I still find them more honorable (as a profession, there are assholes everywhere), far more honorable than being a soldier.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

But the concept
>of a profession who's basic
>purpose is to kill other
>men when instructed, I find
>questionable, to say the least.
should you not shoot to kill that enemy when faced with him, he WILL kil you

>No, but neither will they kill
>anybody. In fact, generally they
>enhance life.
>
don't you see that the military IS here to enhance your life? yours in particular? should you be trapped in another country, say, Iraq, or Iran, somne corn fed kid from Nebraska willget theorder to come in there, and escort you out...

>That is one part of the
>historical building of my freedom.
>However, the army certainly did
>not fight to end the
>legality of slavery in the
>French Caribbean colonies. Plus, on
>a day-to-day basis, the police
>assures my safety and freedom.

tangent 1: had our ancestors in Africa been more protective and less civil (aka peace minded) there would have been no slavery, because we would not have stood for it...and the police are basically a para-military group
>
>
>Oh, so that's what Tianemen Square
>was about?

yes, that is exactly what Tianamen Square was about...a group of civilians wanted freedom to expressthemselves and a totalitarian government against the people was not having it...in America you can do what you want to, scream, holler, rant and rave, burn the flag on the WHite House lawn if you want too...go try any of the above in China, tell me the results, thats if your fingers work after they pull your nails out...I'm not too
>sure armies insure peace.

no disrespect but this is nonsense...Armies do insure peace, just as bodyguard insures his client doesn't become the victim of harm...c'mon now!

>How does that sit with your
>"burn anything public to the
>ground sentiment?"
>
dont take my remarks out of context, i said that if the choice was to be made, i would sacrifice a public place before any private prorperty

should they be given the chance, i KNOW there are examples...when your lets say mother is murdered, by some psychopathic bastards like the Manson family, and you go berzerk and murder every last one of the those responsible...would a jury convict?

>It might be honorable, but I
>believe that there are far
>more honorable professions. Shit, how
>many hours do hospital interns
>work? How many teachers end
>up with nervous breakdowns? They
>might not have guns pointed
>at them, but I still
>find them more honorable (as
>a profession, there are assholes
>everywhere), far more honorable than
>being a soldier.
>
do they run the risk of DEATH?

Obviously, I'm not going to change your opinion of the military, and you're not going to sway mine. So let's just call this sparring.

> But the concept
>>of a profession who's basic
>>purpose is to kill other
>>men when instructed, I find
>>questionable, to say the least.
>should you not shoot to kill
>that enemy when faced with
>him, he WILL kil you

That is obvious. But that has nothing to do with what I said. If you find it normal that ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the WORLD should have a job, the main purpose of which is to kill other people, well, more power to you.


>
>
>>No, but neither will they kill
>>anybody. In fact, generally they
>>enhance life.
>>
>don't you see that the military
>IS here to enhance your
>life? yours in particular? should
>you be trapped in another
>country, say, Iraq, or Iran,
>somne corn fed kid from
>Nebraska willget theorder to come
>in there, and escort you
>out...
>

actually, he won't cos I'm not American. But that is irrelevant. A problem here is that you're idolising the US army and not considering the army and soldiers from a more general view-point.
If you put me in a position where I need to be saved, then of course I will be happy to be saved. That doesn't mean I will start loving the soldierin profession. But I will love the individuals responsible for saving me.

>>That is one part of the
>>historical building of my freedom.
>>However, the army certainly did
>>not fight to end the
>>legality of slavery in the
>>French Caribbean colonies. Plus, on
>>a day-to-day basis, the police
>>assures my safety and freedom.
>
>tangent 1: had our ancestors in
>Africa been more protective and
>less civil (aka peace minded)
>there would have been no
>slavery, because we would not
>have stood for it

Had the Europeans not had powerful armies, maybe they could have set up peaceful trade arrangements. If you're going to re-write history, at least attempt to make it peaceful. I think this shows that you believe more in war than in peace (it's a common belief).

>>
>>Oh, so that's what Tianemen Square
>>was about?
>
>yes, that is exactly what Tianamen
>Square was about...a group of
>civilians wanted freedom to expressthemselves
>and a totalitarian government against
>the people was not having
>it...

So it was politicians holding those guns and driving the tanks? I thought they were soldiers. In that case, how was the army protecting freedom of speech? They weren't, they were following orders. Freedom of speech doesn't exist there, why? Because the government won't allow it. Is the army unhappy about that situation? I doubt it. What soldier is going to fight for free speech in China? The unarmed motivated civilian.


>in America you can do
>what you want to, scream,
>holler, rant and rave, burn
>the flag on the WHite
>House lawn if you want
>too...

No thanks to the Army

>go try any of the
>above in China, tell me
>the results, thats if your
>fingers work after they pull
>your nails out...

nails pulled out by the army, your defenders of free speech.

>I'm not too
>
>>sure armies insure peace.
>
>no disrespect but this is nonsense...Armies
>do insure peace, just as
>bodyguard insures his client doesn't
>become the victim of harm...c'mon
>now!
>

No, armies insure that there will continue to be instability, tension and war. It sounds silly, but it's true: without armies there wouldn't be war. As I told you before, true peace is insured by dialogue.

>>How does that sit with your
>>"burn anything public to the
>>ground sentiment?"
>>
>dont take my remarks out of
>context, i said that if
>the choice was to be
>made, i would sacrifice a
>public place before any private
>prorperty
>

this is absurd. Since you insist on using family-related examples, would you prefer that your son's (public) school burn down before any of your private property is damaged?

>should they be given the chance,
>i KNOW there are examples...when
>your lets say mother is
>murdered, by some psychopathic bastards
>like the Manson family, and
>you go berzerk and murder
>every last one of the
>those responsible...would a jury convict?
>

I should hope so. Not that I'd want to go to jail, but you can't have people going on vendettas. I'm no expert, but isn't that a great factor in crime in ghettos? And do you think that is positive?

>
>>It might be honorable, but I
>>believe that there are far
>>more honorable professions. Shit, how
>>many hours do hospital interns
>>work? How many teachers end
>>up with nervous breakdowns? They
>>might not have guns pointed
>>at them, but I still
>>find them more honorable (as
>>a profession, there are assholes
>>everywhere), far more honorable than
>>being a soldier.
>>
>do they run the risk of
>DEATH?

I see that this is your end-all and be-all. Okay, miners run great risks, many have died over a long period of time. Fuck it, the risk of death doesn't make it more honorable. The basic thing is that you're out to kill other people, and I view that as unacceptable (and I'm not just talking about the US army).

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

continuing the non-agressive tone

>some of the most noble of >mans traits can only be >seen clearly in a war, >or on a battlefield...of any >profession that is worthy of
>respect, i would say being >a soldier is the highest...who >else knows that they will >be called one day (not >these days but in the >past) to give their lives >for the good of some >people, who really dont even >care?

Perhaps the reason people don't care is because the war was probably not even for their good. To be honest I am scratching my head trying to come up with a U.S. involvement after WWII that I even feel like we did for the good of either our own general population or the general population of another country.

somalia? the whole conflict in the Balkans, over the Serbs? ask the muslims over there if they appreciate us involvement...


sheesh


how quickly we forget

I did not forget those conflicts, my point was that those were not conflicts which were necessarily for the good of the American people. Your complaint before was that people seemed not to care about the military's actions defending them. My point was that there has not been a defensive military action done by this country since at least WWII. The actions you refer to were offensive actions, that in my opinion did not do anything to defend american .

Wasn't Somalia a fiasco, which the US troops pulled out of, leaving a shambles?

Balkans: sure they're happy: they were oppressed during the whole Milosevic regime and no-one cared. The US led an impressive campaign, but still the fallacy continues: people believe that armies can create peace.

What about the Gulf? Who or what did that ongoing (sic) war set out to protect? Why are 1000s of civilian Iraqis today dying for lack of medicine? Why were the kurds forgotten about? Who did the US help in that war?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

..it is the soldier that gives us these rights. Not exactly soldiers in uniform with guns, but soldiers that fought for what they wanted. It can be taken metaphorically. For instance, Susan B. Anthony was the "soldier" that got an amendment to allow women to vote. The Bill of Rights was the product of what "soldiers" fought for.

But it's sad to say that the symbol of freedom that the flag was meant to represent is also as someone else said a symbol of tyranny and oppression. There are still many "slaves" in this country and fighting to free them will be quite a battle. There are not as many "soldiers" as there used to be.

~Dulce~

OUTSTANDING post....I am a former member of the military, and a current political science/history majr in DC (just establishing the bonafides) this country is based on ideals, the ideal of freedom of speech is one...in my opinion it is symbolic, of what who knows, but symbolic none the less, as is cross burning, or bra burning or whathaveyou. I think moves like burning a cross or flag, are suppsed to cause discussion, they are there to push an issue to the front of a persons brain, and make them, impel them to speak out on it, whether for against, pro or con. I am personally wholeheartedly FOR free speech, until it intereferes with ones personal safety or well being, or threatens PRIVATE property...(burn public shit to the ground for all I care)....love to hear the responses to this one....



Bin

>I am personally wholeheartedly
>FOR free speech, until it
>intereferes with ones personal safety
>or well being,

Speech doesn't harm anyone. Actions do. Granted, sometimes the line between the two is hard to draw.


or threatens
>PRIVATE property...(burn public shit to
>the ground for all I
>care)

What? Public schools? Public hospitals? Public traffic lights? The public post-offices? Public museums? Public swimming pools (hard to burn!)? Public parks? Public libraries? Burn public burn!

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

And I'm not talking about Arrested Development.

>Speech doesn't harm anyone. Actions do.
>Granted, sometimes the line between
>the two is hard to
>draw.

Words hurt.

"We don't serve niggers"
"I just want to be friends"
"We're Breaking up"
"I think it's cancer"

Words hurt more than sticks and stones. At least you can go to a doctor for sticks and stone damage.

On a less personal level, speech is a very dangerous thing. That's why our free press is consolidated to about 5 or 6 major companies that serve their own interests.

Speech changes minds.

I am more worried about Pat Buchanan talking to middle America than militia folks gathering arms.

peace,
k. orr
house of phat beats

But are you arguing in favor of placing limits on speech? If so, how would you create a definition of "hate" speech that was not a variation on "I know it when I hear it"?

I agree with you that speech/expression/words hurt.

But if we classify certain words as "hate speech", and I think we can agree on at least a couple of words that are so invested with oppression over so long a period of time that they are obvious choices, then a lot of rappers are going to find themselves restricted from using words that are, at least for the moment, integral to their work. So then, do we say "You can't use this word or that word unless you're a member of the group that this word is intended to hurt"? That seems like a pretty weird standard to me. If we believe that words hurt, then can we also make a condition of the pain who it is that is saying the words? Of course, of course we can in real, day to day life. So my question is, can we do this as a matter of law? Can we draft a statute that protects those who would be harmed by hate speech but that does not significantly negatively impact freedom of expression?

Peace.

Maybe it's a libertarian way of thinking, but I would rather lower the barrier to speak so that more people can get their voice heard.

In 2000 that means
- micro radio free and legal
- internet broadcasting
- desktop publishing
- gnutella/file sharing programs

and countless other things. Right now the gate is pretty much wide open for people to exchange all sorts of information.

The problem with a screaming crowd, is that the average person doesn't want to lip read 40 mouths to find something important. People want filters/information gatherers and gatekeepers although they tell you that they don't.

peace
k. orr

this is one of the basic principles on which the United States was founded.

I tend to agree, although only with respect to non-commercial speech (I think we can place appropriate limits on commercial speech, like Truth in Advertising, etc.). I think that, ultimately, as harmful as hate speech is, it is less harmful than limiting speech.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Peace.

> I think that, ultimately,
>as harmful as hate speech
>is, it is less harmful
>than limiting speech.
>

Exactly. Especially as the ones doing the limiting aren't the people we are generally enamoured with (ie. the powerful people). Controlled speech serves the powerful few, free speech serves the powerless many.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

When we talk about freedom of expression, we're talking about a right protected by the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. That right prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that would prevent or inhibit certain protected speech. Speech/expression falls on a continuum from most protected to unprotected. Examples: Most Protected = political speech. Less protected = obsenity or commercial speech. Unprotected = pornography (notably child pornography).

Burning a flag is a symbolic expression of a political statement, and therefore it falls into the most protected category.

If you are a soldier who is interested in maintaining the freedoms articulated in the Constitution and its amendments, then you should be honored to be buried beneath a flag that others have the right to burn. What a treat (she said sarcastically) it would be to perform military service for a country/society that did not protect political speech.

That's not all I want to say but at least it's shorter than my usual rants.

Peace.

>Okayplayer--
>
>It is the soldier, not the
>reporter, who has given us
>freedom of the press.
>It is the soldier, not the
>poet, who has given us
>freedom of speech.
>It is the soldier, not the
>campus organizer, who has given
>us freedom to demonstrate.
>It is the soldier, who saluted
>the flag, who serves beneath
>the flag and whose coffin
>is draped by the flag,
>who allows the protester to
>burn the flag.
>
>Your thoughts...

These rights are inherent in every man, woman, and child. A soldier does not "give" them to me. At best, the soldier defends those "rights" and "principles" that are inherent in every man, woman, an child of the country. Flags are merely symbols, and as such, are subject to change both physically and by interpretation. You can wrap yourself up in a flag, hang it, burn it, make a shirt out of it, bury it with your dead. It is still just a symbol that doesn't protect any "rights" or "principles". So go ahead, burn a flag if you think you need to do so, just don't burn a soldier cause he/she just may have to defend your flag burning, inherent natural right having ass.
Thanks for reading. I love you.

In Rotation:
Tool - Aenema
Deftones - White Pony
A Perfect Circle - Mer De Noms
Down - Nola
Slum Village - Fantastic Vol II
Black Sabbath - Sabotage

does what he is told.

It is the activist who gave us the freedom of speech, press, etc.

It was the soldier who teargassed the flag-burner, the freedom figher, the protester...

It is the (death squad) soldier who executed the reporter who told the truth, the poet who said what he felt, the campus organizer who protested.

Peace... and i mean it this time... Peace.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

i think what all this boils down to is force in government, which is also the botom line in everything,seemingly...force, do you have the power necessary to do what you want to? my point is this, for every situation (the poet who is murdered by hit squads, the quasi-revolutionary who is kidnapped by quasi-military forces, etc etc)....there are those who use force to achieve their goals, and there are those opposing who use force to defeat the 1st folks, get it? I'm probably not being too clear, let me explain.

ex: Kent State, student demonstrators, shot and killed by Nat'l Guards...remember? ok, those students would have been murdered outright with no problem had this been China, or communist Russia, in fact it wouldn't have even gotten to the point it did, as the leaders of their movement would have been rounded up...they were here however, where the freedom to demonstrate is protected by laws, whch are enforecd by the people in the form of the military and police...did the Guards do wrong, IMO yes,in theirs probably not, the point is that the strength that backs up words like freedom, and liberty are found in flesh and blood INDIVIDUALS, who are fallable, who do make mistakes, but are still their, who's sole purpose is to protect you in particular and your right to the American way of life...

i think i'm starting to preach so I'll shut up here....

more later...

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month!:o

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane

"respect my month or lick my rump!":o-fire da BITCH

I know this post is rather old but let me put in my two cents.

Certain rights are inherent for every citizen of the Republic. It is the responsibility of every man and woman--not just the military--to actively promote and defend his or her rights.

For the people to defer responsibility to a certain segment of society--one whose interests can run contrary to democratic ideals--is folly. The military, after all, is no democracy. For us to glorify them as the ultimate defender of our freedoms is nonsense. ALL OF US are the ultimate defender of our own freedoms.

Okay, now let it drop...

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"If victories are flawless, then what are you gonna land on?" - Thirstin Howl III

"I prefer manga, with mecha..." - Del

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

While it is very important to be able to develop thoughts and ideals for everyone to be governed under, it's just as important to have an executive branch that can enforce those laws and ideals. Ideals and positions are needed, but if you don't enforce and uphold them then it is simply nothing but some words on a sheet of paper. That is where military and police come in.

>For the people to defer responsibility
>to a certain segment of
>society--one whose interests can run
>contrary to democratic ideals--is folly.
>The military, after all, is
>no democracy. For us to
>glorify them as the ultimate
>defender of our freedoms is
>nonsense. ALL OF US are
>the ultimate defender of our
>own freedoms.

To think you can do it all yourself is being naive. If you don't think the military is important, then go and try to make war with China by yourself. The communists will send you to Canton province in a chinese food box.

Also, one thing most people don't realize is when you start physically fighting for political interests then that makes you all soldiers. Therefore if you willing to fight for something, then you are a soldier for that cause. Think about it.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

>While it is very important to
>be able to develop thoughts
>and ideals for everyone to
>be governed under, it's just
>as important to have an
>executive branch that can enforce
>those laws and ideals.
>Ideals and positions are needed,
>but if you don't enforce
>and uphold them then it
>is simply nothing but some
>words on a sheet of
>paper. That is where
>military and police come in.
>

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. To be enforceable, these laws and ideals must be considered LEGITIMATE. Legitimacy doesn't come (at least not today) through military enforcement (isn't that what a dictatorship does?).


>To think you can do it
>all yourself is being naive.

That's not what he's saying.

> If you don't think
>the military is important, then
>go and try to make
>war with China by yourself.

I went to war with China by myself and beat them all (what, you've never seen Rambo? that ish happens for real!).

> The communists will send
>you to Canton province in
>a chinese food box.
>

And then the Cantonese will eat you with a side-order of dog ribs!

>Also, one thing most people don't
>realize is when you start
>physically fighting for political interests
>then that makes you all
>soldiers. Therefore if you
>willing to fight for something,
>then you are a soldier
>for that cause. Think
>about it.
>

You could also be called a militant or an activist, or anything else. What importance does the label have? It doesn't make the army more glorious or important. And what do you mean by physically fighting for a cause? Punching politicians whom you dislike (damn, now I'm really stooping low, cf. "China" comments above)?

In any case: the military is generally defends the government's interests. In some places the military is an independent, and therefore dangerous force. But generally, the army is but one of many tools for the government to express, defend or promote its interests.

If those interests are to defend freedoms, then the army will try to do that. But generally, killing a bunch of people doesn't enhance anyone's freedoms. Care to disagree?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

>Actually, it's a little more complicated
>than that. To be enforceable,
>these laws and ideals must
>be considered LEGITIMATE. Legitimacy doesn't
>come (at least not today)
>through military enforcement (isn't that
>what a dictatorship does?).

It depends on what which military are you talking about. Are you simply talking about any military group? Because if you are, then the military does enforce the indeals and provisions of government. If you are talking about only the US's military, the legitimacy comes in through the checks and balances system. To make a long story short, citizens elect the representatives, representatives make the laws, the judicial courts make sure the laws abide by the standards of the Constitution, and then executive branch enforces those laws. Hence, if you didn't have military and police, then the laws that the legislature made and the courts agreed to would be useless. Do you actually think people are going to abide by something because Congress said it, without fear of retaliation if they didnt do it? Hell no. Hell, people do illegal stuff now and they KNOW they are gonna go to jail if they are caught. That's why we have criminals. Therefore, to say that miltary and police have not been given legitimate reasoning for their doing their jobs is incorrect. This is a nation of laws, not men.

>>Also, one thing most people don't
>>realize is when you start
>>physically fighting for political interests
>>then that makes you all
>>soldiers. Therefore if you
>>willing to fight for something,
>>then you are a soldier
>>for that cause. Think
>>about it.
>>
>
>You could also be called a
>militant or an activist, or
>anything else. What importance does
>the label have? It doesn't
>make the army more glorious
>or important. And what do
>you mean by physically fighting
>for a cause? Punching politicians
>whom you dislike (damn, now
>I'm really stooping low, cf.
>"China" comments above)?

The label means instead of simply talking about it, you ARE about it. Militant/Military? Coincidence? no. As far as the word activist goes, I know plenty of these so-called activists that will jump shout and yell, but I bet when it comes time to actually fight for it, they become lil mice in the corner. Therefore I dont think activist is a proper word to correlate with militant or solider. But then again, this part here is simply semantics anyways
And no, I don't mean punching politicians. I mean would you actually go to WAR for a cause? Will you be willing to give up your life for something? The number of people that won't is growing every single day. I mean, look how Clinton has absolutely destroyed the military here. This is probably the weakest the armed forces has been in a peacetime period. Just because the Cold War is gone doesn't mean we don't have enemies, guys.

>If those interests are to defend
>freedoms, then the army will
>try to do that. But
>generally, killing a bunch of
>people doesn't enhance anyone's freedoms.
>Care to disagree?

I do. Because if it wasn't for an organized army, this country would have never been born, you would still be in slavery, and the world would be Hitler's bitch. Bottom line.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

Legitimacy: enforcement is a part of it, just not the only part. Plus, enforcement is split between police, judiciary and army.

>Militant/Military?
>Coincidence? no. As
>far as the word activist
>goes, I know plenty of
>these so-called activists that will
>jump shout and yell, but
>I bet when it comes
>time to actually fight for
>it, they become lil mice
>in the corner.

What do you mean by fight?

>And no, I don't mean punching
>politicians. I mean would
>you actually go to WAR
>for a cause?

I wouldn't, because wars imply armies.

>Will
>you be willing to give
>up your life for something?

What do soldiers give up their lives for, and how often is it really worth it?

> The number of people
>that won't is growing every
>single day. I mean,
>look how Clinton has absolutely
>destroyed the military here.
>This is probably the weakest
>the armed forces has been
>in a peacetime period.
>Just because the Cold War
>is gone doesn't mean we
>don't have enemies, guys.

Right now, what army is going to attack the US? Mainly, defense threats are believed to come from smaller groups (terrorists etc.). Which you don't fight with an army.

>
>>If those interests are to defend
>>freedoms, then the army will
>>try to do that. But
>>generally, killing a bunch of
>>people doesn't enhance anyone's freedoms.
>>Care to disagree?
>
>I do. Because if it
>wasn't for an organized army,
>this country would have never
>been born, you would still
>be in slavery, and the
>world would be Hitler's bitch.
> Bottom line.
>

If it weren't for organised armies, there wouldn't have been slavery and Hitler would just have been a sad little man.



AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

>Legitimacy: enforcement is a part of
>it, just not the only
>part. Plus, enforcement is split
>between police, judiciary and army.

Wrong. Judiciary only interprets the laws. Are the judges going to go out and enforce the laws themselves? No. They don't have their own police force either. Their job is to interpret the laws and regulations to see if they comply with the Constitution. All they do is give their judgement on those views. It is up to the executive branch to make sure they are being enforced. I suggest you read early American history, because there have been plenty of times, namely Andrew Jackson and others, that outright ignored decisions of the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts in order to accomplish his agenda.

>What do you mean by fight?

As in engaging in physical confrontation in order to defend your freedoms and beliefs.

>I wouldn't, because wars imply armies.


>What do soldiers give up their
>lives for, and how often
>is it really worth it?

It depends on the cause they are fighting for. But obviously it is worth it to them. Is there something wrong with giving up your live so that other people may live in a more secure land? There is no doubt sacrifice is needed.

>Right now, what army is going
>to attack the US? Mainly,
>defense threats are believed to
>come from smaller groups (terrorists
>etc.). Which you don't fight
>with an army.

Plenty. China on two occasions have threatened to start war in the past 5 years. North Korea and Iraq also. There are alot of enemies of America, and they aren't just terrorist groups either. To think otherwise is very naive.

>If it weren't for organised armies,
>there wouldn't have been slavery
>and Hitler would just have
>been a sad little man.

You really don't get it do you? Hitler didn't do it by himself, nor should you believe that those soldiers did it only because they were acting out orders. Hitler did it because he was able to get people united BEHIND him. The army wasn't already organized, HE organized it, and then mobilized it. You see, any group of people can organize themselves with the purpose of physical confrontation and call it a militia. You get militias together, and you have an army. That's exactly how this country made an army to fight for independence. The only way Hitler would have been a sad little man is if Germany wasnt so vulnerable at the time. To think if you get rid of all the armies of the world and think there would be peace is incredibly naive.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

>Wrong. Judiciary only interprets the
>laws. Are the judges
>going to go out and
>enforce the laws themselves?
>No.

So the decisions that judges make aren't enforcing laws? If all judges decided never to convict anyone, or to always apply minimum punishment, what would be the point of the police work? Enforcement doesn't mean you're out in the street.
The judiciary plays an important role in enforcing laws. I'm not disagreeing with you, just expanding what you're saying: it's not just police that enforce, because they can't condemn people to prison.


>>What do you mean by fight?
>
>As in engaging in physical confrontation
>in order to defend your
>freedoms and beliefs.
>

Is marching a physical confrontation? Is civil disobediance fighting? Is passive resistance fighting? Is organising campaigns fighting?

>It depends on the cause they
>are fighting for. But
>obviously it is worth it
>to them.

I'm not too sure about that.

Is there
>something wrong with giving up
>your live so that other
>people may live in a
>more secure land? There
>is no doubt sacrifice is
>needed.
>

No, of course not, but my problem is, that doesn't happen all that often. Look at armies around the world.


>Plenty. China on two occasions
>have threatened to start war
>in the past 5 years.
> North Korea and Iraq
>also. There are alot
>of enemies of America, and
>they aren't just terrorist groups
>either. To think otherwise
>is very naive.
>

I didn't say the US had no enemies. I said "Who is going to attack the US?" Is North Korea going to overthrow the US? Is it even going to acheive an army with the slightest chance of denting the US?

To think
>if you get rid of
>all the armies of the
>world and think there would
>be peace is incredibly naive.
>
>

There you go, your bias, and dare I say, preference, for war is exposed. To think that the current rate of increase of armement around the world is going to bring anything but more war and insecurity, now that is naive. Unfortunately, people don't believe in peace, not really.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

That's capitalism. But really if America is only a deity like piece of cloth and the country's integrity can be destroyed by buurning it doesn't amount to very much.



keep ur third eye on the sparrow-common

"flesh is full of holes
It is made to breathe
secrate receive
it is nothing against bombs and bullets
It is not meant to be a barrier against anything
But this dark flesh will resist you
flee you who believe
you are not made of the same skin and bones"--Cherrie Moraga

Who gave u/permission 2 rearrange me?/ certianly not me!--e. badu

Well behaved women rarely make HISstory.

http://www.homestead.com/waxrevolutionz/getup.html

Oh, I agree. Integrity is not destroyed by a piece of cloth. If you want to burn a flag, fine. Do what you like. But remember what you are showing disrespect to when you burn it.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

You know those little paper flags they put on cupcakes at the 4th of July? Can I burn one of those without showing disrespect? Also, what if my big cloth flag touches the ground? If I burn it then (that's what they told me to do in elementary school if the flag touched the ground), is that showing disrespect?

Peace.

Let's not play semantics. If you commit an act in order to show disrespect towards the country, then that's who you are disrespecting.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

Interesting, because those were the very questions that Scalia raised in oral argument when this question was most recently before the Supreme Court.

Peace.

My argument was never a legal one. It was a moral one. As I stated in the post that yo first responded to, I said that you can do what you want to with it. The thing is just remember what you are doing and what it represents

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

but if you read my first post you'll see that it seems to me that one of the most important freedoms that we have is the right to freedom of political expression without inappropriate government interference and, in my opinion, burning a flag is about as pure a political expression as there is.

Peace.

>While it is very important to
>be able to develop thoughts
>and ideals for everyone to
>be governed under, it's just
>as important to have an
>executive branch that can enforce
>those laws and ideals.
>Ideals and positions are needed,
>but if you don't enforce
>and uphold them then it
>is simply nothing but some
>words on a sheet of
>paper. That is where
>military and police come in.

And what about us, the civilians? What are we, chopped liver? Don't we have a say in how those laws and regulations are to be enforced? So many folks seem to forget that the police and the military are, beneath the uniform, ordinary citizens.

>To think you can do it
>all yourself is being naive.
> If you don't think
>the military is important, then
>go and try to make
>war with China by yourself.
> The communists will send
>you to Canton province in
>a chinese food box.

I didn't question the importance of the military, only their supposed role as the end-all be-all of the defense of democracy.

What's the role of the military? Ultimately, to kill. No matter how nice a gloss you put on it, that's the brutal truth. As my martial arts teacher once said, "A sword is a weapon. Martial arts are killing arts. If you wish to study the sword, be prepared to kill someday."

I've been to Guangdong province. It's actually quite nice, despite rampant pollution and the fact that the locals routinely eat snakes and grubs.

>Also, one thing most people don't
>realize is when you start
>physically fighting for political interests
>then that makes you all
>soldiers. Therefore if you
>willing to fight for something,
>then you are a soldier
>for that cause. Think
>about it.

I've been there. I had the dubious pleasure of living in the Philippines during the Marcos era, and I can still remember the protests that were visited by the military and police armed with tear gas, water cannons, and batons. I've been caught in the middle of the fighting, and I've fought myself. It's something no six year-old should ever experience.

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"If victories are flawless, then what are you gonna land on?" - Thirstin Howl III

"I prefer manga, with mecha..." - Del

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

>And what about us, the civilians?
>What are we, chopped liver?
>Don't we have a say
>in how those laws and
>regulations are to be enforced?
>So many folks seem to
>forget that the police and
>the military are, beneath the
>uniform, ordinary citizens.

Yes. By voting. You elect the representatives who make the laws. Simple.
But, even then, those laws must go along with the principles of the Constitution. That's where the courts come in. You can't just go and ask "well, what do the people say?" because the people are individuals with individual minds. Not everyone is going to agree on the direction of the nation. That's why the US is a nation of laws, and not men.

>I didn't question the importance of
>the military, only their supposed
>role as the end-all be-all
>of the defense of democracy.

Well first of all, you must be talking about another country because this country isn't a democracy. Therefore, this country cannot defend what doesn't have. As far as their role, they are the last stance. What you can't get through reasoning, you get by force. That's the military's role.

>What's the role of the military?
>Ultimately, to kill. No matter
>how nice a gloss you
>put on it, that's the
>brutal truth. As my martial
>arts teacher once said, "A
>sword is a weapon. Martial
>arts are killing arts. If
>you wish to study the
>sword, be prepared to kill
>someday."

Of course the military's role, if it comes to that, is to kill. But that's not it's only role. It's role, and this has been a growing precedent, is also to keep the peace. Most of Clinton's objectives has been peacekeeping missions. Therefore military does indeed keep law and order intact.

>I've been to Guangdong province. It's
>actually quite nice, despite rampant
>pollution and the fact that
>the locals routinely eat snakes
>and grubs.

I had rattlesnake once. I forgot how it tasted.

>I've been there. I had the
>dubious pleasure of living in
>the Philippines during the Marcos
>era, and I can still
>remember the protests that were
>visited by the military and
>police armed with tear gas,
>water cannons, and batons. I've
>been caught in the middle
>of the fighting, and I've
>fought myself. It's something no
>six year-old should ever experience.

that's very true....

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com

>
>Of course the military's role, if
>it comes to that, is
>to kill. But that's
>not it's only role.
>It's role, and this has
>been a growing precedent, is
>also to keep the peace.
> Most of Clinton's objectives
>has been peacekeeping missions.
>Therefore military does indeed keep
>law and order intact.
>

Again this fallacy that peace can be achieved through war pops up. Peace (the true kind, not some tense restricted conflict situation) is only acieved through dialogue and negotiation. The military do have a role to play, but as long as you need the military to "enforce peace", then you don't have peace.



AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

>I've been to Guangdong province. It's
>actually quite nice, despite rampant
>pollution and the fact that
>the locals routinely eat snakes
>and grubs.
>

What's wrong with that?

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

>>I've been to Guangdong province. It's
>>actually quite nice, despite rampant
>>pollution and the fact that
>>the locals routinely eat snakes
>>and grubs.
>>
>
>What's wrong with that?

There are some things I just wouldn't eat. I will eat a peanut butter and artichoke heart sandwich, but I will not eat snakes.

Well, I just pushed this post up for the wrong reasons.

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"If victories are flawless, then what are you gonna land on?" - Thirstin Howl III

"I prefer manga, with mecha..." - Del

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

Why not?

Would you eat a reptile, like a crocodile? An ostrich? A horse?

I'd probably eat anything, apart from dogs and cats and disgusting animals (rats, grubs...).

Oh, and to bring it back to the thread topic, I think you should be able to burn animals (as long as they are already dead).

Remember, it is the horse, not the activist, who gave us the Poney Express!

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")

>Oh, and to bring it back
>to the thread topic, I
>think you should be able
>to burn animals (as long
>as they are already dead).

We exercise that right every summer, during the family barbecue. Mmmmm...processed pig's lips and ass...

>Remember, it is the horse, not
>the activist, who gave us
>the Poney Express!

LOL! :7

----------------------------------------
Densetsu no hitokiri, Himura Battousai.

"If victories are flawless, then what are you gonna land on?" - Thirstin Howl III

"I prefer manga, with mecha..." - Del

http://welcome.to/crunchyfrog/

still in a triangle.
I don't like that flag burning much.

Dove
~Sheepish Lordess of Chaos~

"don't give it out if we can't take it home..." Carmia

why burn a flag? Why not burn a politician's house down??? That will make a bigger political statement.

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month!:o

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane

"respect my genius, suck my penius!" - young isa/my dawg

"respect my month or lick my rump!":o-fire da BITCH

is the same defense that keeps the confederate flag flying high in the american skies. freedom of speech and expression mean something.

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month!:o

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane

"respect my month or lick my rump!":o-fire da BITCH